The forumgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Guys and Gals, I'm sick of the debates.What is the mission of this forum? Is it to help instuct people in the current teachings of the Church?
Moderator?
When I started visiting the forum, I was able to get a lot of good information. Now, I don't see how anyone can.
I agree with John G.
When a question is asked, the answer process degrades quickly into an unending debate about the teachings of the Church with schismatics pushing their views and orthodox catholics trying to defend the current church.
This leaves the uneducated wondering which way to go.
The forum is bordering on no longer being fruitful.
We look like a bunch of idiots.
We profess to be Catholic, but all we do is argue amoung ourselves.
I'm sick of it.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003
john,Come on now slim.
Look at the title of you're last thread. You opened the door to dialogue with these people. Look in the mirror johnnie before you start to blame our beloved Catholic moderator.
-- Roberto Duran (hands@of.stone), November 11, 2003.
John P.I think it's fair to say that you have instigated more trouble on this forum than you're pretended to resolve. Go into the archive. You've done it before, and have come back with another of these "can't we all just get along" posts when the baiting did not have the desired effect.
As for looking like idiots, speak for yourself.
-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.
We'll believe it or not, john, I'm sick of it too.In particular, I'm sick of traditional Catholics being called schismatics when it's the most howling absurdity in the known universe.
You just did it again above. And yes, we do look like idiots.
And no, it isn't the so-called orthodox defending the Church against the so-called schismatics, it's those so-called schismatics who are being lied about by the so-called orthodox.
I have tried my level best to point this out. If are open to honesty, go look at any one of the threads where these debates have taken place, and see how it has been the subject that's addressed by traditionalists, and not the character of their opponents.
On the other hand, go back and look to see how the traditionalist are by and large dealt with by personal attacks on their character which are for the most part devoid of any adherence to the topic at hand.
It's the glaring truth, and if someone doesn't see it, they don't have the ears to hear anything said by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount in the book of Matthew.
I cannot help it if the so-called orthodox cannot defend their so- called orthodoxy against so-called schismatics.
This is in fact supremely absurd... that much I can agree with.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
I've gotten sick of this before.What I'm saying Roberto is No mas, no mas. (intended joke!)
I am sick and tired of people bashing the Church, claiming to speak with authority, when in reality they are not in communion with the Church.
I'm sick and tired of DISHONEST posters who change their user names every 20 minutes for God knows what reason.
J@ke, I said WE look like idiots. Your statement was both rude and hateful. You add to the problem.
Maybe the forum should be split into two forums. One for othodox catholics, one for SSPX members and sympathizers.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.
C'mon Emerald, work on the honesty.The schismatics who only attend the Tridentine rite and hate the current rite of mass are *constantly* criticizing the Catholic church and the height of her worship, the mass. Sometimes they criticize individuals as well.
Orthodox Catholics who practictice either the current rite or the old rite of mass (but who obey the Magesterium) NEVER heap scorn on either rite of mass like your schismatics do. Do they sometimes criticize individual schismatics, you bet. That street at least runs both ways.
Frank
P.S. Allowing the constant reposting of the schismatic ideology DOES inhibit all other discussion, but that is for the moderator to decide. As long as he hasn't given up hope on them, the best thing one could do is "offer it up" if you don't like it.
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.
Emerald, Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers.God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.
john,Didn't Isabel tell you last week "..Come on john you been here long enough to know the answer to the questions you ask?"
Last week you were "baiting" these people in, and this week you are crying about it to the moderator?
john you're the "forum instigator" that trys to play the part of holy john".
Stop playing games, johnnie!
-- Roberto Duran (hands@stone.com), November 11, 2003.
Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the ChurchBecause the current teachings are different, right?
Great opener! Go with that.
-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.
It's foolish to try and freeze the church at one point in time. That's not compatible with a living body.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.
My point being that if it was true then, it's true now. If it's not true anymore, it was never true in the first place.
-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.
EXHIBIT A:"Emerald, Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
"Maybe the forum should be split into two forums. One for othodox catholics, one for SSPX members and sympathizers."If my memory serves me, J@ke created his own forum so that schismatics could attack the church without us orthodox Catholics raining on their parade. I guess they got bored without us...
As far as pointing out the problems occuring in the Church, I believe it's a worthwhile exercise for faithful Catholics to discuss; but constructive criticism is a far cry from how protestants and schismatics here attack the Church and its teachings.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.
...from the man that complains that we traditional Catholics should be ousted from the forum because WE are the ones who aren't orthodox.Q.E.D.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
...that would be john, that is.Mateo, what's your take on Exhibit A?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
"...from the man that complains that we traditional Catholics should be ousted from the forum because WE are the ones who aren't orthodox."Could you quote me saying that schismatics should be ousted from the forum?
Deceitfulness is bad, Emerald. Be honest, please.
Regarding your quote:
"Emerald, Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."
I disagree. A better statement would be:
"Anyone who exclusively quotes from pre-Vatican II sources has an incomplete view of CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers. Anyone who exclusively quotes from post-Vatican II sources has an incomplete view of the CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."
Sounds good to me.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.
The CURRENT TEACHINGS of the Church! Sounds so Protestant.We always were taugh that God was the same yesterday, now, and forever, but the Church He gave us is now what is curent. What will it be in 100 years, or even 10 years? Interesting to see.
-- Givney (Giveny @yoler.com), November 11, 2003.
It's not deceitfulness, Mateo, because while your way of re-stating it is not the same as john's, my point is that john's exhibit A is the net result of the ambiguities of the post conciliar documents.This is what people think now, and they think these things because they are bending ambiguous documents to their own liking. In as much as they do so, the Faith is lost.
I reject the claim of deceitfulness. I'm being very clear here.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
Conciliar and post conciliar documents, I should say.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
"The CURRENT TEACHINGS of the Church! Sounds so Protestant."It may "sound" protestant to you, but that doesn't make it so.
Emerald: "It's not deceitfulness, Mateo, because while your way of re-stating it is not the same as john's, my point is that john's exhibit A is the net result of the ambiguities of the post conciliar documents."
One thing has nothing to do with the other. You claim that I complained that "traditional Catholics should be ousted from the forum." It is deceitful for you to make such a false claim. Jake made a habit of fighting with calumny. I hope he's not rubbing off on you.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 11, 2003.
Mateo:You claim that I complained that "traditional Catholics should be ousted from the forum."
Look upthread; I meant john, not you. I tried to make it cleaer: "...that would be john, that is."
This whole thing saddens me but it does not anger me.
So what do we do now, Mateo? I'm not going to move, and neither are you. Now what? What are we supposed to be learning from all this?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
I would like to see an end to people calling each other, in essence, "bad Catholics" or Protestants just because we disagree on this or that.The Church is a body. A body changes over time. Some changes are for the good, some not. Many of the issues we face today just were not around in the days of the early Church. The Terri Schindler-Schiavo case is one example. Another is that if women can distribute Communion, or lead a Eucharistic Service when a priest is not available, why can't they also become deacons or priests? As long as people identify clearly where they're coming from as far as viewpoints, I don't see why we can't have civil discussions. If someone wants official Vatican pronouncements, for example, I'm sure there's a site for that, or, I'd ask my priest.
