I just wanted to say goodbye and thank all of you here. I will be selling my computer and disconnecting from the Internet for good soon and entering into the Religious life (within a few weeks at most). I have learned much about the Holy Catholic Faith over the past year from reading through many of the posts here. Thank you very much Moderator Paul M (I really liked reading many of your posts, especially the ones where you defend the Catholic Faith so beautifully against the regular onslaught of Protestant attacks). Thank you John Gecik. Thank you Eugene. And thank you to many other regular (and not-so-regular) posters. I am sorry if I have ever hurt or offended anyone over here with my words and opinions. If I ever have, please forgive me. I never meant to hurt or harm anyone.

And an especially big Thank you goes out to the so called “ex-communicated, schismatic, heretic, ex-Catholics” of this forum: Jake, Isabel, Regina and Emerald (and a few others)! I owe all of you a debt of gratitude, especially for turning me on to “the Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven”. My life will never be the same. I never want to go back to my irreverent and disrespectful Novus Ordo parish ever again! Thankfully, I don’t have to, because a very beautiful little Traditional Catholic Chapel is just 15 minutes away from me, and I never knew it until I met you guys at this forum! (I’m also very happy I don’t ever have to look at that ugly “Risen Christ” Crucifix over at the top of the “altar” – errr table - of my old Novus Ordo parish anymore!) I am so happy to have the privilege of worshipping my Lord with the love and reverence that He deserves (the very air of my traditional chapel smells of reverence)… and in the same manner that St. Theresa of the Child Jesus and many other great Saints and Doctors of the Church throughout the centuries worshipped Him. What an honor!

Btw, based on the months of research I’ve done on this matter, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a traditional Catholic who wishes to attend the Mass of Saint Pius V (including SSPXers) and/or independent traditional Catholic priests who celebrate the Traditional Mass as codified by the Cuncil of Trent are NOT in schism for doing so. Nor are they committing a sin, or heretics, or “excommunicated” for wanting to worship their God with more reverence. Even the Vatican itself backs this up. And no one on this forum has ever successfully proven the contrary. So it’s really a non-issue for any sincere Catholic who has researched the matter and wishes to fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Traditional Mass. I assure you, that we can do so with a clear conscience that we are not "out of the Church" – including attending Masses offered by the SSPX. The Vatican has said its okay.

You know, it was prayer - especially the Rosary – which was the thing that really strengthened my love for God and changed my life. The Rosary has done more for my Faith than all of the Catholic books that I’ve ever read combined.

On this First Saturday, I hope and pray that others will have recourse to Our Blessed Lady more often. She is a real person who is alive right now (and can see and hear us when we call upon her); she is not just some statue, or icon, or some distant “memory” far away; which is the way I used to foolishly think of Our Lord and Our Lady until I began praying to Them more. St. Louis de Montfort says that she loves us so very much; more than all other earthly mothers combined. She waits for us to call upon her so that she can pour out her immense graces and blessings upon us. Unfortunately, so few people call upon Our Lady and ask for her glorious intercession. What a waste of graces that would be ours just for the asking! May we console our sorrowful Mother, especially in her seven Dolors. She is so outraged and hurt by the sins committed against her Son’s Sacred Heart and her Immaculate Heart.

May we say her most Holy Rosary every day in her honor, for the conversion of poor sinners, to obtain peace for the world (through the consecration of Russia), and for the relief of the Holy Souls in Purgatory. Next to the Holy Mass, there is no better prayer we can say for ourselves and our neighbor than the recitation of the Holy Rosary every day while meditating on the life, death, Passion, and resurrection of her Son Jesus. The Rosary is a rich spring, where the love of God and the practice of virtue flourishes, if we say it persistently and devoutly.

Again, thank you all for your posts. I will miss surfing over to this forum and reading the posts here. Many of you have become like friends to me over the past year (whether you know it or not). I wish all of you well (eternal happiness). May God bless you, and...

May the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Heart of His most holy Mother, Mary be loved everywhere. Amen!

-- Robert (Robertp234@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003

Answers

It's actually 22 for Jesus.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."

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

27! Sorry. It's 27 references for Jesus.

Godspeed Robert.

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

good luck Robert, are you joining a specific order?

Frank

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

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever. Amen.

Te deum laudamus te dominum confitemur
Te aeternum patrem omnis terra veneratur
Tibi omnes angeli Tibi caeli et universae potestates
Tibi cherubim et seraphim incessabili voceproclamant

Sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus deus sabaoth
Pleni sunt celi et terra maiestatis gloriae tuae
Te gloriosus apostolorum
Te prophetarum laudabilis numerus
Te martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus
Te per orbem terrarum sancta confitetur ecclesia
Patrem inmense maiestatis
Venerandum tuum verum unicum filium
Sanctum quoque paraclytum spiritum
Tu rex gloriae christe
Tu patris sempiternus es filius
Tu ad liberandum suscepisti hominem non
horruisti virginis uterum
Tu devicto mortis aculeo aperuisti credentibus
regna caelorum
Tu ad dexteram dei sedes in gloria patris
Iudex crederis esse venturus
Te ergo quaesumus tuis famulis subveni quos
pretioso sanguine redemisti
Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis gloria munerari
Salvum fac populum tuum domine et benedic
hereditati tuae
Et rege eos et extolle illos usque in aeternum
Per singulos dies benedicimus te
Et laudamus nomen tuum in saeculum et in
saeculum saeculi
Dignare domine die isto, sine peccato nos custodire
Miserere nostri domine miserere nostri
Fiat misericordia tua domine super nos
quemadmodum speravimus in te
In te domine speravi non confundar in aeternum. Amen.

Thou art God: we praise Thee;
Thou art the Lord: we acclaim Thee;
Thou art the eternal Father:
All creation worships Thee.
To Thee all angels, all the powers of heaven,
Cherubim and Seraphim, sing in endless praise:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God of Hosts,
heaven and earth are full of Thy glory.
The glorious company of apostles praise Thee.
The noble fellowship of prophets praise Thee.
The white-robed army of martyrs praise Thee.
Throughout the world Thy holy Church acclaims Thee:
Father of majesty unbounded,
Thy true and only Son, worthy of all worship,
and the Holy Ghost, advocate and guide.
Thou, Christ, art the King of Glory,
the eternal Son of the Father.
When Thou didst become man to set us free
Thou didst not spurn the Virgin's womb.
Thou overcamest the sting of death,
and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
You art seated at God's right hand in glory.
We believe that Thou wilst come, and be our Judge.
Come then, Lord, and help Thy people,
bought with the price of Thine own blood,
and bring us with Thy saints to glory everlasting.
Save Thy people, Lord, and bless Thy inheritance.
Govern and uphold them now and always.
Day by day we bless Thee.
We praise Thy Name for ever.
Keep us today, Lord, from all sin.
Have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy.
Lord, show us Thy love and mercy;
for we put our trust in Thee.
In Thee, Lord, is our hope:
and we shall never hope in vain.

Amen.

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

I appreciate your thanking me, Robert P.

However, I will be praying for you to come out of the hallucinatory world into which you have been lured, so that you can return to genuine Catholicism.

If you were a convinced Catholic before going into schism and heresy, then your soul is in deep danger. Don't be afraid to leave that monastery as soon as possible after your eyes are reopened.

God bless you.
John

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

"However, I will be praying for you to come out of the hallucinatory world into which you have been lured..."

Please be carefully how you characterize that which the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin are responsible for.

When the luring has been into a monastery, the Mass of Trent, the Rosary, concern for the Holy Souls and the salvation of fellow men, then it is Him who has done the luring.

The hallucination is to believe otherwise.

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

John,

-you should loosen your diapers -the binding seems to cause delusion...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 08, 2003.

Faith, "...and My only concern has been that she usurps the place of Christ."

You should know better by now. It can be put bets in the word of the hymn "Alma Redemptoris Mater" (Virgin Mother of the Redemeer"

The words go as follows: Mother of Christ! hear thou thy peoples cry; Star of the deep and portal of the sky! Sinking we strive and call to thee for aid; Mother of Him WHO THEE FROM NOTHING MADE... † AMDG

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

Faith,

I assure you, Our Lord Jesus is everything to us, He alone can satisfy all our desires. The very first line of St. Louis de Montfort’s book “True Devotion to Mary” says…

"With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since He alone can say, “I am He who is.” To do all things he has simply to will them."

However, "Mary is the means by which Our Lord came to us and she is also the means Our Lord wants us to go to Him, for she is not like other creatures who tend to lead us away from God. Mary’s strongest inclination is to unite us to Jesus, and her Son’s strongest wish is that we come to Him through His Blessed Mother. Next to her Son, Jesus, she is the chief instrument of our salvation. Through Her, Jesus came to us, and it is through Her that Jesus wishes to pour out His graces upon mankind until the end of time. That is the way God wills it."

I am amused when Protestants think "excessive" honor paid to Our Lady or speaking much in favor of her will offend our Lord. Does devotion to Our Lady mean hindering devotion to Our Lord? Should we stay indifferent to Our Lady for fear of offending Him?

On the contrary, we should not imagine for a moment that we are slighting the Son by honoring His Mother. Here is more of what the great St. Louis De Montfort says in “True Devotion to Mary”…

“We honor, love and Glorify God all the more when we praise and honor His Holy Mother. Mary presents our good works to Jesus and does not keep anything for herself. Whenever we praise and glorify her Son, Jesus, she sings today as she did on the day St. Elizabeth praised her, “My soul glorifies the Lord.” When we say “Hail Mary”, She immediately says, “Glory to Jesus!”

Anyone who dishonors the Mother, dishonors the Son, and is in fact an enemy of her Son. Nothing pleases Our Lord more than the devout meditation upon His life, death, and sufferings. That's why the Holy Rosary is so powerful. It is a most excellent means of establishing a more perfect and intimate devotion and union with Our Lord Himself.

And to top things off...

St. Louis de Montfort says that in these latter times God wants His holy Mother to be even more loved, honored, and glorified than ever before (hence, the importance of heeding Our Lord’s requests at Fatima!). It was revealed to Blessed Alan that through the Holy Rosary and the Scapular that Our Lady will one day save the world.

Our Lord said to Blessed Alan, “If only these poor wretched sinners would say My Rosary, they would share in the merits of My Passion and I would be their advocate and would appease My Father’s Justice.”

That was from the book: “Secret of the Rosary”. Btw, if anyone wants me to mail them a free copy of this excellent book, email me (quickly). I still have a few copies left.

-- Robert (Robertp234@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Try for a moment, Faith, to step back and take a look at a larger and more beautiful picture.

When we find out in a unique way for the first time, whenever in our lives that it may come to our attention, how fallen and weak and away from home we are, we come into direct contact with another reality as well:

We cannot save ourselves. It's impossible; no amount of effort on our part can stem the tide of our own continued corruption.

So, as you might agree with me, we look to Christ as Savior and the only remedy to our problem.

When we fall at the foot of the Cross from which His saving blood flows down and covers us, and we hand over this burden of an unconquerable and mounting debt of our sin on to Him, we have taken on all of Him and what is His, including the Cross btw.

Among other things, we take on the Holy Family. If we have Christ as our brother, then we have the same Mother, and the same Father. When we take on these, then with those who do the same, we are truly brothers and sisters.

All of what pertains to this Heavenly Family is more real and true than even our earthly families, and the blood ties run deeper because they are founded on the Blood of Christ.

It's the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.

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

"Please be carefully how you characterize that which the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin are responsible for. "

Martin Luther had a strong devotion to the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin. If he attributed his theology to their inspiration, would you believe it? If not, it's easy to see why faithful Catholics needn't accept as fact a claim that the Holy Spirit and the Mother of Our Lord are responsible for a vocation to join a seminary that is not in union with the Holy See.

Simple stuff, really. I hope that they teach logic at Robert's seminary.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I wish someone will clarify once and for all why they speak of TRIDENTINE MASS, ST. PIUS X MASS, TRADITIONAL MASS, VATICAN II MASS, an so on.

Why don't speak of CHRIST'S MASS, which was celebrated in the Last Supper?

Did the Apostles speak of Peter's Mass or Paul's Mass or John's Mass or did they call it by other different names?

In the first centuries of the Church was there a St. Ignatius' Mass, St. Cyril's Mass, St. Cletus' Mass, St Jerome's Mass, St. Augustin's Mass, etc. etc.

Do the Oriental Church, Orthodox or Catholic, the Coptic Church, the Maronite Church and so many ,many of different rites follow the Mass as celebrated by Christ in the Last Supper? Does the fact that the Mass is celebrated in different languages, and with different rites make it a different MASS? Do we call the Orthodox Church's Mass schismatic? Is it a "valid" Mass? Is the Lutheran Church's Mass a heretical Mass?

WHAT A MESS we have made of the LAST SUPPER'S MASS!!!!!

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 09, 2003.

The Lutheran Church does not have a Mass. Otherwise, all the forms of the Mass you named are valid and equal, because they all preserve the essential elements of the Mass of the Last Supper - the consecration of unleavened bread and grape wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, through the ministry of a validly ordained priest. That is the Mass in its essence.

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

Alleluja, praise God, praise Mary!!

God's speed, Robert. Please remember us in your prayers as you take up arms for the Church in Spiritual Warfare against Satan and all his evil minions. Our prayers are with you!! Viva Christo Rey!

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.

Hi Jaime, thank you for your prayers (gosh knows I need them)! Yes, I certainly will remember you and everyone else at this forum in my prayers.

Frank, sorry I didn't respond to your question earlier. You asked what specific order the monastery I will be going to is. That would be Benedictine.

-- Robert (Robertp234@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Faith,

The verse should be understood as Jesus bringing everyone into His earthly family. So we all become one family here on earth not just in heaven. That is why when he is on the cross he says "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" John 19:26-27.

Jesus was not excluding Mary from his family but including everyone in Mary's family.

Also Faith, if you notice in the Mass, Mary might be mentioned once but Jesus is made referece to constantly.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

wow...

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

More gems from the church of Love & Happiness...

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

It was more than that.

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

John G.

What do you have against religious orders?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

Scott, I'm shocked that you asked me that question, because I have never said that I have anything "against religious orders" in general. I have tremendous admiration for numerous religious congregations and orders (or men and women). My boyhood parish was manned by Benedictine monks, and most of my grade school teachers were Sisters of Notre Dame. I attended a Benedictine high school and a Jesuit university. I assure you that I am not rebelling against this now!

Did you perhaps misunderstand what I wrote to Robert P? I told him:
"However, I will be praying for you to come out of the hallucinatory world into which you have been lured, so that you can return to genuine Catholicism. If you were a convinced Catholic before going into schism and heresy, then your soul is in deep danger. Don't be afraid to leave that monastery as soon as possible after your eyes are reopened."

Maybe you didn't realize that he has left genuine Catholicism and is now in schism (at best). He is entering a religious group that is not in full communion with Pope John Paul II. That's why I would like him to leave his non-Catholic monastery and come back to the Church as soon as possible. I remember how, when he first came to the forum, I really liked him a lot -- so it hurts me to see what has happened to him, having been misled by the forum's schismo-heretical crowd (who should have been banned long before he had the misfortune of meeting them).

God bless you.
John

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

Robert has not left the Catholic Church and is not in schism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

Go with God, Robert. We're having some Masses said for you. Remember us in your prayers.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.