And, in case anyone thinks I have a dual personality, I don't. I just have a policy that whenever I start or answer a new thread, I like to think of everyone starting off on a clean slate. That means we all begin as friends who are getting along, even if we often disagree (sometimes vehemently) later.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.
To which John are you refering. John G. or me. Two different Johns.I have gotten very frustrated at times and have started debates. Some, I wish I had not. But, where does it end. We're going in circles.
How can we help anyone, if all we do is debate.
I've call for truces in the past, only to be told truces could be debated.
There is a VERY small group who post all the time, and have turned discussions into debates, regularly. How do we do to fix things?
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.
John:
Debates are good. When a debate argues for the truth. Truth is good.If a party comes here saying the Mass in vernacular (Vatican II) is vulgar and offensive to God, that's FALSE. I'll debate whoever spreads that kind of evil. That's mainly what we've been doing now for a long time. It makes you sick. I suggest you take a vacation; this forum is debating as long as the question remains.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.
john,Come on john. Which john do you think I was refering too? How many johns' posted in this thread so far?
And you're in law enforcement?? sshhezz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
-- Roberto (hands@of.stone), November 11, 2003.
Why get sarcastic with the johnnie stuff, Roberto?Uncalled for.
This is exactly my complaint.
Throw in the towel. My name is John.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.
John,You write that you are sick and tired of people bashing the Church. I think every Catholic is tired of that, or at least I hope. But the fact is that we live in a predominantly protestant country and protestants don't like Catholics. So they come here and try to shake our faith and try to legitimize themselves. But we stand firm on the rock of our True, Holy and Apostolic Church. Great grace can only come from our defense of God's Church. Yes it is unfortunate that we have to defend our faith on this forum that should be used to give info to people. But are these debates such a horrible thing? Our faith can only become hardened by fire.
I find that as a faithful Catholic I am obliged to God's Church whenever it is needed.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.
That last sentence should have read.I find that as a faithful Catholic I am obliged to defend God's Church whenever it is needed.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.
“Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church” how is this? True I thought the teachings did not chnge? John P explain what you mean.SS
-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.
To suffer persecution for the sake of Christ is a glory and honour.
-- observer (observer@christ.com), November 11, 2003.
"Emerald, Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."The more I look at this, the... more I look at this. I look at it and wonder if there's any connection to say, this:
"It's foolish to try and freeze the church at one point in time. That's not compatible with a living body."
Because I'm starting to wonder if you really actually think john's statement is an accurate representation of the truth, Frank. Maybe that's why you and I don't agree on much. Am I way off in left field here?
Or what about this:
"Anyone who exclusively quotes from pre-Vatican II sources has an incomplete view of CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers. Anyone who exclusively quotes from post-Vatican II sources has an incomplete view of the CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."
I presume that Mateo has corrected john's take on current Church teaching to bring in more in line with, let's say, current Church teaching. Far be it from me to be honest, right, but I'm looking at Mateo's modification of john's point-to-make, and I ask myself, does Mateo really in essence think anything different than what john said?
In all my time around this forum, have I exclusively quoted pre- Vatican II sources? I don't think I have. In fact, I do believe that I have gotten myself in the most trouble for having quoted both, because I've had a habit of comparing the preVat to the postVat documents.
So apparently according to Mateo's own words, I should necessarily have a complete view. I'm not saying that I actually believe myself to have a complete view, but from what's been put forth here, it would seem that way.
There's a secondary problem though, and that's this bizarre obligation that if one should fail to quote both pre Vatican II sources and post Vatican II sources, they should:
"...make [this fact] plain to the uneducated readers."
I got a kick out of that. I couldn't help but think, hey, that job's been taking already, it seems, by the rest of the forum. A forum by the people and for the people.
Maybe it's ok then to proceed forward unencumbered by the need for disclaimers.
As far as honesty is concerned, let's just BE honest and say that this statement:
"Emerald, Anyone who quotes the Baltimore Catechism is not in line with CURRENT teachings of the Church and should make that plain to the uneducated readers."
...is the nightmare of the post-conciliar Church and shows that Catholic Unity is being ripped apart not by traditionalists, as the title post of this thread would propose, but by modernist, post conciliarite Catholics who are allowing themselves to lose their Faith by increments. By Faith I mean belief in Catholic Doctrine... it suddenly occurred to me that I better make that clear; you can't be too precise anymore I guess.
The non-Traditionalists have theological and spiritual vertigo, and there's no denying it. The Faith is being lost. Or is it?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.
The Reformationist Protestants are not the problem.The problem is the very, very small, but very, very vocal, anti-novus ordo, anti-vatican II cult that hijacks this forum.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 12, 2003.
I should not have sent the last message. I apologize.We need to find some common ground and quit arguing. Before anyone says anything else, I'm guilty as much as anyone.
I'm just frustrated with the misnomered traditionalists who believe that everyone else is going to Hell, because others don't believe what they believe.
Maybe we need to realize that the Catholic Church is large enough and diverse enough for all of us.
For example, in our diocese, the tridentine mass is celebrated at one church, charismatic masses at another, etc.
Maybe that's the way it should be. Of course, I biased. I think we have the best, most diverse, diocese in the country.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 12, 2003.
The CURRENT TEACHINGS of the Church! Sounds so Protestant. We always were taugh that God was the same yesterday, now, and forever, but the Church He gave us is now what is curent. What will it be in 100 years, or even 10 years? Interesting to see.-- Givney (Giveny @yoler.com), November 11, 2003.
Good Question !!
Sick of the debates? No, it's the other way around. Anyone who stays at this forum is a sick person. Otherwise they would not stay here. By the way, how long is it that you announced you are leaving the forum? Why back again?
-- Herbert Brantenshauer (brant101@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.
I know it's not directed to me , but why I do still come here ??
Some of you would be happy if I leave , but I don't !!
I don't wanna come back to the rcc , I disagree with them completely , but , we are all humans with our own thoughts !!
john placette
Sometimes , I really get the impressure from some people here , if you disagree with them or their religion , they say you're sick , why ??
This forum , sorry to tell , it will not cure people !!
I even have my doubts about some of the visitors here , are they really believers from the heart or is it , they just follow the church of today , blindly ?? __ I really don't care you like the pope or not !! __ Also like I said it doesn't matter to me if you're a believer or not as long it's coming from the heart !! (strange that this is coming from me , isn't it ??)
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 12, 2003.
I'm just frustrated with the misnomered traditionalists who believe that everyone else is going to Hell, because others don't believe what they believe.Never said that.
Never even thought that.
You're stretching the truth.
-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.
A question from the silly one: ''I even have my doubts about some of the visitors here , are they really believers from the heart or is it , they just follow the church of today , blindly?''How would Laurent know? If he's a non-believer, then obviously he doesn't follow the Church. He is only blindly unbelieving! If anybody can't know anything about believers from the heart, it's this unfortunate man. But he still thinks he can make himself understood by Catholics? They all understand he's going to hell! For denying our Creator and misleading other people. It's the road to hell, whether he believes it or not. There are countless atheists in hell; Laurent may soon find that out.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
The frenzied name calling from the left becomes more violent every day. They have nothing substantial to say in the defense of the "bankrupt"" v2, so the song goes on.
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 12, 2003.
Who says I'm silly ?? (You mean stupid or a nuthead ??)Eugene , sorry for next cruel expression:
faith is not: mirror , mirror on the wall , who's the most holiest of ya'all !!
I'm honest about my thoughts , that's what you can't deny about me !! __ If you like or hate me or even despise me , that's up to you !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 12, 2003.
Forgive me, Laurent. You keep posting silly and nutcased things. Aren't you siily, then? Post something brilliant and I will call you brilliant --!!!Ciao et moi Greetings from A BELIEVER!!!!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
Bubble gone on a trip:''They have nothing substantial to say in defense of the "bankrupt"" v2, so the song goes on.''
To your taste we have not much to say about the Holy Catholic Church and her Councils. --Besides, none of us is in the defense business; the Holy Spirit defends the Church, not us.
It's your bankrupt taste which fails, not we. We have been giving you substance and good counsel for a long time, Bubbler; just scroll up & down the more recent threads; open your cheesey eyes! Lol!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
Post something brilliant and I will call you brilliant --!!!What do you call brilliant ?? __ As long as I say , I disagree with the rcc , it will never be brilliant in your eyes , am I right ??
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 12, 2003.
Besides, none of us is in the defense business; the Holy Spirit defends the Church, not us.Are you excluding yourself from the Church Militant?
You're reacting as if a sheep dog who barks at the lamb in the flock is offending the Shepherd by so doing. In fact, the sheep dog helps his Master, keeping crazy sheep from jumping the fence. I simply believe Regina is sinning.
Are you the "sheep dog" and Regina is a "crazy sheep"? If so, are you not part of the flock? Are you defending the flock? Or the Shepherd? You view your local bishop as a shepherd, yes? Are you going to defend him?
-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.
Jaime:Don't confuse the Church Militant with your brand of militancy. You have only division to acieve, not love of the Church. I do precisely that work of the Church Militant; denouncing her enemies. In your cases, unwitting servants of the devil because you undermine the authority of the Church. It's very much the same as when Pharisees fought openly against Christ. They thought they stood for a militant Israel. He was a bad influence on the faith.
You act just like them. The 2nd Vatican Council is accused of hurting the Church; when it's your own defiance that damages unity and faith. WHY? You don't believe in the Holy Spirit. To you, He's impotent, and you wish to take His place and ''save'' the Church!
-----
Here's my words: You're reacting as if a sheep dog who barks at the lamb in the flock is offending the Shepherd by so doing. --
I referred mainly to YOUR reaction, not to my own person. I'm not a dog, and I only admonished Regina the way a dog would admonish a CRAZY lamb. Regina? Crazy??? OK; not crazy. Just prejudiced. Keep your eyes on the context, Dear Jaime. You're too anxious to score points!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
You're reacting as if a sheep dog who barks at the lamb in the flock is offending the Shepherd by so doing.If that's your metaphor for questioning how you can accuse Regina of being in a state of mortal sin, ok.
I'm not a dog, and I only admonished Regina the way a dog would admonish
It's your metaphor; just trying to clarify how it applies to accusations of mortal sin and defense of the Church.
You're too anxious to score points!
There's a points system?
you undermine the authority of the Church.
How?
Keep your eyes on the context
I am. What are the crazy sheep doing that incurs your admonition?
-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.
Good link to the article on the Church Militant, Jaime; thanks.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2003.
Answers to your last post, Jaime:How?
Keep your eyes on the context--You say:
I am. What are the crazy sheep doing that incurs your admonition?
- - - - - You help the devil undermine God's Church, by:
Preaching publicly against the Church's council and her authority to command your assent. (Crazy.)
Creating divisions among the faithful, (Crazy.)
By accusations of heretical, improper teaching, (Crazy.)And by open scorn and ridicule of her bishops at large, not only some, but all who adhere to Vatican II and our Pontiffs.
And also blaspheming the liturgy of the Mass as we celebrate it; we who are faithful to the Catholic faith. (Crazy.)
And labeling your brethren as ''Neo Catholic, Modernist, a Pseudo-Church,
While giving us ''notice'' that ''traditionalists'' (a misnomer) are the ''true'' Catholic Church, the only Catholic Church, God's only Church, which REJECTS the Church of the Novus Ordo Missal. (Crazy and pure bigotry.)Further back you ask me: ''You view your local bishop as a shepherd, yes? Are you going to defend him?'' My answer is yes, if you attack him or say lies about him. He's a Catholic prelate deserving of our respect and also of our support. (Which YOU call ''defending him''. (Crazy.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
sry to interrupt ur fine "debating", but just an observation from an outsider looking in....i'm a neophyte catholic of 3 yrs in the church with little to share with u at this level of church politics.
i love the church and her faith with all my heart. there's much i confess i do not comprehend and have a lifetime of study ahead to scratch the surface.
i came to this forum seeking an answer to a specific question and am leaving with more concerns than peace about the issue as i observed clearly sincere individuals hammer each other about fine points of doctrine. i recognize that at times heresy is but one word away from orthodoxy, but the rantings i have read are missing the forest for the trees.
this is a public forum and many separated brothers could easily be scandalized by the comments made here. debate is good, but we should do it outside the view of the non catholic world so as not to crush the fledging faith of a new convert or a seeking lost child of God or an open separated brother.
u guys clearly know ur faith, but joe six pack in the pew is filled with heretical ideas often deposited by unthinking well meaning clergy and you all could easily be a source of pure water in the desert of the average parish. Be a light in that darkness...present a unity in the clear teaching of the holy father/magistarium that u all love and agree upon. admit when the issue is open to honset debate. and by all means don't ream each other a new one over things like if orthodoxy should be capitalized or not. the confusion runs at a much shallower level than that distinction.
holding on to the faith for dear life, pc
-- philip caron (pcaron@catholicexchange.com), November 12, 2003.
Eugene, "And also blaspheming the liturgy of the Mass as we celebrate it; we who are faithful to the Catholic faith."" If there is a problem with something it must be pointed out. There are 3 things that effect the validity and licitidy of a Sacrament. They are the Form the Matter and the Intention. The from and Matter effect the validity and the intention effects the licitidy (except of course in extreme cases where it can effect validity). In the N.O.M. the Form of the Consecration of the Wine has benn severly altered (ie: in the original Roman Canon it said "Hoc est enim Corpus Meus"(this is My Body)and for the wine "Hic est enim calix sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundentur in remissonem peccatorum" ( this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal teastament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission) of sins) ; now in the modified Roman Canon the Consecration of the wine reads(in Latin) Hic est enim calix sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multus(pro omnibus: this is a suggested change form the Vatican)effundenter in remissionem peccatorum.( this is the chalice of My Blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins my be forgiven) NOw if you notice the words "Mysterium Fedei" were removed and the phrase "pro multis" has been mistranslated into "for all". It is also rumored that the next editio typico of the Missale Romanum will have the words "pro multus" changed to "pro omnibus". Now with all that in mind and heeding what I said above (which I did not make up but rather learned from the teachings of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas) that would seem to cast doubt upon the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, would it not? Also another thing that has to be counted is the intention of the misnister, which is all to unclear these days. The Mass is licit if the preist says the Mass in order to "do as the Church does". If that is not the intention then the Mass is then illicit. So in conclusion it would seem to me that you need to ask yourself just who is being obedient to the Catholic Faith? †AMDG
-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 12, 2003.