John G,

Maybe you should then retract your statement about "genuine" orders becuase we were later told that he is going to become a Benedictine. Unless you think the Benedictines are in schism.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

Paul: About the Lutheran Church not having a Mass look at what I found in the page of THE FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH:

We meet for worship and the celebration of the Eucharist every Sunday morning at 10 am. We have additional services throughout the church year to celebrate Christmas Eve, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and the Vigil of Easter. The Liturgy While retaining the fundamentally Lutheran elements of the traditional celebration of the mass, the community of First United finds richness, vitality and spiritual renewal in using a variety of forms and musical settings in our worship celebrations. We therefore have a tradition of changing our musical settings with the various seasons of the church year, and frequently use new or different settings within a season or for special celebrations. Our liturgical repertoire includes a setting by William Mathias, the settings in the Lutheran Book of Worship, the Deutsche Messe by Franz Schubert, David Haas' Mass of Light, the Detroit Folk Mass, and Marty Haugen's Now the Feast and Celebration and Mass of Remembrance. Beginning in Advent 2000, First United introduced its own setting of the Lutheran Mass, the Mass of a United People. Written by the musicians of First United, the setting has a variety of musical elements including the spoken word, flute, organ, drums, guitar, piano, and styles ranging from a cappella plainchant to folk to soft jazz/rock. The Mass of a United People was dedicated to the Reverends Donna Duensing and Robert Smith for their dedicated service to the First United Family. Whatever setting we use while you are a part of our community, you will have the opportunity to experience a variety of forms and styles at First United. We hope that all who worship here will find spiritual enrichment and renewal in our diversity. The Language of Our Worship As our mission statement proclaims, we embrace, welcome and celebrate the unique and diverse gifts of all God's people. Because the language we use shapes our thinking about one another, First United makes every effort to use language in worship that celebrates the diversity of all creation. We use language that affirms that men and women are equals and that the nature of God embraces all that is truly male and female. We use Scripture readings from an inclusive language lectionary, which expands our concept of God beyond exclusively masculine terms. In the hymns and other service music, we strive to express our commitment to inclusivity and diversity in expression. Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

Dear Enrique,

I am aware of the "Mass-like" characteristics of the Lutheran service. But it isn't a Mass because there is no genuine consecration, because there is no valid priesthood.

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

Hi, Scott.

You wrote: "Maybe you should then retract your statement about 'genuine' orders because we were later told that he is going to become a Benedictine. Unless you think the Benedictines are in schism."

No, Scott. I can't retract what I said. The mere fact that a monastery (or group of affiliated monasteries) calls itself "Benedictine" does not in fact make it truly Benedictine as recognized by Catholicism. It is not enough for a monastery to follow most of the famous Rule of St. Benedict. It must do all the essential things that St. Benedict did -- which includes being obedient to the current pope (not getting involved in schism or heresy).

There are monasteries (for both men and women, I think) in Great Britain that call themselves "Benedictine," but all the people living in them are Anglican Protestants. In like manner, the abbey/priory/monastery that Robert P will be entering is not a Catholic Benedictine monastery (but rather one that is either schismatic or heretical [I don't know which]). Chances are it is this one, which is affiliated with the schismatic SSPX (or one similar to it).

God bless you.
John

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

Thank God it's not this one near me.

Since John has no idea where Robert's headed, he obviously can't offer any valid commentary, so his "non-Catholic" lie should be doubly ignored.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

As long it's not one where non-"schismatic" "Benedictines" such as this one are the model of living the Rule, he'll be ok.

St. Benedict and the Benedictine souls in heaven, I am sure, were not pleased to see Weakland as the "Abbott Primate" of all non-"schismatic" "Benedictines" throughout the world at one time. Robert goes with God, as long as he stays away from Weakland's rotten modernist ilk.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

http://www.osb.org/intl/angl/angl1.html

Anglican benedictine monasteries

-- info (infoabout@anglicanbenedictine.org), November 14, 2003.

I suppose the lesson is, "Until every Catholic bishop and priest is perfect," schism is justified. At least the schismatics get to exercise their creativity in making up excuses for why they cannot stay in the Catholic Church. All the schismatics' excuses boil down to the simple concept: "I will not serve."

You have to wonder why St. Ignatius of Loyola didn't leave the Church after seeing scandal 500 years ago. Oh, yeah. The bishops and priests were perfect back then...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

I suppose the lesson is, "Until every Catholic bishop and priest is perfect," schism is justified.

It's more like this: "Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to the Faith and contrary to Tradition, they are to be resisted."

Look, Ma! No schism!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

I suppose Mateo would've been comfortable having Weakland as his "Abbott Primate" -- head-in-the-sand, I WILL serve!!

Even if Weakland's apparatus was short some settlement money, at least everyone was graced with his taste in ecclesiastical "architecture".

Go ahead and serve Weakland and his cohorts, Mateo; please, do. Call Weakland "Abba."

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

"Look, Ma! No schism!"

I have never known anyone who is in heresy or schism believe that they are in either, despite the proof. Do you?

Jaime,

At least your muck-raking has a clear precedent in history. Call Luther "Abba."

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

It's more like this: "Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to the Faith and contrary to Tradition, they are to be resisted."-- (Jocko)

Isn't all protestant history seen in this light? Luther gave his boost to an idea like that.

But if it's just Jake and the elites who determine who's dangerous to the faith and contrary to perceived tradition, and who's ''traditional'', then he can't justify seeming like Luther.

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

Luther has a much better claim of patrimony to Weakland and his fellow modernists than to anyone pointing out the bankruptcy of the modernist mission. Knowing this, you still going to serve the modernists?

It's either head-in-the-sand, or acknowledge Luther as your ideological/theological pater. I'm guessing your going to give us more of the former.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

Not only that, Jaime, if these modernists would familiarize themselves with Luther's Mass then compare it to the N.O., they wouldn't be so quick to compare Traditionalists to him.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

I've said it before and I'll say it again if necessary ...

""Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to the Faith and contrary to Tradition, they are to be resisted."

really means ...

"Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF the Faith and contrary to MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF Tradition, they are to be resisted."

If that's not a description of Protestantism I don't know what is.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 14, 2003.

jake: "Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to the Faith and contrary to Tradition, they are to be resisted."

Paul really means ...

"Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF the Faith and contrary to MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF Tradition, they are to be resisted.

Nope.

Insofar as Bishops & priests teach, say, & do things that are dangerous to that which has been dogmatically defined and revealed by the Holy Ghost and contrary to what the Church has perenially taught, they are to be resisted.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF Tradition

Wanna know the neat thing about Tradition? It doesn't need to be interpreted. It's all out there, in clear, concise, exact terms. You don't have to be a theologian to understand Trent, or Quo Primum, or Pascendi, or Moratalium Animos. They weren't written for Bishops' conferences to mull over and then spit out their own versions. They were written for the Universal Church. They are every bit as poignant, meaningful, and authoritative today as the day they were written.

Pick them up & read them. The clarity smacks you upside the head. Contrast that to the Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents. Reading them will give you a headache, but not the kind that comes from being smacked.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

Hi, Regina -- I enjoy your posts, and thanks for the link.

I trust God has led Robert to and Abbott and Brothers that are true to the Mass, Faith, Rule, and Order . . . unlike Weakland and his fellows.

The heads-in-the-sand will always cast traditional Catholics as "schismatics," akin to Luther. God willing, more souls -- like Robert -- will come to the Truth and see who's with Luther, and who's with Christ.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

"It's either head-in-the-sand, or acknowledge Luther as your ideological/theological pater. I'm guessing your going to give us more of the former."

So I suppose leaving the Catholic Church was the only reasonable choice for you...that's how Luther lamented his decision.

As Skoobouy wrote:

"You don't have to be a trad to realize 'the gravity of our situation in the Church.' You just have to be a trad to blame it on the Magisterium."

And as St. Ignatius wrote:

"...it is said in Scripture, obedience is better than sacrifice [1 Sam. 15:22], for, according to Saint Gregory: 'In victims the flesh of another is slain, but in obedience our own will is sacrificed.'"

and further:

"To retain one who is not a true son of obedience does no good for the kingdom. Nor is there any reason for thinking that such a person, his own soul being so destitute, can help other souls, or that God our Lord would wish to accept him as an instrument for His service and glory.

We see from experience that men, not only with average talents but even less than average, can often be the instruments of uncommon supernatural fruit, because they are completely obedient and through this virtue allow themselves to be affected and moved by the powerful hand of the author of all good. On the other hand, great talent may be seen exerting great labor with less than ordinary fruit, because being themselves the source of their activity, that is, their own self-love, or at least not allowing themselves to be moved by God our Lord through obedience to their superiors, they do not produce results proportionate to the almighty hand of God our Lord, who does not accept them as His instruments. They achieve results proportioned to their own weak and feeble hands."

And the schismatics will achieve results proportioned to their own weak and feeble hands.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

Jaime writes: "Knowing this, you still going to serve the modernists?"

Are you calling Pope John Paul II a modernist? I'm not leaving the Catholic Faith, no matter what names you or any schismatic calls Catholics. Just as St. Ignatius remained faithful to the Church, in contrast to the SSPX and Lutheran types who left the Church when they had problems with the management.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

Mateo quotes Skoobuoy:

"You don't have to be a trad to realize 'the gravity of our situation in the Church.' You just have to be a trad to blame it on the Magisterium."

If there is a situation in our church which is grave, where did it begin, who allowed it to become grave, and whose responsibility is it to fix it? The Magisterium, the Magisterium and...the Magesterium.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Thank you for your compliment, Jaime. I really enjoying your posts, too. I'm glad you enjoyed the link. I really hope Mateo, especially, will read it when he gets a chance.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Regina,

It's nice that you've found a group of people to assign all the woes you have about people not being perfect. It's a shame that they happen to be the Catholic Church's leaders. Martin Luther agreed with you, if it's any consolation. So historically, you've got people to back you up.

Regarding your link, I'll have a look at it after I'm done reading through this protestant one. According to them, many of the religion pushed by the Vatican isn't even Christianity! It's some kind of "One World" Masonic plot, led by the Illuminati, who work for the Pope. Man, where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah: SSPX and their clones hold the same view!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

It's some kind of "One World" Masonic plot, led by the Illuminati, who work for the Pope. Man, where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah: SSPX and their clones hold the same view!

Url, please.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

Jake,

Did you forget how to use Google? Here's some stuff I just found on traditio.com

Would you like some more schismatic conspiracy theories? They're pretty easy to find. I suppose one nice thing about the "newspeak" of schismatics is that it makes google searches a lot easier.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

Martin Luther agreed with you

Um, who said:

The Mass vestments, altars, and lights may be retained till such time as they shall all change of themselves, or it shall please us to change them: though, if any will take a different course in this matter, we shall not interfere. But in the true Mass, among sincere Christians, the altar should not be retained, and the priest should always turn himself towards the people as, without doubt, Christ did at the Last Supper.

Who said Mass should be in the vernacular? Who gutted Churches of the Crucifix and statuary? LUTHER.

Head in the sand, head in the sand . . .

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

St. Louis De Monfort in True Devotion to Mary:

105. After having explained and condemned false devotions to the Blessed Virgin we shall now briefly describe what true devotion is. It is interior, trustful, holy, constant and disinterested.

106. First, true devotion to our Lady is interior, that is, it comes from within the mind and the heart and follows from the esteem in which we hold her, the high regard we have for her greatness, and the love we bear her.

107. Second, it is trustful, that is to say, it fills us with confidence in the Blessed Virgin, the confidence that a child has for its loving Mother. It prompts us to go to her in every need of body and soul with great simplicity, trust and affection. We implore our Mother's help always, everywhere, and for everything. We pray to her to be enlightened in our doubts, to be put back on the right path when we go astray, to be protected when we are tempted, to be strengthened when we are weakening, to be lifted up when we fall into sin, to be encouraged when we are losing heart, to be rid of our scruples, to be consoled in the trials, crosses and disappointments of life. Finally, in all our afflictions of body and soul, we naturally turn to Mary for help, with never a fear of importuning her or displeasing our Lord.

108. Third, true devotion to our Lady is holy, that is, it leads us to avoid sin and to imitate the virtues of Mary. Her ten principal virtues are: deep humility, lively faith, blind obedience, unceasing prayer, constant self-denial, surpassing purity, ardent love, heroic patience, angelic kindness, and heavenly wisdom.

109. Fourth, true devotion to our Lady is constant. It strengthens us in our desire to do good and prevents us from giving up our devotional practices too easily. It gives us the courage to oppose the fashions and maxims of the world, the vexations and unruly inclinations of the flesh and the temptations of the devil. Thus a person truly devoted to our Blessed Lady is not changeable, fretful, scrupulous or timid. We do not say however that such a person never sins or that his sensible feelings of devotion never change. When he has fallen, he stretches out his hand to his Blessed Mother and rises again. If he loses all taste and feeling for devotion, he is not at all upset because a good and faithful servant of Mary is guided in his life by faith in Jesus and Mary, and not by feelings.

110. Fifth, true devotion to Mary is disinterested. It inspires us to seek God alone in his Blessed Mother and not ourselves. The true subject of Mary does not serve his illustrious Queen for selfish gain. He does not serve her for temporal or eternal well-being but simply and solely because she has the right to be served and God alone in her. He loves her not so much because she is good to him or because he expects something from her, but simply because she is lovable. That is why he loves and serves her just as faithfully in weariness and dryness of soul as in sweet and sensible fervour. He loves her as much on Calvary as at Cana. How pleasing and precious in the sight of God and his holy Mother must these servants of Mary be, who serve her without any self-seeking. How rare they are nowadays! It is to increase their number that I have taken up my pen to write down what I have been teaching with success both publicly and in private in my missions for many years.

111. I have already said many things about the Blessed Virgin and, as I am trying to fashion a true servant of Mary and a true disciple of Jesus, I have still a great deal to say, although through ignorance, inability, and lack of time, I shall leave infinitely more unsaid.

112. But my labour will be well rewarded if this little book falls into the hands of a noble soul, a child of God and of Mary, born not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. My time will be well spent if, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, after having read this book he is convinced of the supreme value of the solid devotion to Mary I am about to describe. If I thought that my guilty blood could help the reader to accept in his heart the truths that I set down in honour of my dear Mother and Queen, I, her most unworthy child and slave, would use it instead of ink to write these words. I would hope to find faithful souls who, by their perseverance in the devotion I teach, will repay her for the loss she has suffered through my ingratitude and infidelity.

113. I feel more than ever inspired to believe and expect the complete fulfilment of the desire that is deeply engraved on my heart and what I have prayed to God for over many years, namely, that in the near or distant future the Blessed Virgin will have more children, servants and slaves of love than ever before, and that through them Jesus, my dear Lord, will reign more than ever in the hearts of men.

114. I clearly foresee that raging beasts will come in fury to tear to pieces with their diabolical teeth this little book and the one the Holy Spirit made use of to write it, or they will cause it at least to lie hidden in the darkness and silence of a chest and so prevent it from seeing the light of day. They will even attack and persecute those who read it and put into practice what it contains. But no matter! So much the better! It even gives me encouragement to hope for great success at the prospect of a mighty legion of brave and valiant soldiers of Jesus and Mary, both men and women, who will fight the devil, the world, and corrupt nature in the perilous times that are sure to come.

"Let the reader understand. Let him accept this teaching who can."

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

"Who gutted Churches of the Crucifix and statuary?"

Wasn't that the Iconoclasts? And didn't they show up centuries before protestantism?

Anyway, Martin Luther also adored Our Blessed Mother and praying over the Bible. None of his personal beliefs are relevant here. The fact is, he thought he saw the "Smoke of Satan" entering the Vatican 500 years ago, just as schismatics are convinced they see it today.

And Luther separated himself from the Catholic Faith and its leaders. If only schismatics understood Ignatian spirituality, maybe they wouldn't be schismatics...

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I think that's how the saying goes. Have fun learning, Jaime.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"Anyway, Martin Luther also adored Our Blessed Mother and praying over the Bible."

I flat out refuse to believe this.

Even if it could be substantially supported with loads of historical accounts, then take a look at the first first line of what I posted above:

"After having explained and condemned false devotions to the Blessed Virgin..."

Go to EWTN and look up the book online, and read all about false devotions to the Blessed Mother, which immediately precedes this section I posted above.

I absolutely refuse to believe that he had a true devotion to the Mother of Our Savior. If I allowed myself to believe this, and if Martin Luther met his demise, then I cannot trust my own Heavenly Mother.

Sometimes, in matters of Faith, you just have to close your eyes and ears in order to walk the thin line; this is one of them.

Anyone who daily and consistantly places their destiny in the hands of the Mediatrix of all graces will not meet an eternal demise. When the demons gather around the soul of a man devoted to her in the throes of death looking to snatch it away and to tear it to shreds for all eternity, she will come personally to scatter them and take the soul home.

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

It's nice that you've found a group of people to assign all the woes you have about people not being perfect.

And it's nice that you've dodged my point.

Tell me, if you (and Skoobuoy) agree that there *is* there a grave situation in the Church today...

from where did it originate?

Who could have addressed this situation before it became grave? Nipped it in the bud, if you will...

Now that it is grave, who should we look to to remedy the situation?

Look, I'm not looking for "perfection" from anyone, Mateo. I'm asking for the Bishops to use their God-given right to lead in the example of the ones they succeed.

There is good news, however! I found out that one bishop in Italy allows the SSPX to celebrate Mass one Sunday a month in his cathedral. Now, in your opinion, is this Italian bishop in "schism", too? If not, why not?

If you say this bishop *is* in "schism", how do you justify situations where bishops have allowed non-Catholic (or non-Christian_ services in their churches?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Emerald,

I was not responding to your post. I was responding to Jaime. Nothing against St. Louis De Monfort and you. It was just a bad coincidence, OK? ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

None of his [Luther's] personal beliefs are relevant here.

They are if you're asserting that vile man "agrees" with some good Catholics who've posted here. Seems it's very relevant that the demonic Luther believed high altars should be removed and priests should face the people.

Have fun learning

If you read the links above that show Luther's ideas and beliefs are now part of the Novus Ordo Missae, said throughout the world by the un-"separated", you might learn something yourself, Mateo.

Or you can keep your head in the sand and avoid the point.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

Nah, I know that, but I've seen people say it before elsewhere, and I thought I would pop that in there. It's cool.

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

"If only schismatics understood Ignatian spirituality, maybe they wouldn't be schismatics..."

You know, I might actually take you up on that. That would take some time, but I'm sure it would be well worth it.

I wonder what I would see...

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

"Look, I'm not looking for "perfection" from anyone, Mateo. I'm asking for the Bishops to use their God-given right to lead in the example of the ones they succeed."

You are asking the bishops to do your will, not the Will of Our Lord. Some more wisdom from St. Ignatius:

"...you must never try to draw the will of the superior (which you should consider the will of God) to your own will. This would not be making the divine will the rule of your own, but your own the rule of the divine, and so distorting the order of His wisdom. It is a great delusion in those whose understanding has been darkened by self-love, to think that there is any obedience in the subject who tries to draw the superior to what he wishes. Listen to Saint Bernard, who had much experience in this matter: "Whoever endeavors either openly or covertly to have his spiritual father enjoin him what he himself desires, deceives himself if he flatters himself as a true follower of obedience. For in that he does not obey his superior, but rather the superior obeys him." And so he concludes that he who wishes to rise to the virtue of obedience must rise to the second degree, which, over and above the execution, consists in making the superior's will one's own, or rather putting off his own will to clothe himself with the divine will interpreted by the superior."

If you can't accept the Catholic bishops (as imperfect as men are) as your spiritual fathers, who are you going to accept? SSPX?

"There is good news, however! I found out that one bishop in Italy allows the SSPX to celebrate Mass one Sunday a month in his cathedral. Now, in your opinion, is this Italian bishop in "schism", too? If not, why not?"

Oh, my goodness! One Sunday a month? No wonder you're ecstatic! Now you'll just have to arrange for round-trip tickets to Italy each month. What was your question?

At least you are beginning to understand that groups in schism have no real future outside of the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church. Not this "Catholic Church" nor this "Catholic Church; but the real Catholic Church.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"Or you can keep your head in the sand and avoid the point."

Actually, I would water a dry stick if the Church told me to. (See if you can find that reference!) The Church heard your point through Luther 500 years ago. What would you like me to learn this time?

You can have your schism, Jaime.

Emerald, I hope you go out and but the book with many of Ignatius' letters. It's great reading.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

If it's the case that obedience would demand a denial of a known doctrine, what would you do?

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

Oh, my goodness! One Sunday a month? No wonder you're ecstatic! Now you'll just have to arrange for round-trip tickets to Italy each month. What was your question?

What was that you said to jake about reading comprehension...?

Anyway, here's what I asked, and I hope this time you can actually answer them/not dodge them/offer giddy little remarks instead of something constructive. Give it a shot ok?:

From where did the grave situation in the church today originate?

Who could have nipped this grave situation in the bud before it became grave?

Now that it has become grave, to whom do we look to remedy the situation?

My other questions: If a bishop allows the SSPX the use of his Cathedral for Mass, is he, too, in "schism?" If not, why not?

If he *is* how does any bishop who allows non-Catholic (or non- Christian) services in his cathedral escape your judgment of schism?

One Sunday a month in another country doesn't seem like much, but a rose must be a seed first, you know...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

"If it's the case that obedience would demand a denial of a known doctrine, what would you do?"

Since schismatics are convinced that Vatican II doesn't teach any new doctrines, one wonders what the place of such a question is.

How about the current form of the Latin Rite Mass. What denials of Catholic doctrine occur in the celebration of the mass?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"What was that you said to jake about reading comprehension...?"

I said that he has poor reading comprehension skills. What about you. Are you in the same boat?

BTW, I'm glad you've asked me about where all the problems of the world and the Church come from. What answer do you want me to give? I already told you: it's the Illuminati and the Masons trying to establish a "One World Government/Religion." That's why they changed the words from "pro multis" to "for all." It's all a big conspiracy...

And unfortunately, for people who spend too much time on schismatic websites, they would probably miss the sarcasm in my post.

Oh, well. I'll just have to keep praying.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

I do enjoy the "Tradition is so clear" stance of Jake (and maybe other schismatics).

It reminds me of the protestants who think they can be instant authorities of the Holy Bible. "How could Catholics call priests 'father' after reading Matthew 23:9?"

Maybe, Jake, your reading comprehension skills will come in handy if you want to become an authority on Catholic Tradition. Right now, it's kinda iffy.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"My other questions: If a bishop allows the SSPX the use of his Cathedral for Mass, is he, too, in "schism?" If not, why not?"

Well, regarding all your questions, I thought of this recent news clip from ZENIT.

Last I checked, the Orthodox Churches have had a schism with the Catholic Church for about...oh 1000 years?

So, if the Pope builds allows the Bulgarian Orthodox to use the church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius, is the Pope in schism with himself? If not, why not? <--That last bit of wording sounds a like something one would see in the middle of a college exam. A little bit like, "Show all your work." OK, Mrs. Regina. L@L.

Darn it, the Catholic Church is trying so hard to be ecumenical! First with the Orthodox schism...now the SSPX schism. What could they be thinking!?!?!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"So, if the Pope builds allows the Bulgarian Orthodox..."

Let's try instead:

"So, if the Pope allows the Bulgarian Orthodox "

And now, let's hope I don't have any other errors.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

The question was:

"If it's the case that obedience would demand a denial of a known doctrine, what would you do?"

Mateo's answer was:

"Since schismatics are convinced that Vatican II doesn't teach any new doctrines, one wonders what the place of such a question is."

Question remains:

"If it's the case that obedience would demand a denial of a known doctrine, what would you do?"

Thought you didn't like evasive answers. =)

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

"BTW, I'm glad you've asked me about where all the problems of the world and the Church come from. What answer do you want me to give? I already told you: it's the Illuminati and the Masons trying to establish a "One World Government/Religion." That's why they changed the words from "pro multis" to "for all." It's all a big conspiracy... And unfortunately, for people who spend too much time on schismatic websites, they would probably miss the sarcasm in my post."

I thought you didn't like strawman arguments.

The above is one. You know that the majority of what the traditionalists have presented on this forum have consisted of references to Church councils, encyclicals and other documents.

You are aware of this. What we are left with, as usual, is a string of argumentation by attitude.

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

"Oh, well. I'll just have to keep praying."

Matthew 6:6

"But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret, and thy father who seeth in secret will repay thee."

It's an easy game Mateo, but it has very little to do with finding the truth.

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

Since schismatics are convinced that Vatican II doesn't teach any new doctrines

Does it? What are they?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Emerald: "If it's the case that obedience would demand a denial of a known doctrine, what would you do?"

I think the answer is obvious. One is under no obligation to deny Catholic doctrine. That said, I asked you questions: what doctrines is the Catholic Church teaching you to abandon? This is where things get sketchy for schismatics, because they always have to hide under the "it's modernism" line. It's so secret that the false doctrines are hiding in true statements. Hmm...sounds like Faith attacking Robert and Catholics as Mary-worshipper because she counts more references to Our Lady. Must be modernism!

Emerald: "I thought you didn't like strawman arguments. The above is one.

...

You are aware of this. What we are left with, as usual, is a string of argumentation by attitude."

It's not a strawman...it's not an "argumentation by attitude." Emerald, there is no "argument." Regina asked me a question. I gave a sarcastic answer. Without a debate, how can one have a need for a strawman. You get really sensative when I talk about conspiracy theories, don't you? It hits home. My Illuminati friends told me it would...

Emerald: "You know that the majority of what the traditionalists have presented on this forum have consisted of references to Church councils, encyclicals and other documents."

Actually, I think the majority of what schismatics present are their best attempts at muckraking, with a sprinkling of quotes from Church documents. Once in a blue moon, they even acknowledge the Holy Bible as a reference.

"Matthew 6:6...It's an easy game Mateo, but it has very little to do with finding the truth."

I'm not announcing a prayer-a-thon like you, claiming to pray hours and hours, if that's your point. Kinda reaching here, Emerald. You'll need some more practice if you really want to play the game well.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Jake: "Does it? What are they?"

Jake, I'm going to tell you this once: go to sleep. It's late! You need your rest.

OK. I said it.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Oh, my goodness! One Sunday a month? No wonder you're ecstatic! Now you'll just have to arrange for round-trip tickets to Italy each month.

No need. One could simply arrange to travel to one of many dioceses in the U.S. that offer the Traditional Latin Mass only once a month, in defiance of the Pope, who called for it to be offered in a "wide and generous" way.

I suppose one would have to make travel plans if they live in one of the U.S. dioceses that offer no Traditional Latin Mass at all, and wished to exercise their "rightful aspirations" (as the Pope called them) to attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Such souls would indeed be "estatic" to scramble for a crumb from the Bishop's table.

The Mass is that important.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Jake, I'm going to tell you this once: go to sleep. It's late! You need your rest.

No. What are the new doctrines of Vatican II? Pleanty of time for rest when I'm dead.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

I think the answer is obvious. One is under no obligation to deny Catholic doctrine. That said, I asked you questions: what doctrines is the Catholic Church teaching you to abandon? This is where things get sketchy for schismatics, because they always have to hide under the "it's modernism" line.

Sketchy... lol.

"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."

Pope Eugene IV Ex Cathedra in Bull Cantate Domino.

Compare with Lumen Gentium. All the explanations of intrepretations and clearer understandings are just ways to get around something.

"You get really sensative when I talk about conspiracy theories, don't you? It hits home. My Illuminati friends told me it would..."

Sensitive you mean. Actually, not at all; I have no problem discussing topics such as globalization, Masonic efforts to infiltrate the Church. I have absolutely no qualms about such things.

"I'm not announcing a prayer-a-thon like you, claiming to pray hours and hours, if that's your point."

Maybe you should.

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

I know babies have to cry and whine a little before going to sleep; but adults, too?

Good night Jake. Sleep tight.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Jake, did I ever say that I did that?

I don't think I ever said that.

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

Emerald,

You and Faith are both equally unqualified to second-guess the Church and put your stamp of "modernist heresy" on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Still can't get past the whole, "I will not serve" mentality, can you? Hmm...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

You're absolutely right, Mateo.

You win. You've really proven your point.

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

Good night Jake. Sleep tight.

What are the new doctrines of Vatican II?

I have nothing to do.

I have nowhere to go.

I'm not tired.

Read me the new doctrines, it might help lull me to sleep. Just start at the top, and I'll stop you when I've had ebough.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Jake, did I ever say that I did that?

Announce a "prayer-a-thon?" No, that's just some erroneous personal interpretation of what you said. I think you issued a general invitation to pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and that you would do likewise. As I recall, you got no Neo takers.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Well,

I suppose you could enumerate your qualifications as official second- guesser of the Catholic Church.

What kind of education and experience does one need to assume such a position of authority? Luther thought of himself as a great theologian, and I'm sure he felt quite capable of the position in defying the hierarchy.

What baffles me is your ping-pong game in which you don't want to submit to the "modernist NewChurch"...and then you jump to the other side and defy others to find what doctrine you aren't giving your assent to.

Maybe you're being vague about where you stand. But far be it from me to expect you to live up to the demands you place on the Catholic Church for clarity.

Given the heresies that have come from so much misinterpreting of the Holy Bible, I'd hate to hear what you think about the vagueness of wording in Holy Scripture. Who can schismatics blame for that?

Jake writes: "Just start at the top, and I'll stop you when I've had ebough."

Believe me, Jake, you have already had ebough.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Believe me, Jake, you have already had ebough.

No I haben't.

What are the new doctrines of Vatican II? You don't have to type them out. A quick list is fine.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

"What are the new doctrines of Vatican II?"

What are the false doctrines of Vatican II?

I'n pateint...your teh schsimatic. You anwser first.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

What are the false doctrines of Vatican II?

There are none. No true ones, either. I'm just trying to find out what the new ones are.

I'n pateint...your teh schsimatic. You anwser first.

What's with the typos? Getting sleepy?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

Look upthread. There's one doctrinal problem right there.

Let's open in our Vatican II books to the section called Decree on Ecumenism. Read. See Syllabus of Errors. Read more. See Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Get tissues, read more. See Mystici Corporis Christi. Read.

When dealing with the older documents, I know you have real reservations about being qualified to interpret them without being of the magisterium... or at least hearing from them, or at least interpretations of interpretations of leading lay interpretors such as Ewtn and Keating and what others say about what's intrepreted by them.

I'll give you a hint: when you are tempted to interpret them... don't.

They don't require interpretation. This should calm your worries about not being qualified to interpret such documents. Relax; because you won't even have to! So how could you break any rules? lol.

The major problem that's going to haunt you forever in defense of the modernist Church, Mateo, is common experience:

Your arguments and theories about traditional Catholics being the deviants and not the Neo's, when taken into the field for testing with the facts, fail. They fail across the globe, in every city and in every country.

It goes like this, at least until it should change: You go to any city, and you look in the phone book under Catholic Church. You find one and go there. As you drive up, most often the newer church buildings will be cinder-block horrors stripped of all religious symbolism inside and out; what's left is drab and twisted. You walk in pass the greeter lady with the hair and shoulderpads as you take holy water from something that looks like an upside down steel-drum, and then you take your seat. You look straight in front of you and past the altar to the other group of people staring straight back at you. The women are digging in their purses and the men are gaping up at the ceiling at the cool geometrical shapes traced by clear-coated natural pine beams. People walk and talk in the isles; the guitar-dood is tapping the microphone as you pick up the paperback missalette with the fish-grapes-cross picture in pastels on the cover. Father Firstname walks in trailing the altar girls wearing tennis shoes, as he greets everyone, shaking their hands and hugging them all the way up to the altar. Once he arrives there, the rest is a matter of performance for him, including a sermon on something of a human-interest topic. This description could go on in increasing detail, but I'll stop it there.