Jeff,
I applaud you for your exuberant faith. You can still be mistaken, however. I'm quite familiar with the Latin Missal; once I served Mass. I said the latin reponses; I loved the Mass then; and I love it now.The words of the priest which sacramentally make bread and wine into the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are just a FEW--
These are the ONLY words the priest must say, and Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament, Jeff:
Over the unleavened bread: ''THIS IS MY BODY.'' -- And, over the wine in the holy chalice: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD--''
At this moment and not later; transubstantiation is finished upon the holy altar. Don't let dishonest purists confuse your mind, Jeff.
The Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals in the presence of the Holy Spirit. You aren't a greater theologian (nor am I) than the Church's bishops and her pontiff, convened at Holy Council and the Holy Spirit. If our Mass had been in any danger of a liturgical blunder; they were there to detect it. God is with His Holy Church. He takes the Eucharist WAY more seriously than you and I.
Nothing which departs from orthodoxy; nothing negative-- could have crept into the sacraments under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Only a faithless servant of God will presume such a disaster. Jesus Christ said it wasn't going to happen!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
You help the devil undermine God's Church, by . . .I (nor the others you would group me with, I suppose) have not done these things. We try to please God by speaking truth. Thank God some, like Robert P, have gained from it.
Guys and Gals, I'm sick of the debates. What is the mission of this forum? Is it to help instuct people in the current teachings of the Church?
John P: From what I see, this has been going on for years. My guess is it will continue to do so. From what I further see, as long as souls like Robert P are out there, willing to listen, the "crazy sheep" aren't going away -- and so the sheep dogs will continue "barking".
-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.
Emerald: "I presume that Mateo has corrected john's take on current Church teaching to bring in more in line with, let's say, current Church teaching. Far be it from me to be honest, right, but I'm looking at Mateo's modification of john's point-to-make, and I ask myself, does Mateo really in essence think anything different than what john said?"Regardless of whether you ask yourself the question, my statement is substantially different. Do you believe that non-doctrinal Church teachings can be changed? If so, then you should be able to accept my statement. It's not that tough, Emerald. Unless you're in search of another conspiracy. If that's the case, I can't help you with your over-active imagination.
Emerald: "So apparently according to Mateo's own words, I should necessarily have a complete view."
Emerald, this is just faulty logic. My statement does not result in your conclusion. I thought you were an expert in logic.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 13, 2003.
When one dialogues with Eugene ,(I love thaat word, it is the essence of v2), he is dialoguing with a robot. The vatican winds him up, turns on the tape, and makes him speak. A guy tells him about the consecration, and he says,"thats your opinion". Entirely bypsses the fact that Thomas Acquinas said it. As long as they supply the oil can he will operate perfectly.
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 13, 2003.
It is interesting to note the attitudes of those who appear on this forum. It makes me wonder about Christ's testimony today in His believers.Both Catholics and non-Catholics, myself included, are guilty of blessing and cursing with the same mouth. Like Saul on His way to Damascus, thinking that He was doing a great work for God, by persecuting the church. Suddenly, He was blinded by the effulgence of God's glory.
Am I in support of liberalism or relativism ? Absolutely not. But we need to reach sinners with the love and compassions of Christ. Speaking the word of truth, not to condemn, but rather to bring the salvific message of God's heart. I would classify my beliefs to be more inclined towards a reformed theology, yet I believe that I myself and other "protestants" owe it to God to really pay attention to what Catholics are speaking, because our faith should not be in our faith, but in God. As such, we must not be so proud as to dismiss what Catholics have to say. It is very easy to overlook details. The same I believe applies to Catholics with regard to what protestants teach, and yet, this is a Catholic forum, and so their speaking here must take precedant. It is a privalege to be allowed to speak in this forum.
There is a great divide between Protestants and Catholics. The situation has caused many different reactions. While some have little interest in taking in the words of those across the wall, others seek to embrace unity. Vatican II has indeed caused mixed emotions, referring to Protestants as separated bretheren. The Ecunumical movement leaves many a protestant with a gaping mouth in disbelief at the u-turn of relations approach from the Roman Catholic Church.
This forum used to show a strong contingency of like-minded Catholics who stood up for what they believed. Now, the testimony has become very fragmented, particularly between the traditionalists and modernists. Every person who speaks thinks He has got it right, and is out to prove the whole world what anyone who disagrees with Him is wrong. This is what the protestant churches are noted for also and rightly so. Christ is not divided, and neither should be His church. As human beings however, we have a fallen sinful nature which seeks after its own glory. We need to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.We need to live a life of the cross, to cross out our strong self-will, and come to the Lord for His will.
The doctrines of the Mass, the Papacy, purgatory, and so on have gone on for a long time and will continue to do so.
What I see here in this forum are many Sauls, and I will say, many Sauls from both sides of the fence. Both protestants and catholics, thinking they are doing the work of the ministry of God in their spiritual warfare against those of opposing beliefs. The agumentum-ad hominems far outweigh the arguments of real substance. I am sure that many of the people who are posting here are of a very responsible age and yet the content of their posts suggest a lack of maturity in addressing issues.
To the Catholic, check out what your protestant brother has to say. Research what it is that they are speaking to you. And likewise, The Catholic brother for the protestant. We have here a platform that is abused and misused. At the end of the day, this forum is intended for the instruction and encouragement of Catholics, and protestants have to respect that. On the other hand, when someone comes in who appears to be baiting or speaking outlandish things, the unbeliever will be at odds with the situation if the dialogue becomes a personal attack of character on both sides.
Read your scriptures. Be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you, yet do so with gentleness and respect. Pray to God for His leading. We are all fallen human beings. We need to humble ourselves before God, that God Himself, would be glorified.
-- observer (observer@christ.com), November 13, 2003.
I'm completely in agreement with you, Observer. Look out for flying food!Bubbler Boy is losing it. I see he has the ad hominem of the day;
''. . .supply the oil can he will operate perfectly.''
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 13, 2003.Thank you for trusting me for a suitable Vatican apologist. I don't deserve the compliment. Did you want the floor? Have I interfered with you in this forum? I feel that you've gone bitter on me, Bub. (I never ventured any personal opinion. My reasoning is simply common sense.) Bubble has no common sense, so he/she launches into mean- spirited criticism. My words make sense, so I must be working for the Vatican! Just a wind-up robot from Pope John Paul's little workshop of horrors! OH! It's Gene the Bandersnatch!!! Watch out! He'll give a sincere opinion and we haven't any rebutting opinion.