Every person reading the above description knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Thank God I don't suffer this anymore. I never was of this stuff, I always knew I wasn't, and I never could stand it. I've been around, and I haven't really seen anything else other than what I described above until I decided on assisting solely at the Mass of Trent. I haven't seen a balloon Mass, but the above description? That was my common experience; we used to bounce around from parish to parish to get away from this nonsense, but it's all the same everywhere.

It's been almost a year. I'm through with that, and I'm through with people's goofy, simplistic hysterical arguments that we need to submit to this destruction of our Faith when we clearly are not under anything of a binding need to do so.

The above description is the result of what you defending; good luck. It's a bummer to have to reduce the discussion down to this level, but you seem so very willing to do so. In a way, I can't really blame you since there's no other direction to go that makes any sense.

Because what you are defending consists of people who hold heresies and defend arch-lukewarmness and point their bony fingers of blame at others. If you press them on it, it comes out in their attitudes.

Btw, Think about Mysterium Fidei...Mysterium Fidei doesn't mean "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again". But in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest says: "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith", and the people immediately respond "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again". All those years I thought that's what it meant that. That is ambiguity, and it's purposeful. It's deceptive.

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

The typos are an attempt at humor. What's with the short-term memory problem?

"What are the false doctrines of Vatican II?

There are none. No true ones, either. I'm just trying to find out what the new ones are."

OK, so as far as I know, there are no new doctrines enumerated in the documents of Vatican II, though there are new teachings--disciplines, organization of the Church, new stuff like that.

The conclusion that there are "no false doctrines" is correct. But, there are true doctrines in the documents of Vatican II. They re-affirm Catholic doctrine, even if they doesn't go by the "let him be anathema" formula. The formula itself isn't necessary.

For example, if I wrote a letter including the assertion that Mary was assumed--body and soul--into Heaven, my letter would contain a true doctrine (a dogma, really).

In this sense, Vatican II affirms Catholic teachings (including doctrine), at a time when the world thought it was growing out of religion and its absolutes and into relativism.

So we agree on some things. Good night.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

OK, so now Emerald says there are new false doctrines and Jake says there aren't.

You guys should coordinate your posts a little better.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

I gave you an example in another thread about how the ambiguity makes the reader draw the conclusion of his choice, in most cases.

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

But, there are true doctrines in the documents of Vatican II. They re-affirm Catholic doctrine, even if they doesn't go by the "let him be anathema" formula. The formula itself isn't necessary.

My original point stands, which was that the Council did not produce anything new, doctrinally speaking. If there are doctrinal statements within the Conciliar documents that refer to and cite prior doctrinal teaching, those statements can't rightly be called "doctrines of Vatican II."

Anathemas not necessary? I guess, in a strict sense, you're right. One thing about the anathemas of Trent, though: They were clear, unambiguouis, precise, and exact. Perhaps if more of that type of language was used, we'd not be having so many of these arguments 40 years later.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 15, 2003.

I hate this stuff. I'm serious, this back and forth garbage; it isn't right and it's not a good practice of Catholicism on any of our parts, including mine; that's my gut-level reaction.

On the other hand, someone has to raise a ruckus about this; keeping it ad-hominem free as much as possible, I guess, even though it seems impossible. Someone's got to say something; we can't sit idly by while our Church groans under the weight of it's "new directons".

I'm not going to allow a reference to prayer get twisted into a meaningless notion of some self-holiness promotion on my part when I'm no different than any of you. So I'm going to re-inforce the claim that everybody needs to pray seriously about this a lot everyday, and it should include the Rosary.

Forget this fear of being accused of being holier-than-thou from stopping me or anyone else from encouraging everybody to do well what they ought to be doing, or are already doing, in regards to prayer. I'm going to keep saying it.

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

My original point stands, which was that the Council did not produce anything new, doctrinally speaking. If there are doctrinal statements within the Conciliar documents that refer to and cite prior doctrinal teaching, those statements can't rightly be called "doctrines of Vatican II."

Absolutely. The "new doctrines", if any, aren't there but are extruded from the elusive spirit of it. People are doing their own, private interpretations of ambiguities.

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

"Your arguments and theories about traditional Catholics being the deviants and not the Neo's, when taken into the field for testing with the facts, fail. They fail across the globe, in every city and in every country. "

Again, you are speaking of an imaginary "traditionalist" group whose bounds you personally have defined in your head. There are faithful orthodox Catholics, and there are schismatics and heretics. Do you know how you argue against "conservative" and "liberal" Catholics? Well, I've got the same argument against "traditionalists," because the term is vague and "the ambiguity makes the reader draw the conclusion of his choice" of what traditionalism includes.

Schismatics deviate from the Faith in their disobedience. Your statements (like "They fail across the globe...") are just unsubstatiated propoganda to boost your cause. I suppose you could attack the Catholic Church in a number of ways (the churches aren't ornate enough, the people aren't pious enough, the words of Vatican II aren't clear enough); but who cares? I care about my soul.

I believe that the Church has never had perfect faithful shephards nor perfect, faithful sheep. You've gotta wonder about the quality of the bishops and priests in Europe 500 years ago when more than half of the Catholic Church was lost to protestantism. And these same bishops and priests produced the doctrines of Trent! God works through imperfect instruments, and perfects them when they are obedient to His Divine Will.

I've been told to ignore or question the teachings of the Catholic Church by:

1) Atheists

2) Protestants

3) Orthodox

4) Traditionalist Schismatics

5) Liberal heretics

5) Lapsed Catholics

6) Muslims

7) Everybody else

And they've usually got an attractive-looking, well thought-out story to sell. They all know better than the Catholic Church. And yet I'm just not sold. Sorry, Emerald, you've chosen the path of second-guessing the Church (I still haven't seen your credentials). I saw that fork in the road long ago. And I consciously chose to remain a faithful Catholic.

I spend less time on pet conspiracies and pointing out the deficiencies of another's faith (both are idle efforts of questionable value); and more time on rooting out sin in my life, and imitating Christ as best I can. That (along with stuff like changing diapers) is where my priorities are.

From St. Ignatius of Loyola: "Cassian says in the Conference of the Abbot Moses: ;By no other vice does the devil draw a monk headlong, and bring him to death sooner, than by persuading him to neglect the counsel of the elders, and trust to his own judgment and determination.'"

"Rely not on your own prudence [Prov. 3:5]. says Scripture."

And further:

"[S]ome of the holy Fathers to whom Cassian refers, as the Abbot John, who did not question whether what he was commanded was profitable or not, as when with such great labor he watered a dry stick throughout a year. Or whether it was possible or not, when he tried so earnestly at the command of his superior to move a rock which a large number of men would not have been able to move."

Watering that dry stick or moving the immovable rock is a path to:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)

---------

Emerald: "So I'm going to re-inforce the claim that everybody needs to pray seriously about this a lot everyday, and it should include the Rosary."

Thank goodness. I tell you what. Let me make the statement more universal:

"Everybody needs to pray often and that includes the Rosary."

God will lead us to what we are to pray about.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Matt, You've posted a stupendous lesson. Viva!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

Father Firstname walks in trailing the altar girls wearing tennis shoes, as he greets everyone, shaking their hands and hugging them all the way up to the altar.

Let's not forget to include Pat Feminist-McManly in her khakis, sweatshirt and dulled pinking-shears haircut with the Lectionary held high above her head.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 15, 2003.

Father first-name is ordained by the Holy Spirit. His first and last name. Did you know Judas was called Judas, not Iscariot? They hardly ever referred to Peter as Johnson, though we know that was his surname.

Picky Catholics have hangups about nothing. Then they spread the rumors of ''abuses''.

''Did you see the priest? He was shaking hands! Hugging people! Oh MY! A liberal! A protestant!''

Jesus Christ shook hands with a leper. He made friends with a convicted thief and insurgent too, when YOU weren't looking, Regina. Good thing for Him. You would've been disgusted.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

I'm not a big fan of first names for priests, doctors, teachers; but that's is the way culture is. It's on a first name basis for many Americans.

On the other hand, last names are a bit of a modern invention (the result of modernism, maybe?) How many last names do you know from the following people:

1) Our Lord (Christ isn't his last name)

2) St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Luke, etc, etc.

3) Michaelangelo (Buonarroti)

4) Leonardo da Vinci

4) St. Ignatius of Loyola

5) St. Augustine of Hippo

6) St. Francis of Assisi (Bernardone)

Mostly, the "last names" of the past were just the names of the towns the person came from.

In the case of St. Francis, leaving behind his last name may have been a symbol of the decision he made to leave behind the world, including the prestige that accompanied having his family's name.

So maybe an attachment to last names is an attachment to the world...or maybe it's just a random trend in American society. Who knows?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

PS--I can't do numbers without accidentally repeating one of them. Sorry. There's a secret message in the first mistake, though...Hmmm.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

Peter's original name was Simon Johnson (John 1:42, 21:16) :-)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2003.

Wouldn't you then say Jesus was Jesus Josephson?

Frank

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

We know they called Him the Carpenter's son. But He wasn't; neither was He Bar-Yussef. He is the Son of God.

Nevertheless, He is not proud; He loves when we say Jesus! We're on a ''first-name basis'' with God Himself!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

THE WORDS OF AN INSANE LIAR FOLLOW -- A MORONIC, USELESS, EX-CATHOLIC, HARRASSING, HERETICAL, SOUL-SOLD-TO-THE-DEVIL REPROBATE:

"I hate this stuff. I'm serious, this back and forth garbage; it isn't right and it's not a good practice of Catholicism on any of our parts, including mine; that's my gut-level reaction."

This forum is 98% dead, thanks to you, dear Moderator. You have one least chance to rescue it -- by whipping up enought guts to ban the Sons of Beechnuts who have ruined this place -- especially the Four Schismatic Stooges (though you know about others too, like Faith, Karl, Daniel, etc.).

I was thinking about spending scores of hours, over the course of the next few months, restoring the threads that were deleted recently. But what the hell is the use, when you have allowed the forum to turn into a massive pile of stinking dung?

Let me know if you have mustered the guts to change and fix this place, and I will proceed with restoring the deleted threads.

JFG

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

Mateo:

"Again, you are speaking of an imaginary "traditionalist" group whose bounds you personally have defined in your head."

It's actually defined by the Catholic Church; that's been the point all along. Traditional Catholicism is defined by the Catholic Church. It is the Catholicism that always was and always well be. It's not in my head; it's in the documents of the Catholic Church.

"There are faithful orthodox Catholics, and there are schismatics and heretics." Right... "Do you know how you argue against "conservative" and "liberal" Catholics?" I deny that there are such things in that Catholics are unified in Catholic Truth.

"Well, I've got the same argument against "traditionalists," because the term is vague and "the ambiguity makes the reader draw the conclusion of his choice" of what traditionalism includes."

There's really no need to do so; you can actually just call the traditionalists Catholics instead. My contention all along. The prefix is a temporary label until all things are restored in Christ, and people realize once again what it means to be Catholic; that it includes holding all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and simply leading a life in conformity with those doctrines and in service to Christ and His Church.

"Schismatics deviate from the Faith in their disobedience. Your statements (like "They fail across the globe...") are just unsubstatiated propoganda to boost your cause. I suppose you could attack the Catholic Church in a number of ways (the churches aren't ornate enough, the people aren't pious enough, the words of Vatican II aren't clear enough); but who cares? I care about my soul.

You assume I'm attacking the Church. All traditionalist Catholics are on about is adherence to Catholic doctrine and tradition, and encouraging people to a life of holiness. That's it; that's all of it. If that's attacking the Church, then where exactly do you stand? Is the Ark of Salvation actually moving, or does a moving background on a movie set just make it seem like it's moving?

Look, it's simple. If we uphold doctrine and tradition, all the while while supposedly attacking the Church, then the Church really is perceived by most in our times to be not what it really is. Somehow this is supposed to be alright and reconcilable, but it's not alright.

You say "I've been told to ignore or question the teachings of the Catholic Church by Atheists, Protestants, Orthodox... Muslims... etc."

Well you see, I've got a bit of a problem myself. I've been told by modernist Catholics something opposite: I've been told to embrace many of those religions on that list as being on par with Catholicism. I've been told they all can be saved without entering the Catholic Church. I've been told all this at the expense of Catholic Doctrine, doctrine which lovingly invites them into the One Catholic Church, not doctrine that seeks to damn them.

In other words, I'm being told by my own kind that I must deny the doctrines of my own Catholic Faith.

"And they've usually got an attractive-looking, well thought-out story to sell."

Do they ever, if you apply this statement to what the modernist Catholics are selling. If you mean the traditionalists, they offer something that's never had a price, and that's the doctrine and traditions of beloved Holy Mother Church.

"They all know better than the Catholic Church."

That's right, those modernist Catholics. They really do think they know better than the Catholic Church; even to go so far as to deny Ex Cathedra statements of previous pontiffs.

"Sorry, Emerald, you've chosen the path of second-guessing the Church (I still haven't seen your credentials). I saw that fork in the road long ago. And I consciously chose to remain a faithful Catholic."

Hope you've fully developed that immunity to Iocane Powder. =) Again, if I and a couple buds and budettes have chosen to dig our heels in under the banner of a stubborn adherence to Catholic doctrine and tradition, it's going to be a tall order to portray this as an unfortunate choice of paths. Aside from our perserverance on this road that is; we could always fall off the way. As for your path, more forks will come and before long you'll need allies.

"I spend... more time on rooting out sin in my life, and imitating Christ as best I can. That (along with stuff like changing diapers) is where my priorities are."

I believe you, and in fact, I don't doubt you at all. We disagree on what it means to best conform to Catholicism, that's all. If you think I'm lost, then pray for me, and I'll do likewise for you, and we will both win. I believe prayers like that get answered, and I'm sure you do too.

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

Dear John,

I have been reading through many threads lately, both old and new. I must say I have to agree that this forum has deteriorated somewhat. I know I didn't help things in my zealous days, but I have to say now, even though not Catholic, I don't agree with hack 'n slash tactics that have run rampant on so many threads.

This forum has been through so much turmoil that I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the loyalty and perseverance of an obvious minority. I will always remember the latin term Sectare Fidem, and it is something that has become a testimony of some.

From a non-Catholic to the Catholics here, I offer a word of encouragement. Any trials and tribulations you suffer for the sake of Jesus Christ, you will be rewarded. Take heart in knowing that in the most dire of situations, you have the Holy Spirit within you who embodies the life of the overcoming God-Man, Jesus Christ.

To the moderator, it may be food for thought to open the doors to an expansion of administration. Though I have no doubt that you are a very capable person, it would seem reasonable to have assistance from like-minded Catholics as yourself to help maintain an honorable testimony here.

To the Protestants here who bash Catholics, though you may think you are doing the will of the Father, you really are not. If you pray earnestly, you will discover that the Lord's will encompasses an entirely different sphere of labor. If you have a heart for the gospel, preach Jesus Christ, and this one crucified, resurrected, and ascended. I know from experience that if you go on a conquest to convince people of your theological constructs by attempting to ridicule the Catholic faith, you will be shown for hinderer rather than a planter.

If you have a question about the Catholic faith, I'm sure it will be answered in the grace that it was given. There are many helpful people here with much insight, but please remember, they are fountains of knowledge, and also human beings. More importantly they are God's children, and thus should be treated with respect, sincerity, and integrity.

I myself have in the past grieved in my spirit over the damaging words I have spoken here. I have confessed my sins, and hope that I can shed some light on protestants who are treading the path that I once walked.

To the Catholics who resort to name-calling and protestant-bashing, you really are better than that. When we attack brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, we are attacking Christ Himself. This is indeed serious.

A brother told me, if someone insults us, we should have no offense, yet we should be dreadfully concerned if we offend another. Though such a concept may be opposite to our natural tendencies, it is the kind of life that Christ gives to us. This is not to say that we allow people to spread lies or mistreat us, but we can respond in a way that glorifies Christ.

Anyway, I'm guilty of having attacked in the past, and I can say it wasn't worth it. This forum receives many seeking ones and it is paramount that we cultivate a cherishing and nourishing environment that will be both an encouragement to believers here and a glory to our wonderful God.

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 16, 2003.

Thank you, Olly.

Your true character as a gentleman shines through your sincere words, the best I've seen anyone post here in many days. Several of the Catholics here -- not to mention the ex-Catholic trouble-makers -- need to take your advice and even imitate you in certain ways.

This morning and early afternoon, I went through dozens and dozens of threads (last updated on the 14th, 15th, and 16th), wearing myself ragged by reading and posting many, many replies. Now, throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening, I have been coming across thread after thread filled with utter garbage (including this one) -- and I just can't take it any more. That's why I have been reacting with great emotion. How can people be so sick, so addicted to evil? And how can others tolerate it, without taking severe action? I'll never understand.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

I have contemplated bro, which would be the better solution, to start the forum on a clean slate or to leave things the way they are. Looking at the situation now, it tears me apart to see what has become of the board.

Might I remind some here that this board has a rich heritage. One that goes long before I came onto the scene. Here you would have a channel whereby seekers could come to draw upon the knowledge, faith, and experience of others here. It seems that we are throwing away the very riches that this forum was built on.

I did want to say in closing, that I have experience with programming in Perl. And if it were your and other Catholic's desire, I would be happy to produce a messaging board system that would be flexible and use filtering features etc. Although myself a non-Catholic, I feel burdened to help out. As such, whilest I would have access to maintenance, I would also be happy to co-host the board with a Catholic, or perhaps two. And if all goes smoothly, I'd be happy to grant exclusive rights to Catholic-only maintenace, as I can understand that having a protestant host the board might cause distrust or controversy.

Consider it my contribution back to the community for what I have received.

Olly. PS: I would programme the messaging board according to the desired specs here.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 17, 2003.

"Again, if I and a couple buds and budettes have chosen to dig our heels in under the banner of a stubborn adherence to Catholic doctrine and tradition, it's going to be a tall order to portray this as an unfortunate choice of paths. Aside from our perserverance on this road that is; we could always fall off the way. As for your path, more forks will come and before long you'll need allies. "

Emerald,

You and the schismatic gang are off the path no less than the "modernist heretics" who deny the authority of the Catholic Church. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Your imaginary "Catholic Church" which is made of of schismatics is just as fake as the "Catholic Church" set up by "Pope Pius XIII." It's the same delusion...only the names have been changed.

"Pope Pius XIII" believes that the documents of Vatican II contain doctrinal errors. He also rejects that the popes since Vatican II are heretics for embracing these documents. Would you agree? If so, could you be convinced into becoming a sedevacantist? Why or why not?

Some groups in schism have in the past re-united with Rome; but such a reunion never legitimizes the schism.

BTW, I got a kick out of your "Fr. First-name" tirade. I'm just curious: what doctrines must you deny to call a priest by his first name? What about hugging, is there a "he that huggeth in a church, let him be anathema" hiding somewhere in the Council of Trent? I'm just wondering what doctrines you were forced to deny in the scenerio you described. If they were just breaking Canon Law, isn't that OK with traditionalist schismatics? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right?

It looks like you are more interested in imposing your cultural values on the Catholic Church, even when they have nothing to do with Catholicism. It seems a bit ethno-centric to expect everyone to behave like 1950s Americans, doesn't it?

Regarding: "Mysterium Fidei"

I'm sorry that they didn't teach you this. Have they told you what "missa" means in "Ite missa est"? It doesn't mean "mass!" Can you believe it?

Finally, regarding the line:

"[Church documents] don't require interpretation."

I can't tell you how convinced protestants are that they don't need a Church to interpret the Holy Bible. It's the same mistake, inspired by the same spirit. I can point out a long list of "clear statements" that seemingly contradict the Catholic Church's teachings according to protestants. Does that mean that the protestants have the "real Faith?" No more than the schismatics have the "real Faith."

Until the day when your schismatic friends give up their rebellion, the Church will be praying for them, just as we pray for other schismatics, heretics, and non-believers. That's the point of ecumenism: the hope that people separated from the true Faith may one day be reunited to it.

AMDG,

Mateo

PS--I hope you start reading St. Ignatius. You know he was accused of watering down the faith, don't you?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

Correction #1:

""Pope Pius XIII" believes that the documents of Vatican II contain doctrinal errors. He also believes that the popes since Vatican II are heretics for embracing these documents. Would you agree? If so, could you be convinced into becoming a sedevacantist? Why or why not? "

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

What's the traditionalist's exact error, Mateo?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

"What's the traditionalist's exact error, Mateo? "

As a traditionalist, I don't think that I'm in error by being loyal to the popes and bishops of the 20th century, the 19th century, the 18th, etc, etc. So, I would have to answer: none.

Also, do you understand what the terms "schism" and "schismatic" mean? Let's start from the basics.

Do you believe the Holy Bible's wording is vague?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

That's a good question and I was thinking about that lately.

Yes and no; there's obviously many different interpretations, which accounts for the many Protestant and other deviations from the true Faith.

But the Lord spoke in parables, right, and he constantly said "let those who have ears hear". That's a fact, right? In other places, Scripture lays out exacting declarations.

It's both a yes and a no. We need the Church's authority for interpretation.

Yes on knowing the schism definition. Let me say something, though, about the heart of it. The heart of schism is the destruction of a family. If that sounds too bizarre, I can try to clarify it. If you understand it, let me know; I'm sure you will.

We'll fight over the pink-slip for the term "Traditionalist" later then I suppose.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

"But the Lord spoke in parables, right, and he constantly said "let those who have ears hear". That's a fact, right? In other places, Scripture lays out exacting declarations."

I'm referring to direct statements in the Holy Bible. So I'll change my question:

"Outside of parables, do you believe the Holy Bible's wording is vague?"

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm just not sure that vague is the right word.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

Gene

''Did you see the priest? He was shaking hands! Hugging people! Oh MY! A liberal! A protestant!''

There is nothing wrong with Fr. Firstname hugging and shaking hands. The problem with Fr. Firstname is that his human expressions of love for the faithful *replace* the ultimate act of love: Doing all he can to help the faithful under his care to save their souls.

Fr. Firstname will, no doubt, take the pulpit when it comes time for the homily and talk about the importance of showing kindness for one another. He'll suggest warm smiles for everyone we encounter, doing favors for our neighbors, volunteering at soup kitchens, assisting the elderly with transportation to the grocery store, and the like.

Is there anything wrong with these suggestions? Anything wrong with doing deeds like this? Absolutely not!

But, unfortunately, that's where Fr. Firstname's lesson will end. He won't speak of Hell, man's unworthiness, taking up our crosses, the obligation each of us has to save his own soul and what that entails. He'll say nothing of how we can practice the supreme love for our neighbors which is introducing them to Christ and His Church. He won't because these subjects are "downers" or "insensitive" to our "non-Catholic brethren." No, for Fr. Firstname, as long as the faithful under his care come away from his words feeling happy, that's all that matters.

In another thread a while back., ecumenism was being debated. Another poster (I think it was Joe S., but don't quote me) stated that all this dialoge and ecumenism with folks from other faiths was good: We should join forces with other faiths so that we may together conquer things such as world hunger and abortion. These goals are well and good. But the *primary* mission of the Church is (or at least used to be) the salvation of souls. This humanitarianism has *replaced* something much more purposeful and infinitely more important, for what good is feeding a hungry man in this short life if he's going to lose his soul for eternity?

Jesus Christ shook hands with a leper. He made friends with a convicted thief and insurgent too, when YOU weren't looking, Regina. Good thing for Him. You would've been disgusted.

And like Fr. Firstname, your lesson ends here. Did Our Lord simply practice humanitarianism or was His goal for these unfortunate souls something more?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 17, 2003.

Here's a few definitions of vague to help you out.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks very much, Olly, for your generous offer. However, I could not, in good conscience, accept it, because I already have studied (early this year) more than ten other Catholic discussion forums. There wouldn't be much point in adding yet another one to the list.

Overnight, I decided to put this Forum "on probation" for about three months. If the place is not cleaned up to my satisfaction by the end of February, I will be leaving permanently. I would have to leave, because I would then know that the forum's label -- "Catholic" -- is a fraud, is false advertising.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

Mateo: "The Church heard your point through Luther 500 years ago. What would you like me to learn this time?"

1. The Novus Ordo Missae embodies Luther's ideas as to how a "mass" should be said. Rip out the high altar, turn the priest around.

2. Given 1, it is your position that is kindred with Luther's theology, unless you can show otherwise.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.

Regina had to improvise an answer: ''Father Firstname will, no doubt, -- [in] the homily talk about the importance of showing kindness for one another. He'll suggest warm smiles for everyone we encounter, doing favors for our neighbors, volunteering at soup kitchens, assisting the elderly with transportation to the grocery store, etc.'' --Then so graciously conceded:
''Is there anything wrong with these suggestions? Anything wrong with doing deeds like this? Absolutely not!''

I hope we understand Regina. Her scenario, imaginary to start with, would be REALLY damning, if what the priest was doing had anything offensive to GOD in it. It couldn't; (even if it was fact) but why ask Regina to pass judgment? So, she launches into the problematic part. ''--unfortunately, that's where Fr. Firstname's lesson will end. - - He won't speak of Hell, man's unworthiness, taking up our crosses, the obligation each of us has to save his own soul and what that entails.'' Once more; an assumption. Or; the disparaging remarks.

I wonder if her *Mass of Trent* priest likes to clobber her from the pulpit on Sundays? Does that good pastor condemn non-Catholics, and warm smiles for everyone we encounter, doing favors for our neighbors, volunteering at soup kitchens, assisting the elderly --? I'm sure he does; after all. Regina assures us he's the REAL priest, not Fr. Firstname.

I'm content, as a faithful Catholic --with my pastor's counsel ONE ON ONE, when I confess my sins. He doesn't play down hell and eternal punishment in there. He warns against falling BACK into sin; and the need to do penance. He even gets SERIOUS! Wonder of wonders, Regina! A Novus priest, talking straight talk where it does the most good; confession? And--skipping the ''shucks, folks!'' and bromides? You never heard of this? You never meet them like that in your Tridentine parish Regina? --No. They read you off from the pulpit down at the traditional church. That's why the place is packed on Sundays, because people like you eat it up!

Is Regina ready to improvise some more cock and bull stories?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

Regina completes the story perfectly and extracting the whole point along with it. What she describes has been my life-long experience at every parish I have attended. When traveling to other cities and states, it's only been worse.

I'm sorry, Gene, but you are going up against observable phenomena here. If I agreed with you that the story, both parts, is cock and bull then I would have to deny my own common experience. I would have to deny reality. I've seen worse; I've heard worse.

Mateo, according to your definition of vague, I would say the word doesn't work to describe Scripture. For instance: in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you see a hidden God, not a vague God.

Maybe a different word, then?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

What's worse than not telling people the way of salvation, and guiding them along that path? What could be worse for a priest than to fail in this duty?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

Emerald's impartial reply:

''I'm sorry, Gene, but you are going up against observable phenomena.''

So I'm off the mark? OUR priest never leads us in prayerful communion? But when you elites attend Holy Mass in the Latin, along with all the glories of the past for your greater impulse to love God and grow ardent of heart; --

You hear fire and brimstone sermons and hard line denunciations from the priest in the pulpit? All he ever speaks of is good vs. evil? All in Latin, or with vernacular super-titles? I see.

Yes; then he is the true priest; not the ones I'm following. He has rights to your loyalty but not my priest? This is observable? Oh? In a pig's eye, says me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

Actually, I hardly notice him. He just does his job.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

If you hardly notice him, he can't be much but another useless priest. Regina says Fr.Firstname's guilty of never denouncing sin, or sermonizing on everything in heaven and hell. --You said this is ''observable''. But your ''Trad'' priest is no improvement? Oh Lawdy! He just says everything in Latin. No more, no less. Great!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

"If you hardly notice him, he can't be much but another useless priest."

Yes, there is indeed a virtue called humility.

I'm not looking to him, I'm looking to Mysterium Fidei. I'm there to receive Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament... body, blood, soul and divinity.

I'm there for the sake of His sorrowful Passion, which I had a hand in, and which is also at the same time the Remedy.

Then we go for donuts after Mass.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

sorry.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

I'd be sorry too; if all I could do was weasel out. Save your love for the donuts, Emmer. Don't spare any for your brethren in the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

I didn't weasel out; I just told you what was substantial vs. what was supplemental.

The Mass itself is substantial, and the good virtues and characteristics of the priest are supplemental.

It's like food and vitamins, I guess.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

If you hardly notice him, he can't be much but another useless priest.

< br>Useful.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 17, 2003.

Pardon me; I was subjecting them to Regina's high standards. You know; rap on the congregation about HELL; or about detestable ''modernism''. But if you hardly ''notice'' and he's merely doing his job, Regina might not be impressed. You might consult with her? Thanks, and Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.

"Mateo, according to your definition of vague, I would say the word doesn't work to describe Scripture. For instance: in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you see a hidden God, not a vague God."

Emerald, I asked you a simple yes or no question. Can you answer without trying to change the question? Is the question difficult for you?

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

Jaime,

You are following in Luther's footsteps if you attempt to usurp the authority of the pope and place it on yourself. You are following in protestants' footsteps if you follow a bishop or priest who would attempt to usurp that authority. Or does scripture say, "you are Jaime, and on this rock I will build My church"?

Are you accusing the popes of the past 40 years of heresy for promulgating the current Latin Rite? If so, have I got a pope for you!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 17, 2003.

"Emerald, I asked you a simple yes or no question. Can you answer without trying to change the question? Is the question difficult for you?"

Dialectic. I can do this. Alright, no, I wouldn't say that Scripture is vague.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

How dare you mock me Mateo, I am the Pope!!!!!!!!

Emerald, Jake, Regina, Jamie please come with me and leave these modernist heretics alone. Carpe Diem!

-- I am the Pope (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

The incarnation of a strawman. Wow.

Did you know this guy holds your same twist on extra ecclesiam nulla solus?

That means, if he really was the pope, then you wouldn't have to join truecatholic...

Sometimes you have to think ahead.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

Emerald,

You are obsessed with Hegel. Is he your hero?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Can't stand him.

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

Emerald, I have yet to find where this guy's writings differ from what I've read on the SSPX and other schismatic sites. He's got the same tired, bitter story.

Schismatics follow their "inner-pope." This guy just took it one step further, pretending to himself and others.

I've not seen any attempt to differentiate the various factions of schismatic traditionalists from the "truecatholic.org" version of schism.

On the other hand, he's only breaking Canon Law, right? In that case, why shun this ally? You might need him as an ally one day...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"Can't stand him [Hegel]."

If so, why assume that my posts are influenced by his technique [dialectic]? How did you did you discern this vs. the Socratic Method or something else?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"I've not seen any attempt to differentiate the various factions of schismatic traditionalists from the "truecatholic.org" version of schism."

Of course not. That would require someone to actually approach the subject based a knowledge of the principles that are involved in the matter.

We can't seem to rise to the occasion, though, without the postconciliar Catholic laypontiffs issuing anethemas upon their traditionalist Catholic brethren, who they seem to believe have a mysterious relationship with schism and heresy... if they aren't actually in schism, why, they must be on a dangerous trajectory towards schism, a cute little theologically impossible phrase coined by someone I know. A layman, at that.

This must be the new interpretation of the priesthood of the laity, I guess.