I love Saint Thomas Aquinas, Bubba. He believed in the primacy of Peter and also Peter's successors. How come you deny it?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
Emerald: "I presume that Mateo has corrected john's take on current Church teaching to bring in more in line with, let's say, current Church teaching. Far be it from me to be honest, right, but I'm looking at Mateo's modification of john's point-to-make, and I ask myself, does Mateo really in essence think anything different than what john said?"And I stand by it, Mateo. I don't believe that you can successfully lay out a case for the reconciliation of the clear and dogmatic declarations of the past with ambiguous, pastoral statements of the present. I do not think it possible to argue for an unbroken continuity without ending up at some point in absurdity or compromise. That's why we don't see the newer documents promulgated as anything above pastoral in nature imho.
In so far as you might try to reconcile them, the results of your efforts are always going to propose the truth to be in a mean between two extremes; that's what I'm trying to get at. It's just not to be found in a mean. The truth is in the Catholic doctrines themselves.
"Regardless of whether you ask yourself the question, my statement is substantially different."
I saw that it was different, and that's why I said it was "modified". The whole point is, though, that I disagree with you that it is substantially different. I'm saying it's not, and that in the final analysis, your modification will end up with the same results, which are not a reconciliation of the old with the new, but a loss of some of the old.
"Do you believe that non-doctrinal Church teachings can be changed?"
You see here, this is one of those questions that I get accused of not answering a YES or NO to. Then I get may honesty called into question, or get accused of being elusive. Listen, I am being honest. I cannot answer that question because the terms are ambiguous. Do me the honesty and tell me what a non- doctrinal teaching is. Do you mean, a discipline? To me, a teaching is always going to be doctrinally related. So when people say The Teachings of Vatican II, I take them at their word definition-wise.
It really is the case to me that the term "non-doctrinal teaching" is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Do you SEE that? Come on, you have to have an idea of what I'm getting at.
"If so, then you should be able to accept my statement. It's not that tough, Emerald."
I hope the above explains exactly why it IS in fact tough to answer certain questions.
But back to your modified statement about new and old documents, I do not like your modified statement, because loaded into it is the presumed reconciliation of an ambiguity of new documents to a clarity of old documents; something that I think makes use more of available ambiguities in order to gloss over disparity between the old/new in an attempt to achieve a consistency that's arguably not really there.
"Unless you're in search of another conspiracy. If that's the case, I can't help you with your over-active imagination."
I'm not sure what to do with this, but alright. I'll let you have that one. Same with the logic thing; take it. I don't see either as particularly supportive of your side or damning of mine.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 13, 2003.
"In so far as you might try to reconcile them, the results of your efforts are always going to propose the truth to be in a mean between two extremes; that's what I'm trying to get at. It's just not to be found in a mean. The truth is in the Catholic doctrines themselves."It's not my place (nor yours) to reconcile and interpret the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. It is our job to submit to the teachings of the Catholic Faith, as presented by the Catholic Church. If Joe Priest wants to teach something contrary to the Church, we have every right to call him on it; but, to second guess (to the point of dismissing) entire Church councils and the proper celebration of the Mass (as promulgated by the Catholic Church) is just a bit presumptuous.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 13, 2003.
"It really is the case to me that the term "non-doctrinal teaching" is pretty much a contradiction in terms."Now all teachings of the Church are doctrinal? How about the date we celebrate Easter. Is that date set by doctrine? Is the day we fast set by doctrine?
More soon. I've gotta go.
AMDG,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 13, 2003.
Eugene; You say that I am mean spirited. Nonsense. You have been calling others, and myself, every mean and ridiculing name in the book. Don't you see that? I have never said anything about you until this time. I have said Neo's etc in a generic way, but not to any individual. Your fierce loyalty to your cause is commendble, but you never, never, never, retort with facts . Sadly the conciliar people do not have any facts. The church prior to 1958 does not exist, as it clashes with post 1958. All you harp on is "loyalty to the pope and magisterium. Well, let those folks show some loyalty to past popes and magesteriums. So far the have not. And look aat the results, they are terrible. I can bring in figure after figure, but you just pass it off ,so what's the use.
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 13, 2003.
You're right, Bubbles
What's the use? Paricularly as you think: ''I can bring in figure after figure, but you just pass it off, so what's the use?''Does Christ's Holy Church rely on your figures? If so, then what does she need the Holy Spirit for? We ought to tell the Holy Spirit, ''Beat it. We have the figures; and that's all we believe.''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
Furthermore, Bubba; the so called ''results'' you believe are blamed to the 2nd Vatican Council ultimately are a universal condition. Not the Church's symptoms alone.When I was a boy pre-Vatican II, our country was free of abortion & rampant crime. We walked the streets safely at night. No one had bars on the windows of their homes. Our leaders were decent men and the movies were mostly clean entertainment. This is everywhere; Catholic, protestants, black neighborhoods, schools. As we entered the latter part of the 20th century, everything changed. Musicians became dirty pigs. Movies became filthy. Drugs began circulating in the schoolyards and we started losing all sense of decency from childhood onwards. We have drive-by murders all over the country. Murderers are acquitted by evil juries; and yes, Church life leaves much to be desired. The seminaries are questionable. There is a general lack of faith.
And you BOVINES think i's all because of the 2nd Vatican Council ! ! ! --How do you react to these tragic events all over the earth? By cursing the Catholic Church and denying the Holy Spirit!
And you say we're wearing rose-colored glasses? YOU fellows are just plain BLIND!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
Eugene; (see I don't poke fun at your name), you are absolutely correct in what you say about society, and it is not the fault of V2. Howevr.. That was absolutely no time to "bring the Church into the modern world". You do not jump into the cesspool with the rest of the garbage.
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 14, 2003.
My given name is Eugene. It's not bullet-proof, go ahead and make fun. Is your given name ''bubbles''--? I feel sorry for you if it is. lol !!!We know all about cess- pools, Dear Boy. Again you blaspheme the Catholic Church; insinuating she's in your cess-pool. And you fools wonder why we mock you and ridicule you? It's exactly what you deserve.
You have assumed without reason that all you dislike in the Church is a product of one Council together with the Holy Spirit. The Council them, must have been responsible for the whole world's sins. This is an impractical and unjust thing to conclude, isn't it?
To boot; about 75%, maybe higher of the ''abuses'' you reject aren't even abuses. They are often liberties that bad Catholics take. You're justified in hoping the bishops reprimand them.
But you aren't satisfied; you want to throw the whole Church into heresy and disgrace! Well-- We won't have it, understand? Our Church is HOLY. Jesus Christ is in our midst whether you feel good about it or not.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.
That's telling them!, Eugene. I suppose that's what makes horse races. You have a good name, same as a pope that said, "No salvation outside the Church!. Sorry you disagree with your namesake.You see, with the name "Bubbles", I am already doing my purgatory. [I hope].
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 14, 2003.
I love Pius XII; more than you think.I also love the Catholic Church. Where salvation is to be found for ALL men, and not only an elite.