In order to approach the matter the right way, it would be somewhat helpful... nay! but would be most necessary, for people to descend from their wild-eyed accusations that traditional Catholics are heretics or schismatics because they refuse to yield an inch to the deviations of doctrine and proper liturgical expression which occur in conciliar Catholicism.

Until they approach the subject based upon principle of Catholic doctrine, then we can't get there.

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

Emerald,

You still haven't got a clue what the term "schism" means. Why is this so hard for you?

I think part of the reason for the disunity of traditionalist schismatics is their suspicion that the various other factions of "tradionalism" have the "smoke of Satan" in them. And I don't think that their suspicions are unfounded.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"If so, why assume that my posts are influenced by his technique [dialectic]? How did you did you discern this vs. the Socratic Method or something else?"

Dialectic = Good

Hegelian "Dialectic" = Bad

I'll take the dialectic anytime, the Socratic kind. Remember a while back I said that your approach to answering the problems we see in the Church was not going to work, in that it fell victim to the left/right/center game? I can't remember what thread this was on, or the topic. I must have been months ago. But at any rate, I had a similiar way of thinking as you a while back, but it never quite set well with me and I had to figure out why. The trickery of Hegelian Dialectic answers the question, plus solves tons more. I still need to find out more about it. Our entire society is imbued with this kind of thinking, and it's hard to keep free of it.

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

"You still haven't got a clue what the term "schism" means. Why is this so hard for you?"

Sure I do, and actually, it has been hard to figure out. What's easy is to make accusations; that's easy. What's been difficult is to get an idea of the truth.

Try this... roll back the tape to a couple years before Ecclesia Dei. There were traditionalist Catholics, right? They existed, right? No games with the word traditional now, you know what I'm refering to.

Ok, now, were these traditionalist Catholics in schism?

If so, why?

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

"Remember a while back I said that your approach to answering the problems we see in the Church was not going to work, in that it fell victim to the left/right/center game? I can't remember what thread this was on, or the topic. I must have been months ago. But at any rate, I had a similiar way of thinking as you a while back, but it never quite set well with me and I had to figure out why."

It's OK, Emerald. I used to think like you, but that didn't set well with me either.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I don't want anyone to think like me; I wish they would just seek out answers to questions instead of merely resting in a common attitude as a solution to what they see going on.

Unless they don't see any problem at all. To me, that's a real bad condition. But that's not you is it? Is everything fine in the Church and it's all a delusion?

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

"Try this... roll back the tape to a couple years before Ecclesia Dei. There were traditionalist Catholics, right? They existed, right? No games with the word traditional now, you know what I'm refering to.

Ok, now, were these traditionalist Catholics in schism?"

Try rolling the clock back 1000 years. The Eastern Church was Catholic, right?

I don't see any difference between the two situations.

I'm going to ask you a simple question you didn't answer in the past: do you believe that a priest who leaves his vocation to marry could (as a married priest) start up his own church? Understanding your point of view, let us assume that this theoretical priest would refer to himself by his last name and never hug any parishioners. As long as he never taught contrary to any Catholic doctrine, would this priest be in schism? Why or why not?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"I don't want anyone to think like me; I wish they would just seek out answers to questions instead of merely resting in a common attitude as a solution to what they see going on."

And I wish that people wouldn't have a double standard in which their boogie man is manifested by assuming the worst in them, while their rose-colored glasses stay on when needed to defend their fragile position.

"Unless they don't see any problem at all. To me, that's a real bad condition. But that's not you is it? Is everything fine in the Church and it's all a delusion?"

I wonder what is behind these questions. Has the answer to these questions not appeared in my posts only in the past couple days?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Tace Mateo! (Pesky neos, always get in the way with the damn truth)Now where were we.... I am the Pope! Caveat Emptor! O tempora! O mores! COme home Cardinal Emeraldus! (yes you heard right... youre my man!) I am the Pope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Captain oh my Captain! Carpe Diem!

-- I am the Pope (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 18, 2003.

"I don't see any difference between the two situations."

I do, and it's based on principles of Catholic truth. In fact, get this: The post conciliar Catholic's "everything the Pope says and does demands absolute assent" understanding of the papacy and sedevacantism, yes, sedevacantism as in the website you linked to above, they both rest upon the same error in understanding of the nature of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Church and it's proper excercise.

Post coniliar Catholicism and Sedevacantism rest upon the self-same misunderstanding, from two different sides. It's not the same as the outlay of a spectrum for a synthesis though, as it revolves around a single principle.

"I'm going to ask you a simple question you didn't answer in the past: do you believe that a priest who leaves his vocation to marry could (as a married priest) start up his own church? Understanding your point of view, let us assume that this theoretical priest would refer to himself by his last name and never hug any parishioners. As long as he never taught contrary to any Catholic doctrine, would this priest be in schism? Why or why not?"

It all depends upon whether he rejects the Roman Papacy. No doubt he is excommunicated latae sentencae. Any person who rejects the Roman Pontiff is excommunicated, but not every person who is excommunicated is a schismatic.

Schism would have nothing to do with the "marriage" part, nothing to do with whether he holds the whole of Catholic doctrine or not, but it may have something to do with "starting up his own Church". If you mean a building, perhaps there is no schism... but if it's the actual setting up of body of believers admittedly not subject to the Roman Pontiff, then yes, it's schism.

That's to the best of my understanding.

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

"And I wish that people wouldn't have a double standard in which their boogie man is manifested by assuming the worst in them, while their rose-colored glasses stay on when needed to defend their fragile position."

That sounds exactly, and I mean completely, like the average NuvoCatholic person to me. Pardon the coined term; it's just easier to use now and then.

I said:

"Unless they don't see any problem at all. To me, that's a real bad condition. But that's not you is it? Is everything fine in the Church and it's all a delusion?"

To which you said:

"I wonder what is behind these questions. Has the answer to these questions not appeared in my posts only in the past couple days?"

No! Not at all, that I can see, and I'm being honest. I don't have a clear idea at all of your take on things, except that you don't like traditionlist Catholics. Seriously.

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

Now that Emm is safe; having muddied the waters for a minute, I take this liberty. I see Emerald's dithyrambical protestation: ''. . . In fact, get this: The post conciliar Catholic's "everything the Pope says and does demands absolute assent" understanding of the papacy and sedevacantism, sedevacantism . . . the same error in understanding of the nature of the ordinary and supreme magisterium.'' --Come again, --?

Please, Professor! -- God means that although men can be wrong or confused, as holy mother Church they are uplifted in the Holy Spirit! ''Demand absolute assent'' (your words) means to HIM. You lose all sense of the Divine when posing all your academic problems. Have you ever had faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

"Have you ever had faith?"

In all honesty, not really until I became what you know as a traditionalist Catholic.

I'm going to go to bed now. It did cross my mind, though, Gene, that since we trads are so holier than thou that I could bi-locate to bed, and stay up and post some more.

Goodnight! lol.

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

"That sounds exactly, and I mean completely, like the average NuvoCatholic person to me. Pardon the coined term; it's just easier to use now and then."

This is the problem of schismatic traditionalism. It's easier to see their own faults in others:

Romans 2:1 "For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

"No! Not at all, that I can see, and I'm being honest. I don't have a clear idea at all of your take on things, except that you don't like traditionlist Catholics. Seriously."

As a tradional Catholic, I would hardly say that I dislike people whom I agree with. If you don't have a "clear idea at all of [my] take on things," then why do you converse with me as if you have a perfect understanding of my "take on things," even to the point of claiming that my "take on things" was where you once stood?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"In all honesty, not really until I became what you know as a traditionalist Catholic."

Emerald, that's quite a statement...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

This is the problem of schismatic traditionalism. It's easier to see their own faults in others: Romans 2:1 "For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

Mateo... think, my friend. Think! What group in this forum is more highly judged, as persons, as to their intentions, as to their actual status before God, than the traditionalists? That's one statement I would absolutely enjoy discussing because I believe it is so untrue and in many ways at the heart of the discussion.

"As a tradional Catholic, I would hardly say that I dislike people whom I agree with. If you don't have a "clear idea at all of [my] take on things," then why do you converse with me as if you have a perfect understanding of my "take on things," even to the point of claiming that my "take on things" was where you once stood?"

Because your objections to what traditionalist Catholics are and stand for is the same as the rest of those who, let's not say dislike, but those who take issue with them. I did as much once, which is why...

..."In all honesty, not really until I became what you know as a traditionalist Catholic."

...had any faith, that is. Emerald, that's quite a statement...

It is, but don't misinterpret it until I get home from work.

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

Mateo:

if you attempt to usurp the authority of the pope and place it on yourself

I have not done this,

You are following in protestants' footsteps if you follow a bishop or priest who would attempt to usurp that authority

. . . nor have I done that.

Still no explanation of why the Novus Ordo Missae embodies Luther's ideas, then? As I thought.

You may now re-commence insinuations of my association with Luther and heretical cranks while keeping your head in the sand.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

Italics

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

Jaime,

At the risk of repeating myself, I have yet to meet a schismatic or heretic who actually thinks that he is a schismatic or heretic.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Couldn't the same be said for Modernist heretics?

It is a heresy, y'know.

Point bing, when it comes to religion, everyone believs themselves to possess the truth, and, necessarily, for all othrs not in agreement with them to follow a religion that is false, or at least imperfect. Heck, you Novus Ordos sure can't seem to agree on much. You spend just as much time "corrcting" each other as you do insulting Traditional Catholics.

We could go back & forth forever, but I think Scripture compares what's going on here to a dog chasing its tail (I guess that would be my own, private, personal interpretation, though, and no, I don't have chapter & verse). Who "wins" is just a question of who gets tired & goes home first.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

"Couldn't the same be said for Modernist heretics?

No, Jake. Modernist heretics (if any were to post here) would know how to close an italics tag. Truly, HTML errors almost exclusively occur with traditionalist schismatics.

"It is a heresy, y'know."

What is a heresy? Who are you accusing?

BTW, is conforming to Canon Law optional, in your opinion, Jake?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Matty, hee, funny about the html. So what about Luther's ideas being embodied in the Novus Ordo Missae?

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

HTML errors almost exclusively occur with traditionalist schismatics.

If I ever run into any I'll ask them about that...

...as for us Traditional Catholics, we're not making errors. We're posting in code, passing crucial information to our SSPX contacts overseas about the precise GPS location of the Greenspun server so that they can program their intercontinental ballistic missiles accordingly, all right under your noses, too.

What is a heresy? Who are you accusing?

Modernism is a heresy, and those guilty of embracing it would never admit as much. I accuse no one, however. I only lament that almost no one listened to St. Pius X when he tried to warn the Church 100 years ago. The sad evidence is everywhere.

BTW, is conforming to Canon Law optional, in your opinion, Jake?

It's not optional to conform to any just law, as long as I don't endanger myself or anyone else by doing so. Sometimes laws don't apply, though. Killing, for instance, is an evil act forbidden by law and the Commandments of God. However, sometimes it's morally and legally justified, as in cases of self-defense and capital punishment.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

Luther was a Catholic. He disobeyed the Pope and was excommunicated.

Ideas aren't heresy; not when the 2nd Vatican Council with the Holy Spirit implements one. You just have it in for anything protestant, including Mass in vernacular languages.

But the ideas per se of protestants aren't necessarily offensive to the Holy Spirit; or contrary to Catholicism. What the Holy Spirit rejects is a church not founded by Christ and His apostles. When Luther went that far, his idea flopped. So:

Go back to your drawing board. Get a better stick to bash with.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

"Modernism is a heresy, and those guilty of embracing it would never admit as much. I accuse no one, however.

OK...so there are those that are guilty, yet you don't accuse anyone. Hmmm...

"I only lament that almost no one listened to St. Pius X when he tried to warn the Church 100 years ago.

I doubt that you are qualified to prove such an assertion.

"The sad evidence is everywhere. "

Umm...OK. Thank goodness for the schismatic traditionalists! They're going to save the Church one day. L@L

"It's not optional to conform to any just law, as long as I don't endanger myself or anyone else by doing so. Sometimes laws don't apply, though. Killing, for instance, is an evil act forbidden by law and the Commandments of God. However, sometimes it's morally and legally justified, as in cases of self-defense and capital punishment."

So, is there a Canon Law that you believe is unjust?

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

Jaime, regarding your SSPX link. Protestants have used the same technique of posting anti-Catholic diatribes (pages long) and waiting for us to reply--I've even tried to respond point-by-point, and they just ignore my answers. They are happy to waste my time; while the only effort they are ready to put into debate is proselytizing with their link. They probably post the same link over and over and over again.

The idea is that if we don't reply to every letter of their link (or cut-and-paste), then we Catholics have no answer (why belong to a religion that can't answer their questions?). I'm not going to refute every line of this schismatic deceased bishop, because I don't think that my clear answers would produce much fruit. True believers in schism or heresy are seldom ready to be proven wrong.

If you want to put in some effort (a little more than pointing us to a schismatic website) and actually ask a specific question on a new thread, I'd be happy to answer you.

I have spent plenty of time showing the parallels of Luther and schismatic traditionalists with concrete examples. To be told "the Catholic Mass is inspired by Luther because an excommunicated bishop says so" is a bit of a cop-out.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I have spent plenty of time showing the parallels of Luther and schismatic traditionalists with concrete examples. To be told "the Catholic Mass is inspired by Luther because an excommunicated bishop says so" is a bit of a cop-out.

Pardon me, King Cop-Out, but you (surprise!) twisted our words. That Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out the striking similarities between Luther's Mass and the Novus Ordo is of little consequence to us. He provided us with a short, comprehensive comparision, which we've found very helpful. This argument has nothing to do with the good bishop. It has to do with the *fact* that there are similarities between what Luther wanted and what *you* got. What of the article in and of itself, Mateo? It makes no difference who wrote it and what you think of him. The facts are there.

Please don't go the JFG route and feign that you've compared "traditional schismatics" with Luther sucessfully and just can't or won't go into it again. You have done no such thing at all, ever.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

"I have spent plenty of time showing the parallels of Luther and schismatic traditionalists with concrete examples."

I look, I see, and the facts don't fit the theory.

I've spent a small amount of time, as a traditional Catholic, trying to undo errors taught be a real Lutheran in a Catholic parish teaching real heresy in some ecumenical program. I'll spend more if I can.

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

"Pardon me, King Cop-Out,"

My, oh my. Accusations without proof. "Guilty until proven innocent" seems to be par for the course for tradionalist schismatics attacking Catholics and the Catholic Church.

It's a shame that your own belief is such a perversion of the Faith that Our Lord founded. Disobedience for the greater glory of God. Isn't that how Lefebvre wanted it? Yawn...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"I look, I see, and the facts don't fit the theory."

Emerald, you may look...and you may see...but do you read?

When you write things like this ("I don't have a clear idea at all of your take on things"), I tend to think your retention of my posts is about nil. With that in mind, I'm not surprised you are still not convinced.

You have to read my posts to understand. But that would involve taking off your blinders.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"This argument has nothing to do with the good bishop."

Good excommunicated bishop?

"but you (surprise!) twisted our words."

What words have I "twisted"? Calumny for the greater glory of God? Please...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Accusations without proof. "Guilty until proven innocent" seems to be par for the course for tradionalist schismatics attacking Catholics and the Catholic Church.

Mateo, I've asked you several questions over the last couple of days: regarding the problems in the church, your opinion about the article I linked to, whether a bishop who allows the SSPX to celebrate mass in his cathedral is schismatic...Each and every time you responded with nothing but sarcasm and ridicule. You copped-out.

BTW, I saw your comment about Lefebvre being excommunicated.

St. Athanasius was, too.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

What words have I "twisted"? Calumny for the greater glory of God? Please

You stated that we believe that Luther's mass and the N.O. Mass were similiar *because* Archbishop Lefebvre said so. We never said that or implied it. It'd be true whether he said it or not. Facts are like that...

Evading questions and changing the subject for the greater glory of God? Please.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

Regina, I think we have to give up on Mateo explaining why the Novus Ordo Missae retains Luther-an theology.

I haven't participated in this board nearly as long as some of you have, but I sense this is the dominant pattern: when faced with the truth, when confronted with it again and again, firmly retain head in sand.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

"Mateo, I've asked you several questions over the last couple of days: regarding the problems in the church, your opinion about the article I linked to, whether a bishop who allows the SSPX to celebrate mass in his cathedral is schismatic...Each and every time you responded with nothing but sarcasm and ridicule. You copped-out. "

Regina, you play the victim quite well. I myself ask endless valid questions and get no reply from schismatics. I could only hope for sarcasm or ridicule (well, I do get Jake's pictures). That would at least be acknowledgement that the question was received.

Regarding your SSPX masses in Rome, I gave you a lengthy answer to your question. Did you not read my response? I'd really like an honest answer.

What a joke to misrepresent my response as "copping out" or "ridiculing." You wonder why I tire of dialog with you guys? It's because you keep pushing your calumny, as if such un-Christian behavior will convince someone to embrace your schism.

"St. Athanasius was [excommunicated], too."

And so was Martin Luther. We've been down this road, have we not?

In contrast, St. Ignatius of Loyola wasn't excommunicated, even though some of his contemporaries accused him of being too progressive and watering down the Catholic Faith among believers and his priests (I've got plenty of support for this). Study the origins of the Society of Jesus. You'll learn something. Most importantly, you'll learn that the SSPX schismatics are not an authority on Ignatian spirituality.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Solus Ignatius?

=)

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

I myself ask endless valid questions and get no reply from schismatics.

Perhaps you could invite some schismatics to the forum and get the answers you seek from them.

Regarding your SSPX masses in Rome, I gave you a lengthy answer to your question. Did you not read my response? I'd really like an honest answer.

"Lengthy?" One sarcastic sentence regarding ecumenism?

The Pope giving a church to the Orthodox is just one more slap in the face to Holy Mother Church. That he would recognize a church who clearly denies his God-given authority, while thumbing his nose at the SSPX who pray for him at each and every Mass, and preserve the Traditions which were his shelter and comfort when he was young, and recognize his authority, is inexcuseable.

You wonder why I tire of dialog with you guys?

I don't wonder. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

It's because you keep pushing your calumny, as if such un- Christian behavior will convince someone to embrace your schism.

You play the victim quite well, yourself. No one's engaging in calumny, except of course the constant use of epithets such as "schismatic and heretic" and comparisons to horrible men like Luther without the benefit of an explanation as to what makes us such things.

And so was Martin Luther. We've been down this road, have we not?

Yeah, but it never quite got settled. Athanasius was "excommunicated" for clinging to the faith. Luther was excommunicated for deviating from it.

Most importantly, you'll learn that the SSPX schismatics are not an authority on Ignatian spirituality.

We'll talk more about that when I return from my 5 day Ignatian Retreat at the SSPX Retreat House. God willing, I'll be going this spring.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

"The Pope giving a church to the Orthodox is just one more slap in the face to Holy Mother Church. That he would recognize a church who clearly denies his God-given authority, while thumbing his nose at the SSPX who pray for him at each and every Mass, and preserve the Traditions which were his shelter and comfort when he was young, and recognize his authority, is inexcuseable."

Hmmm...many schismatics and heretics pray for the pope. They pray for him to do what they want, instead of praying that he do what Our Lord wants.

Something to ponder on your "Ignatian retreat":

"For this reason you must never try to draw the will of the superior (which you should consider the will of God) to your own will. This would not be making the divine will the rule of your own, but your own the rule of the divine, and so distorting the order of His wisdom. It is a great delusion in those whose understanding has been darkened by self-love, to think that there is any obedience in the subject who tries to draw the superior to what he wishes. Listen to Saint Bernard, who had much experience in this matter: "Whoever endeavors either openly or covertly to have his spiritual father enjoin him what he himself desires, deceives himself if he flatters himself as a true follower of obedience. For in that he does not obey his superior, but rather the superior obeys him." And so he concludes that he who wishes to rise to the virtue of obedience must rise to the second degree, which, over and above the execution, consists in making the superior's will one's own, or rather putting off his own will to clothe himself with the divine will interpreted by the superior."

Solus Ignatius? Maybe... ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

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

...comparisons to horrible men like Luther without the benefit of an explanation as to what makes us such things.

I have only made the comparison when I see a parallel, which I explain in an appropriate level of detail. Just tbecause you choose not to read my explanation does not mean that I didn't give an explanation.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Remember, just because you think someone doesn't read your explanation doesn't mean they didn't.

Frank, however, has openly told me that he didn't read one of my explanations, and it's not uncommon to get that reaction from our separating brethren around here, and were usually told so... something like this: "I got a third the way through and determined that I shouldn't have".

About explaining stuff, though: just because anyone approaches someone with the Faith doesn't mean that they will accept it if it is well presented. It's common for the ecumenist to approach an audience with the assumption that if they execute a flawless performance, that people, having been presented with the goods of the Faith, will naturally pick it up and run with it. Good luck; the world hates the Catholic Faith. If the New Springtime were a fundraiser dinner, it would be the opposite of the way the world works; a successful New Springtime doesn't rest on the backs of the guest speaker but on the servants hidden in the kitchen.

So often in this forum traditionalists are assumed to be lacking understanding, and one of the good people of the forum is going to fill us in. It's more than a little hard to accept a solution from those who are unaware of a problem.

I've read your quote, Mateo, and dozens more like it from other Saints saying similiar things as well. Don't think for one minute any one of us doesn't know what Ignatius is talking about, or that we don't agree with it. That's not what's at issue here.

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

"So often in this forum traditionalists are assumed to be lacking understanding, and one of the good people of the forum is going to fill us in. It's more than a little hard to accept a solution from those who are unaware of a problem."

I do think it takes a lack of understanding to leave the Catholic Faith for a schism, as do most traditional Catholics faithful to the Church. Your last sentence just doesn't make logical sense: if someone presents a solution, wouldn't the presentation of a solution prove the awareness of a problem?

My belief is that history is repeating itself with the schismatic gang: Martin Luther thought that Catholics didn't see any abuses in the Church at all levels 500 years ago. And he railed against what he thought were abuses. And he tried to create a independent church free from abuses.

Now, the schismatics think that Catholics don't see any abuses in the Church. And they rail against what they think are abuses (apparently priests going by their first name is an abuse). And they are trying to create an independent church free from abuses.

"I've read your quote, Mateo, and dozens more like it from other Saints saying similiar things as well. Don't think for one minute any one of us doesn't know what Ignatius is talking about, or that we don't agree with it."

I'm sure you agree with it when you can apply it to the evil "modernists." I wonder if you see that the same error can be applied to schismatic traditionalists. Two wrongs don't make a right. Disobedient heresy (where it occurs) isn't solved by disobedient schism. As you would say, that's the "ways of man."

Start watering your dry stick!

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"Remember, just because you think someone doesn't read your explanation doesn't mean they didn't."

When they say I didn't provide an explanation after I wrote one, I take that as a hint.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

We get the same thing.

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

"I do think it takes a lack of understanding to leave the Catholic Faith for a schism..."

Mateo, the traditionalists in this forum haven't left the Faith.

Sorry, but I'll just keep saying they haven't because it's true that they haven't left the Faith.

You are going to judge them to be schismatics, you are going to judge them as not holding the Faith. You. You are going to condemn them.

I will continue to stand as a wedge between them and that. It's in the interest of not rending unity.

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

And I ain't gonna move.

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

Particularly, Emerald; because all of us are traditionalists. I know I am. Not only the Elite.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

Elite enough to judge who is and who isn't the Elite, I see.

Well, if elite is the antithesis of LUKEWARM, I'll take it.

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

I suppose you figure we confont your egotism like gangbusters because we like Catholicism lukewarm?

Would you be lukewarm defending your mother from an injustice? I really doubt it.

Before you protest that we are attacking yours, look at what we put up with. You say we're step-children and you are the ''real'' Church. On account of, what? A Council you can't reconcile with the past? A hierarchy that failed to consult you and took away (?) What?

We will always have the Tridentine Rite. It wasn't erased. No -- You want Novus Ordo erased. ''It's MY party and I'll CRY if I want to; Bwa-a-aa ! ! ! ''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

Oh, quit with the blindness. Go back to the top of this thread and read.

Robert was languishing in the Novus Ordo way not more than a year ago... he wasn't even aware that Christ was present in the Blessed Sacrament not a little over a year ago, if my memory serves me right on the details. He comes across De Monfort and happens upon this forum. He happens upon the Tridentine Rite of the Mass and begins to discover the rich tradition of his Catholic Faith.

He has the grace to thank his enemies above; people who have abused his response to the Call of the Holy Ghost Himself.

Now he's entering a Benedictine Monastery where he's going to wake up at 4am every morning and prayer for the salvation of your soul.

Somehow this is bad.

Now see, I'm in bad way like this too. I need to take on the ways of the forum. I need to come down off my doctrinal and liturgical highhorse and take on humility. I can learn humility from the others in the forum, no doubt.

You're a funny guy, Eugene, but I'll pass on your advice.

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

"I will continue to stand as a wedge between them and that. "

You're the synthesis of obedience and disobedience.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Obedience, disobedience, Emerald! ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Just when Emmerald is gaining some ground, we find that his pants are falling:

''Robert was languishing in the Novus Ordo way not more than a year ago... he wasn't even aware that Christ was present in the Blessed Sacrament,'' --? ? ?

Haw, SHHHHHeeitt! ''Languishing!'' In a false religion? And DAT NASTY OLD NOVUS CHOICH NEVER TOLD ANYBODY JESUS MIGHT BE TRULY PRESENT IN DA BLESSED SACRAMENT!

OK, Emerauld. We understand. It's no use pretending anymore; all Novus Ordo Catholics are ignorant. We don't measure up to YOU; the ELITE. Robert is ample proof. He's the saint what changed the Catholic faith! We must all follow him, and be real Catholics. Nuff said!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

lol!!!

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

Hmmm...many schismatics and heretics pray for the pope. They pray for him to do what they want, instead of praying that he do what Our Lord wants.

I don't know if heretics or schismatics pray for the Pope. If they do, great. But as far as what they ask for in their prayers is something you'll have to ask them.

As for Traditional Catholics, we pray that the Holy Father will restore all things in Christ.

"For this reason you must never try to draw the will of the superior (which you should consider the will of God) to your own will.

Excellent! But I do wonder, though, if Cardinal Mahoney's actions, for instance, are God's will. God, not taking away the Cardinal's free will, is allowing this Cardinal to continue in his corruption of the Faith (and so is the Pope, allowing Mahoney, that is)for reasons of His own, which I don't question, but is this corruption, this bad example, pleasurable to God, I wonder? And if it isn't, do you think St. Ignatius would want me to pray for the continuance of this corruption - which is the will of Mahoney, or rather for the Cardinal to revert, confess and repent, and if not, to be cast out?

The point is and my question for you is: How would St. Ignatius council me if, based upon his public actions and words, a 'superior' is leading or attempting to lead the faithful in his care astray? Should the faithful allow themselves to be lead astray (which you would call 'obedience' I guess) or should they speak out against the 'superior' who isn't leading as Our Lord directed and cling to the truth (which you would call disobedience and schism)? Of course to answer this, you'd have to believe a superior could corrupt the faith, which I'm not sure you entirely believe.

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

I wrote: "I'm sure you agree with it when you can apply it to the evil "modernists." I wonder if you see that the same error can be applied to schismatic traditionalists. Two wrongs don't make a right. Disobedient heresy (where it occurs) isn't solved by disobedient schism. As you would say, that's the "ways of man." "

How long did this take for me to be proven right? A few hours?

"The point is and my question for you is: How would St. Ignatius council me if, based upon his public actions and words, a 'superior' is leading or attempting to lead the faithful in his care astray? Should the faithful allow themselves to be lead astray (which you would call 'obedience' I guess) or should they speak out against the 'superior' who isn't leading as Our Lord directed and cling to the truth (which you would call disobedience and schism)? Of course to answer this, you'd have to believe a superior could corrupt the faith, which I'm not sure you entirely believe. "

Well, first Regina, your posts seem to indicate that priests who go by their first name and hug people are (by those actions) leading you astray. My point here is this: if you (or any other schismatic) have been taught what you believe to be a heresy, don't tell us about something un-related (like first names or hugs); get to the point. As it is, pinning schismatics down on what heresies have been forced on them is quite difficult. I seldom get a straight answer.

I myself have heard priests (even bishops) say some horribly un-true things; but this has not led me to abandon the Catholic Church for an imaginary "Catholic Church" (this is quite similar to protestants who claim that Christ didn't establish a visible Church).

I myself am quite convinced that St. Ignatius of Loyola heard some pretty heretical teachings from priests and bishops; yet he never chose to be disobedient to the Church or its bishops. He always acted in obedience to the popes and bishops.

I have already given in detail my personal answer to your questions in the past (specifically, I answered in great detail to Jake and Ed R.). In this thread, most of your questions can be answered by reading the quotes (I believe they are in this thread) from St. Ignatius' letters that I provided. In addition to looking for the answers in St. Ignatius' letters, your answers can be found in the following book:

Father, Forgive me for I am Frustrated by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

As it is, pinning schismatics down on what heresies have been forced on them is quite difficult. I seldom get a straight answer.

One. More. Time: Modernism is a heresy, and it has been steadily inflicted on the Church since the Second Vatican Council, which not only failed to condemn it, but openly embraced it.

What's really difficult is getting Novus Ordos to admit what they know is true not only in their hearts, but verified time and again by the Church's authentic Magesterium; If you Novus Ordos can't find a link on EWTN to support your hunches, you assume them to be false.

Sola Angelica?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

Nothing changes around here. Eugene, Mateo, and especially Gecik, are still firing blanks. Lot of words, and nothing said.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 19, 2003.

We have a reference to modernism in one pope's letter; and it was concerning many trends he saw well before the this era and Vatican II. Regarding the word heresy; all here agree it must deal with changes in holy doctrine, or denials of revealed truth, not modern trends in society.

I can condemn something very heartily without calling it a heresy. That's overkill. Is cruelty to animals a heresy? Is not paying what we owe heresy? They may be contemptible to a believing Catholic. But labelling them heresy is absurd.

You do this repeatedly here; on account of the ostensible ''abuses'' you have seen. ''Abuses'' like failing to genuflect, singing banal hymns, the ''table'' called an altar, unmotivational homilies, emphasis on ecumenism, incorrect rubrics???

Improper rubrics would be a true abuse, and obviously a faulty celebration of Holy Mass. If this were actually so. But it isn't. Our rubric stands as correct according to the authorised leaders of the Catholic Church, endorsed by the Pope. The only true difference is language and stronger emphasis on the liturgy of the Word.

Other faults may be reprehensible, but they aren't programmed abuses. The faults of indiividuals don't redound to the Mass; and the Mass continues Holy as long as it is carefully celebrated. In Latin or the vernacular.

If you consider hokey music and lazy participants or holding hands during the Our Father ''Modernism the heresy'', you are sadly mistaken. The Creed has not been corrupted. The Mass is Holy. The Sacraments are valid and help us to grace. The holy priesthood is as active and faithful as it ever was; notwithstanding what everybody acknowledges as scandal. No one approves of scandal, nor of radical priests. They are NOT prevalent in any way, in our modern Church. And Modernism in the societal sense we can see today is NOT heretical. It may be suspect in some quarters. We certainly denounce that; but we deny any heresy. When you come to us routinely denouncing some perceived ''heresy'' relating to Vatican II, intellectual dishonesty sticks out all over you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

Once again an endless barrage of words is thrown at the church. Disobey the Magesterium, is the intended result.