Seems if you loved her, you wouldn't insult her brutishly in analogies with a cess- pool.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.
Not Pius XII. Eugene IV.
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 14, 2003.
Pius XII was a Eugene. Eat your heart out, ''Spittles.''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.
No salvation outside the Church?Would God abandon millions and millions of souls who never heard of Jesus or the Catholic Church.
God bless
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 14, 2003.
Not talking about Eugenio Pacelli. Pope Eugene IV. You surely know by now what he said.Thanks for some more of that Novus Ordo sweet talk.It continues to show how the Catholic faith works in your hearts. Charity to all. Yeah!
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 14, 2003.
John Placette; Don't ask me, ask HIM!It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 14, 2003.
It would mean that to somebody who has no discipline or understanding of the written text; but not for those in the Holy Spirit who can discern the differences. You just misinterpet the doctrine entirely It's Sola Scriptura to you; all of a kind with fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation. Stick to another line of work, or go to Catholic theological classes, Babbles. You haven't a clue.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.
Eugene, I don't think you have taken my words seriously at all have you ?
-- observer (observer@christ.com), November 15, 2003.
What's to understand? It says, what it says. Only you don't like what it says, so you rationalize it. That's very human.
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 15, 2003.
No, Sir Observer.
I see my place, and you see yours. We let the chips fall where they may within these threads. It was a holy enough subject. Some holier-than- thou individuals think they can stuff doctrine down our throats. When the Pharisees once tried to do that to Our Saviour, His response was not touchy-feely.He launched into the hypocrites with decidedly un-Christlike terms like offspring of the vipers, whitened sepulchres, and children of their father, that liar.
We agree on this: we need to humble ourselves before God, that God Himself should be glorified. After Bubbles is humble, I'll have a try at it.
Bubbles: ''What's to understand? It says, what it says. Only you don't like what it says, so you rationalize,''
NOt so: I love and understand what it says. Therefore I attempt to show others the truth. But fanatics like yourself aren't interested in truth. You just want to crush all opposition.
You never entertain any thoughts that just POSSIBLY, those fathers who convened in Vatican II might ACTUALLY have seen the truth by the aid of the Holy Spirit. --And, YES, they have the God- given ability to RATIONALISE. God expects men to consult with one another and think together, most of all when the outcome will benefit humanity. God never installed a Pope or Popes who would prohibit souls from worrying about the rest of the world, as you do. He is merciful to ALL OF MANKIND, and Vatican II responds to His call.
You respond to a concrete, immovable and misunderstood missive; WITHOUT consulting the Holy Spirit. And for this, you would simply jettison all the recent teachings of our Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.
/ /
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.
"I also love the Catholic Church. Where salvation is to be found for ALL men, and not only an elite." You may love Her but you sure don't seem to agree with what she teaches in the area of Salvation. There have been three Papal pronouncments dealing with the subject of "Extra Ecclesaim nulla Salus" they are "Unam Sanctam" the 4th Lateran Council and "Cantate Domino" All state infallibly that there is no salvation outside of the Church. However there is another means by which a FEW are saved, and that is the two "extraordinary" baptisms: Blood (Martyardom for the Catholic Faith) and Desire( Perfectly loving God during life and being fre of mortal sins at death). Other then these two "alternatives" no one can come to Salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. This is what the Church teaches (or at least taught) like it or not. †AMDG
-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 15, 2003.
Jeff, --You've expressed it truthfully, yet not understanding perfectly.Souls of good will and perfect contrition for sins may receive Baptism of Desire, if they are in invincible ignorance. Same with a martyr for Christ who is truly repentent. He has Baptism of Blood.
These forms of Baptism are salvific; but no indelible baptismal character is sealed on such souls. For instance, they would not thereby be eligible to partake of the holy Eucharist.
Yet, by these two avenues of salvation, they become members of the Catholic Church before death.
Realising such a great mercy we should see. There's no salvation outside the Church because they are IN THE CHURCH, even without having been publicly received --They are NOT non-Catholics.
We must also recognise these baptisms have strict conditions. Not every soul will deserve one. It's a tentative possibility only. --Unrepentent sin would block them. So we are still sure, despite these exceptions, there is ''no salvation without the Catholic Church.'' God be praised!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.
"There's no salvation outside the Church because they are IN THE CHURCH, even without having been publicly received --They are NOT non- Catholics."Really?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.
Dang it gene, you left the lights on again.
-- (emerald1@cox.net), November 15, 2003.
23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.
28 And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.
And you continue to insist that others can be saved without following Jesus? Read it; You won't believe it, but read it anway.
"My sheep know me,and I know them" Do muslims,jews etc, know Jesus. Not on your life, or theirs.
-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 16, 2003.
UNBELIEVABLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANOTHER THREAD THAT IS TOTAL GARBAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE OPENING POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MODERATOR, YOU ARE ALLOWING THIS FORUM TO BE DESTROYED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have given my heart and soul to this place for almost four years, but you are allowing it to go straight into the toilet. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ???????????????????????????????
God, please, please help us! Give our Moderator a brain and some guts, I beg you.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.
Bubble:
''26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.'' Did you think a verse like this limited God's ways of bringing men to salvation? Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and scribes; who even seeing Him and His works, refused to believe. When Jesus says, ''because you are not of my sheep,'' He hasn't said only a Catholic can be one of His sheep. He means the one who WILL not believe. Mant Catholics believe and yet they sin against their neighbor. Christ had kind words to say about Samaritans many times. WHY?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.
''MODERATOR, YOU ARE ALLOWING THIS FORUM TO BE DESTROYED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''John. Please pipe down. ''. . . my heart and soul to this place for almost four years,--'' All you think about is YOUR HEART--- YOUR SOUL! Get on your knees and ask God's forgiveness. You owe Him an act of humility, and the forum an APOLOGY. Beginning with the Moderator.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statemen saying that Catholics should evangelize non-Christians—but not Jews. "The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples 'of all nations' means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God," says Reflections on Covenant and Mission.Apparently, , you believe Vatican II and these bishops, supercede the bible and tradition. You discount every shred of writings, and say that they did not fully understand, back then. The Holy Ghost did not have to catch up to Vatican two, to gt it right.
-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 16, 2003.
Bubbled--
We see all around us, but not the outcome. You think you see outcomes and you can't. For instance:''Vatican II and these bishops,'' --What kind of way is that for a faithful Catholic to refer to Jesus Christ's Holy Church; ''these bishops''--? ? ?You are burning with arrogance. The devil tempts you to the verge of blasphemy and schism. Don't take my word for it. Ask a confessor.
I dare you to consult with a Catholic priest of the Novus Ordo liturgy. Go to confession. Tell himm frankly of your misgivings. Then hear him out and strive to comply with his counselling. Can you?
The outcome of all this is God's to know, not ours. He works in His own ways, not mens'. We are called to watch and pray; our mortal judgment isn't capable of ''straightening out'' God's Church. We are expected to have faith in HIM to straighten us out.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.
ME? I owe an apology? Like hell, Gene. YOU are one of several true Catholics who has helped to ruin the forum by tolerating the evildoers. You owe such a huge and thorough apology that this "Answer" box is not long enough to hold all the words you would have to try to type in.How DARE you try to pin anything on me, you hypocrite, you enabler, you disobeyer of the Gospel -- for failing to join me in absolutely insisting that the miscreants be banned???!!! I have lost all respect I had for you -- except for the bare minimum that one must have for each human being. Goodbye, and may the Lord transform you.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.
"Over the unleavened bread: ''THIS IS MY BODY.'' -- And, over the wine in the holy chalice: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD--''At this moment and not later; transubstantiation is finished upon the holy altar. "
Eugene, Not so according to the Dogmatic Council of Trent. It was stated that all of the words for both the Consecration of the Bread and the Wine are necessary for Transubstantiation to occur. I talked with two priests about and just to be fair one was Novus Ordo. They both agreed that all of the words are necessary and that the words "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei" alone are not enough for the Transubstantiation to occur. †AMDG
-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 17, 2003.
Gecik, have you nothing else to do that giving yourself to this stupid forum? Are you alone? Depression is your day? Start To Live!
-- johnie placette jr. (joplacette@catholic.org), November 17, 2003.
Hi John I dont think we can ever give up hope, even with poor people as wretched as the curent group of shismos. IIl hope that the moderator bans the shismos but if not Ill remeMber Im not infallible, and try and be modest. ILL try and take a longer more discerning view of the situation try and see if there is a real differnce between my personal intentions and objective aims. Ill try and remain open minded about the future and not polarise everything into black and white. If I fail I wil ask for yours and anyone elses forgiveness, Lord knows Im far from perfect. I have the capacity to create a great deal of unhappiness in others lives if I feel wronged.Just dont reduce everything doWn to false alternatives SIr please look inside your heart to find that amongst that stone wall we face there is somewhere a capacity for change. We as Christians MUST believe this or how are we to face the world we find ourselves in?
The opposite of hope is despair, BE NOT AFRAID JOHN!
I do feel silly preaching to a man as well read as yourself,But ive been reading a bit myself on love ( I wont reveal the book but you can probably guess) and Id like to share what Ive learnt even if its all old hat to you . If Im naieve and missed the central message of Christ then correct me please, what does Christ want from us? Its for me to understand and express how I want to be, how I think Christ wants us all to be, so excuse my selfishness!.
What does God want of us becomes clear in love. We must love our neighbour as ourselves. It is the abandonment of selfishness and the orientaion of ourselves for others, it is the unity of the expression of Gods undivived love for us to others. This extends to even our enemies . SOme see this as a lack of self confidence, as a feeblness etc- for those whose nature is one of an egoist such love requires a radical conversion: to accept another persons standpoint and to give them what we think is due to ourselves.
"True love does not speculate on its reqiutal, does not balance one deed against another, does not expect reward. It is free from calculation and concealed self seeking: it is not egoistic , but completely free from other persons."
Indeed Jesus CORRECTS the Old Testament commandment "You shall love your neigbour" and qumran precept "you shall hate your enemy" with
"LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO PERSUECUTE YOU"
Luke extends this to tell us to
"DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU, BLESS, THOSE WHO CURSE YOU, PRAY FOR THOSE WHO TREAT YOU WITH CONTEMPT"
John love cannot be something we talk about or merely a decision of will and not a venture of the heart. You often say you "love" others but the vitality, emotion, affectivity and forcibly excluded leaving a love that is totally unattractive. Its a sad part that "Christain charity" of the past that often made so little impression because the lack of humanity. Its a balance John...your will is there but your heart is not, it needs depth, warmth, tenderness, patience and gentleness. You lack genuine humanity at times. "Agape"(love that gives) should not extingiush "eros"(love as desire).
May Peace and Love be with you John
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.
"naieve" =naive ;)"and" = are.... so the folowing should make more sense:
"You often say you "love" others but the vitality, emotion, affectivity are forcibly excluded, leaving a love that is totally unattractive."
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.
JmjI'm sorry that you just don't get it, Kiwi.
I didn't need that sermon. I'm perfectly familiar with everything you copied there. What is going on here has nothing to do with love or lack of love. I am fighting for people's souls and for the life of the forum as "Catholic."
The pseudo-trads have a free will that I am not trying to deny them. If their consciences and intellects are so malformed, at this point in their lives, that they feel obliged to believe and act as they do, then I acknowledge their freedom to do so. But not here.
You seem to have missed the whole point of what I am trying to do -- GET RID OF THEM. They don't belong here. This is a Catholic forum, not a "religious" forum or "ex-Catholic" forum. They were welcome briefly, when they first came, but soon proved to be improper material for "residency."
As a Catholic, I should not have to be exposed to their filth, day after day.
As Catholics, you and Gene and Mateo and the Pauls and others should not have to spend hours uselessly trying to refute them, day after day. (They never learn, but just continue the self-delusion, trickery, mockery, and other asinine behaviors.)
As Catholics, non-Catholics, and unchurched people, our "lurkers" should not have to be exposed to the pseudo-trad errors -- which could lead them into Protestantism and possibly damnation.
Now do you get it? I am not out to harm anyone personally. As far as I'm concerned, the Four Stooges are just four people deserving to be loved like any other four -- but THEY DON'T BELONG HERE.
I am not trying to hurt them or hate them or anything like that. In fact, my push to ban them is not done only to protect the forum. It is also the proper way of loving the pseudo-trads, under the circumstances -- just as the Church's act of excommunication is medicinal, a way of showing "tough love" for kids who have done wrong. The WRONG way to try to love people like the Stooges is Gene's way (which you may be in danger of falling into) -- i.e., a false compassion that tolerates misbehavior indefinitely.
Overnight, I decided to put the Forum "on probation" for about three months. If the place is not cleaned up to my satisfaction by the end of February, I will be leaving permanently. I would have to leave, because I would then know that the forum's label -- "Catholic" -- is a fraud, is false advertising.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.
Hi John hey it wasnt all copied it just had a fair bit of Kung in the mix, something I knew you would bite my head off for quoting. John I do get it, I love the Catholic Church as well, dont go SIr wait at least for the appointment of the new assistant moderator to see if things change.God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.
Poor Kiwi:
There was good will and valuable advice in his post to our friend; and what did he gain? He gained what others did; John's summary judgment: ''You don't GET IT!''Here's the bottom line, Kiwi: JOHN places this Forum on probation for about three months. Quote--''If the place is not cleaned up to my satisfaction by the end of February, I will be leaving!''
''TO MY SATISFACTION -- !'' Is this John Gecik's private army? We are no longer FREE? --Oh, No! Didn't he ''give'' us three months? Yes-- 90 days! No more!
That's pathetic. I have prayed for this poor man to lose that pettiness and do as you have advised him here. I'll keep on praying. He's ''lost all respect'' for Gene; but Gene can't allow himself a grudge. I also want a good atmosphere within our forum. -- Let's pray for that as well.
To EVERYBODY'S SATSFACTION. And most of all, the Will of the Holy Spirit!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.