Sorry, the Holy Spirit hasn't promised to guide schismatics, only the Catholic Church. Make up your minds, get in, or get out.

Frank

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

Modernism is a heresy

I didn't say that accusations were hard for schismatics to make. Just the proof is never shown. I suppose we're just supposed to take your word for it.

A priest going by his first name? Altar girls? That's proof positive! It must be modernism--the schismatics are so perceptive! L@L

Oh, Jake, why don't you post a picture from seattlecatholic.com?

Solus Seattlus Catholicus?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Oh, Jake, why don't you post a picture from seattlecatholic.com? OK, let's post possible captions. This could be fun.



-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

Boy, I hope the schismatics haven't revoked St. Francis of Assisi's sainthood for his questionable practices with animals!

AMDG,

Mateo

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

A modernist preaching to birds...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Mateo,

I'm sorry to say it, but you missed Jake's point. He isn't concerned that a priest would be out blessing children's animals (which only a true low-life would be), but is in fact ENRAGED that the priest is facing the girl while doing so! As any schismatic knows, the blessing should be performed over the shoulder so that the priest remains facing the altar (or altar substitute, anywhere but towards his congregation) during the whole procedure.

The other thing that must frost him is the orientation of the altar in this picture. Looking at the shadows it appears to be in a North/South orientation, so the priest isn't facing East, (regardless of whether the shot was taken in the am or pm) Unbelievable but true. I don't know what this guy was thinking, but he'd better bring a compass next time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 20, 2003.

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy. As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

You guessed wrong.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

*fingers in ears*

Litany of the Virgin Mary (Litany of Loreto

Litany of the (real) Holy Ghost

The Divine Praises

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin by St. Louis de Monfort... the entire book online.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Protestation for a Good Death

By St. Alphonsus Liguori

My God, prostrate in Thy presence I adore Thee; and I intend to make the following protestation, is if I were on the point of passing from this life into eternity.

My Lord, because Thou art the infallible Truth, and hast revealed it to the Holy Church, I believe in the mystery of the most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons, but only one God; Who for all eternity rewards the just in Heaven, and punishes the wicked in Hell. I believe that the Second Person, that is, the Son of God, became Man, and died for the salvation of mankind; and I believe all that the Holy Church believes. I thank Thee for having made me a Christian, and I protest that I will live and die in this holy Faith.

My God, my Hope, trusting in Thy promises, I hope from Thy mercy, not through my own merits, but through the merits of Jesus Christ, for the pardon of my sins, perseverance in Thy grace, and, after this miserable life, the glory of Paradise. And should the devil at death tempt me to despair at the sight of my sins, I protest that I will always hope in Thee, O Lord, and that I desire to die in the loving arms of Thy goodness.

O God, worthy of infinite love, I love Thee with my whole heart, more than I love myself; and I protest that I desire to die making an act of love that I may thus continue to love Thee eternally in Heaven which, for this end, I desire and ask of Thee. And if hitherto, O Lord, instead of loving Thee, I have despised Thy infinite goodness, I repent of it with all my heart, and I protest that I wish to die, always weeping over and detesting the offences I have committed against Thee. I purpose for the future rather to die than ever to sin again; and for the love of Thee I pardon all who have offended me.

O my God, I accept death, and all the sufferings which will accompany it; I unite it with the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and offer it in acknowledgment of Thy supreme dominion, and in satisfaction for my sins. Do Thou, O Lord, accept of this sacrifice which I make of my life, for the love of that great Sacrifice which Thy Divine Son made of Himself upon the altar of the Cross. I resign myself entirely to Thy Divine will, as though I were now on my death- bed, and protest that I wish to die, saying: O Lord, always Thy will be done.

Most holy Virgin, my Advocate and my Mother Mary, thou art and wilt always be, after God, my hope and my consolation at the hour of death. From this moment I have recourse to thee, and beg of thee to assist me in that passage. O my dear Queen, do not abandon me in that last moment I Come then to take my soul and present it to thy Son. Henceforward I shall expect thee; and I hope to die under thy mantle, and clinging to thy feet. My Protector, St. Joseph, St. Michael Archangel, my Angel Guardian, my Holy Patrons, do thou all assist me in that last combat with Hell.

And Thou, my Crucified Love, Thou my Jesus, Who wert pleased to choose for Thyself so bitter a death to obtain for me a good death, remember at that hour that I am one of those dear sheep Thou didst purchase with Thy Blood. Thou, when all the world shall have forsaken me, and not one shall be able to assist me, canst alone console me and save me, do Thou make me worthy to receive Thee in the Viaticum, and suffer me not to lose Thee forever, and to be banished forever to a distance from Thee. No, my beloved Saviour, receive me then into Thy sacred Wounds, for I now embrace Thee. At my last breath I intend to breathe forth my soul into the loving wound in Thy side, saying now, for that moment: Jesus and Mary, I give you my heart and my soul.

O happy suffering, to suffer for God! happy death, to die in the Lord!

I embrace Thee now, my good Redeemer, that I may die in Thy embraces. If, O my soul, Mary assists thee at thy departure, and Jesus receives thy last breath, it will not be death, but a sweet repose.

Then it will not be death: but ineffable rest

That will close, in the end, on these earth-wearied eyes.

When my forehead by Mary is soothingly pressed, And Jesus receives my last penitent sighs.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

I myself have heard priests (even bishops) say some horribly un- true things; but this has not led me to abandon the Catholic Church for an imaginary "Catholic Church"

I'm so glad we have something in common.

Handshakes and hugs are not the problem. The problem comes when these human gestures and "feel good" humanistic homilies, *replace* lessons and expressions which are infinitely more important. Hugging and handshakes is good, yet kneeling for Our Lord in Holy Communion isn't?! Practicing kind acts for our neighbors is important, but saving our souls and bringing others into Christ's Church, isn't?! I said as much above in my "Fr. Firstname" post. Why you've chosen to ignore and instead pretend that my problem merely has to do with simply handshakes and hugs is beyond me.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 20, 2003.

the blessing should be performed over the shoulder so that the priest remains facing the altar (or altar substitute, anywhere but towards his congregation) during the whole procedure.

The other thing that must frost him is the orientation of the altar in this picture

It's tragic how little you know about your own religion, and sadder still that you use that ignorance as a weapon.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

"It's tragic how little you know about your own religion, and sadder still that you use that ignorance as a weapon. "

Sounds like a modernist response. I didn't see a single pre-Vatican II quote to support it!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Prayer to St. Joseph.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

"I'm so glad we have something in common."

You're glad that I've heard priests say un-true things? This reinforces my suspicion that you schismatics look forward to seeing ways to justify your disobedience. And that's pretty sad.

"Handshakes and hugs are not the problem. The problem comes when these human gestures and "feel good" humanistic homilies, *replace* lessons and expressions which are infinitely more important. Hugging and handshakes is good, yet kneeling for Our Lord in Holy Communion isn't?! Practicing kind acts for our neighbors is important, but saving our souls and bringing others into Christ's Church, isn't?! I said as much above in my "Fr. Firstname" post. Why you've chosen to ignore and instead pretend that my problem merely has to do with simply handshakes and hugs is beyond me. "

OK, so you guys go on and on and on about totally irrelevant things that don't sit well with your cultural prejudices. And the fact that you can't articulate any perceived problem (other than first names and hugs) somehow makes me at fault for not seeing what you haven't written? Give me a break. I tell you what: if you have a problem with the Catholic Church, tell it straight, and don't bother me with side-show issues like first names, hugs, and architectural deficiences in church design that upset you!

The schismatic gang believes that one incomplete teaching can be countered by another incomplete view. That "Love thy neighbor" can be countered with "everything in Latin." As Emerald says, these are the "ways of man"...

Considering you don't attend a Catholic Church, I wonder how you have become an expert on Catholic priests and their behavior. I suppose with the websites of SSPX, SSPV, and SeattleCatholic as sources of information, you've got all the ammunition you need. Jack Chick has some information on his website that infers that all priests are drunks. Oh, yeah, you guys believe that all Catholic priests are gay. Is your calumny better than his?

Regina, what is the purposes of pushing your uninformed prejudices of the Catholic Church onto us? Why bother? I have been a Catholic all my life, and attend a Church that is in communion with a Catholic bishop. I have travelled all over the country and world, attending mass where ever I go. You are incorrect if you think that your judgments against the Catholic Faith are accurate.

But I guess you need a collective boogie man to blame all your problems on. It would seem that the most appropriate traditionalist schismatic's stance for worship would be standing with fingers pointed. But God promises in the pre-Vatican II document (one forgotten by traditionalist schismatics):

Romans 2:1 -- "Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

Not only are the schismatic double standards getting old to us. There are more important consequences for them. If you keep wearing your rose-colored glasses to defend your schism, while at the same time trying to hurl every calumny at the Catholic Church, just keep this in mind.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Jake,

Thank you for your links to prayers. I'll be praying for you and other schismatics today that you all may find a path back to full union with the Catholic Faith.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

The Secret of the Rosary , by St. Louis DeMonfort

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

CONFITEOR Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Ioanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Ioannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, et omnes Sanctos, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. Amen.

I CONFESS to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, to pray to the Lord our God for me. Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

The Secret of the Rosary, by St. Louis DeMonfort

The Secret of Correct Links by Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

O God, our refuge and our strength, look down with favor upon Thy people who cry to Thee; and through the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of blessed Joseph her spouse, of Thy holy apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, mercifully and graciously hear our prayers which we pour forth to Thee for the conversion of sinners, and for the freedom and exaltation of our holy Mother the Church. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Our Lord's Prayer Abwoon d'bwashmaya,
Nethqadash shmakh,
Teytey malkuthakh.
Nehwey tzevyanach aykanna d'bwashmaya aph b'arha.
Hawvlan lachma d'sunqanan yaomana.
Washboqlan khaubayn (wakhtahayn)
aykana daph khnan shbwoqan l'khayyabayn.
Wela tahlan l'nesyuna.
Ela patzan min bisha.
Metol dilakhie malkutha wahayla wateshbukhta l'ahlam almin.
Amen. AMDG, Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

That's a nice translation, Jake. I just don't know if the old Roman vernacular is as reverent as the original words uttered by Our Lord.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Just an interesting aside: when you enter the first 2 words of the Aramaic prayer into Google, the second source on the list is this one. Yikes.

Our Lord no doubt spoke Latin in His time on earth (to Pilate, etc.? - I'm guessing). So were the Latin words He spoke less "reverent" than Aramaic (as if Our Lord is capable of irrevrence!)

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

It's humor Jake...have some. L@L

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Why are you LALling me?

Silly Neo. Humor is for Tr@ds.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Another interesting aside: I stumbled accross this site when searching for Tridentine masses on the net:

"The priest faces the altar, with his back to the parishioners. His vestments are the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic church. There is a kneeling rail for communion separating the worshipers from the altar. Women cannot be ordained."

Oh, they hold so fast onto tradition! I'm sure that their priest goes by his last name. And did I mention they've got valid orders? I guess they're just more "trads" working to save the Church from the Papists!

"Silly Neo. Humor is for Tr@ds."

@K, Brad.

AMDG,

Mate@

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

GRRRR-eat Mateo :-(

Next thing you know Jake et. al. will decide they have a kindred spirit out there and invite them here too and we'll have TWO groups of them posting each day.

frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 20, 2003.

"Our Lord no doubt spoke Latin in His time on earth (to Pilate, etc.? - I'm guessing). So were the Latin words He spoke less "reverent" than Aramaic (as if Our Lord is capable of irrevrence!)"

BTW, I didn't quite understand your point here--we're not discussing whether Our Lord spoke Latin or not.

Are you saying that the "Our Father" was originally spoken in Latin? That's a novel theory, Jake. Who taught you this?

Frank writes: "Next thing you know Jake et. al. will decide they have a kindred spirit out there and invite them here too and we'll have TWO groups of them posting each day."

It's OK. It's important for the local schismatics to get to know other groups with whom they share the big umbrella of "traditionalism." ;-) Who said that traditionalism has no fruits? They have plenty of fruits.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Thomas Aquinas on the subject of obedience (yet one more thing not yet read by those who believe to be in the know):

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): "Children, obey your parents in all things," and farther on (Col. 3:22): "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Dt. 5:5, "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words." Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 4:14): "You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" and (1 Thess. 2:13): "When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, "They that resist [Vulg.: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says "in all things," he refers to matters within the sphere of a father's or master's authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

________________

The opinion that traditionalist Catholics are, on the whole and by that very fact, schismatics or heretics has it's roots in a willfull and vincible ignorance and lack of knowledge, lack of due diligence, lack of place and authority to determine such matters, lack of charity, and a lukewarm mentality that lets slip on the sacred aims of Holy Mother Church.

Learn things before passing judgment.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Emerald,

Have you now resorted to spamming the forum? I responded on another thread to this exact post.

Please, we don't need copies of the same post everywhere. The forum is cluttered enough as it is.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Yes, I've posted the same message three times, Mateo, on three different threads.

I don't see that as being particularly sinful, but you are free to characterize it however you wish.

Keep in mind, though, that your continued reference to traditional Catholics as being schismatics is dishonest. The attitude of disdain comes through the post, also.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Yeah, you threatened to get this quote from St. Thomas before, Emerald, but when I posted what he had written about Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire, you decided that the Summa wasn't really authoritative. Changed your mind?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 20, 2003.

Actually, no Catherine.

I just think you weren't really open to what I was trying to say.

However, now that you're posting and available, I thought you might be able to clear up a small matter about you alluding a couple months ago that the Church was sort of horizontal instead of vertical in it's hierarchical organization.

Do I have that correct or am I imagining things? Would you like to discuss that? I would.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

"but when I posted what he had written about Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire, you decided that the Summa wasn't really authoritative."

The more I look at that, the more I think, what is this?

Catherine, if you want to approach a topic like this, it would be best not to say things that intentionally misrepresent the thoughts of another person. I don't mind talking with someone who disagrees with me; I do it all the time everywhere, but not when someone just simply decides to be dishonest about what someone else thinks and says.

I can't work with that.

Hey, I could even be wrong, but your style wouldn't be proof of it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Emerald, spam is not sinful. It is bad netiquette (and contrary to the rules of the forum). Don't make it sound like I'm personally interpreting what you did was spam, as if it's a debatable opinion. Here's the dictionary entry: Spam. Posting the same post multiple times (especially when the relevance to each thread is questionable) is the definition of spam.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

"Keep in mind, though, that your continued reference to traditional Catholics as being schismatics is dishonest."

It's not dishonest. The schismatics' clouded lenses of judgment aimed at the Catholic Church, with their calumny and their muckraking? That's dishonest.

"The attitude of disdain comes through the post, also."

Appealing to emotional argumentation, now?

How does the phrase go? Maybe, "When you point your finger to accuse, don't forget the three pointing back at you." And the fingers point back to most (if not all) the local schismatic gang.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Hey Emerald,

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you or your beliefs. Honestly, that wasn't my intention at all. I've been trying to find that one thread in particular where we got into St. Thomas and the Baptism of desire, and hashed it all out, but I haven't come up with anything like it in google. Hmm?

But really, I remember posting a link to St. Thomas' defense of this teaching, and you brushing it aside, rather cruelly, after all the hours of research I had gone through in looking it up. ;^)

Next time I'll search before I say anything. That's a promise.

Friends?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 20, 2003.

Catherine Ann, you may have this thread in mind. (Try the bottom 1/3. I think that I see someone denying Baptism of Desire, and I think that I see you linking St. Thomas A.)
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

Friends. You're question is good though, and the question of Baptism is very difficult; so is the question about how to react to what's happening in the Church right now. I think it all can be very difficult.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2003.