When matters of a serious nature are brought up, it appears that the words go out the window. When a select few bring their concerns, it seems that the words may as well be invisible. This is a serious time. Before submitting this version of my post, I was tempted to launch into a more personalized response, but I realised something. Satan dwells here, and He loves it. He thrives on seeing God's people turn on one another. He loves to see the destruction of this forum.Do we consider the seriousness of our continuing to attack people here ? I mean, the content of posts I have been reading lately have been absolutely childish. Are we reflecting Christ's glory in this forum ?
A last point, don't wait for the other person to change before you will. If we seriously consider what our Lord Jesus went through on the cross, we would cry bitter tears of sorrow and regret towards our own attitudes. I know I have about mine in the past.
Olly
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 17, 2003.
Oliver, My friend:
Your words are all very true. But they aren't comforting; they speak of great distress. We can't falter when the faith is at stake, we have to stand ground. Anything less is lack of faith, and lukewarm interest in God's Divine Will.''He loves to see the destruction of this forum.'' --You think. Satan would love that? How is he going to destroy the forum where we serve the Holy Spirit? How is deleting everyone's post when he irritates the faithful serving the Holy Spirit? A forum has to delete SOME but hardly all who argue with a catholic. I'm in favor of banning some intruders from the forum. I've stated that well. But we have no reason to say EVEN THEY would ''destroy'' this forum. Nor to say Satan brought them here, to cause conflicts. Oliver, we live in the WORLD. This is not the convent; it's a place of open discussion, not the home of Satan. Please consider every aspect, before you pass these judgments. What is ''deteriorated'' to you and some, is ''critically important'' to me among others. We have to keep the faith; and our way is open to respect and confrontation BOTH! No one advocates hatred here. Not I!-- My colleague John is driven by impulses against friendship and understanding. He wants to BAN those who dispute anything here; in order to bring us together in a cloister of holy men and women. Well; I agree that a few really ought to be banned. However,
I want to stay in the world, but not be OF the world. We take up a cross here. I'm for carrying it, not rejecting it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.
Cheer up Olly its not as dark in here as it looks at the moment, it will pass, God Bless you.Hi Gene the "quadruple jackass" comment will take some beating, Lord only knows where he dreams up these adjectives, hes really something else when hes got a head of steam up. I cant believe hes not hamming it up sometimes, his posts are just so outrageous, even a "Kiwi Golem" in attack mode couldnt come close to matching his fury.ANyway what I wanted to say is thanks as always and have yourself an enjoyable Thanksgiving Sir.
ps Ill never foget when you said about never leaving JFG out to dry for all his personal foibles Ciao.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 18, 2003.
Lord only knows where he dreams up these adjectivesMind your tongue. Don't you know we're on probation?
-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.
You, Jake-- Are one of the few who ought to have been banned some time ago. When I humbly state we serve the Holy Spirit in this forum, you aren't included, I'm sorry. You serve Jake and pharisaical elitism. That's not the faith.As for John; we are not here to gossip about the man. His is a strange case. Charity demands we shut up about John.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.
" ..He is a strange case."We are all "strange cases" Mr. Chavez. I know I am, thats for sure.
God bless you
-- - (David@excite.com), November 18, 2003.
You, Jake-- Are one of the few who ought to have been banned some time ago.I was. Remember? Then I was let back in.
When I humbly state we serve the Holy Spirit in this forum, you aren't included, I'm sorry.
How do you know you are serving the Holy Ghost? How do you know He is pleased by what you type here?
-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.
"even a "Kiwi Golem" in attack mode couldnt come close to matching his fury."I kinda liked that nickname. Who thought it up? Was it Jean?
God bless,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 18, 2003.
Jake,
To tell the truth, I sometimes see a particular post of mine and it appalls me. I sometimes return to aplogise.What I said here is WE serve the Holy Spirit; Catholics do. You could too, but so far I haven't (Just my opinion) noticed much upside to your contributions. They consist of some religiosity, some exhibitionism and consistently erroneous judgment. But, I suppose you think you're serving Him in some way.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.
What I said here is WE serve the Holy Spirit; Catholics do.The Church at large, you mean? Well, yeah. That's what the Church Militant is supposed to do.
I haven't (Just my opinion) noticed much upside to your contributions.
They are what they are. I calls 'em like I sees 'em, much as you or anyone else does, I think.
They consist of some religiosity,
Well, that's good...
some exhibitionism
Ew.
and consistently erroneous judgment.
I do my best.
But, I suppose you think you're serving Him in some way
Unworthily, mostly.
-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.
Jake,
For religiosity a Catholic would not deserve to be banned from our forum.For exhibitionism
and consistently erroneous judgment.
Or serving Him ''unworthily, mostly''--You could be banned. It's all up to you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.
How about for promoting schism, which according to your papal namesake leads to people ending up in the Lake of Fire? Shouldn't that be grounds for banning too?
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 18, 2003.
"How about for promoting schism..."Never did that. Besides, you need to go back and read the document. It says "...implies schism", and I'm not SSPX anyways. Ecclesia Dei was centered around the act of the consectration of Bishops, not schism.
The Mass of Trent and what you know as tradition Catholicism was not excommunicated from the Church that day. That day was not a day when Trads were officially banned from the Catholic Church.
"...which according to your papal namesake leads to people ending up in the Lake of Fire?"
From what I'm given to understand, only traditionalist Catholics end up there.
"Shouldn't that be grounds for banning too?"
Only if someone wants to perform a self-serving action. I have said nothing, to my knowledge, against Catholic doctrine.
Furthermore, I fully give my consent to the following Ex Cathedra statement:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Bull Unam Sanctam
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2003.
Sorry jake, that question of schism was directed at you. I got confused with a similiar thread.It's all true anyways.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2003.
--You could be banned. It's all up to you.I could be banned, but it's not up to me. It's up to the moderator, and I will fully comply with whatever he or his successor decides. Until then, though, I have no plans to leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
How about for promoting schism, which according to your papal namesake leads to people ending up in the Lake of Fire? Shouldn't that be grounds for banning too?
1. I haven't promoted schism, and despite all your creative tailoring, you'll never be able to make that label fit. Ever.
2. The rules are few and pretty straightforward. If "promoting schism" was grounds for banning, none of your separated Protestant bretheren would be permitted, I would think.
-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.
Point taken Gene.Hi Mateo I do believe it was bestowed upon me by none other than Mr Chavez whilst we were exchanging pleasantries some time ago!
-- Kiwi Golem (csishewrwood@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.
JmjGene, after reflecting on some advice from a wise friend two days ago, I had decided to stop my criticisms of you -- from now until my potential forum-exit day (Leap-Year Day), if not beyond.
However, I've noticed that you haven't gotten me out of your system yet (continuing to gossip about me six or seven times on various threads, yesterday and today). Instead of getting upset, I'll take it as flattery and proof that you still love me. However, if you must talk about me, keep a few things in mind ...
1. "Didn't he 'give' us three months? Yes-- 90 days! No more!"
I know that you're old and decrepit, Gene, but not so old that you can't do a little arithmetic and figure out that it's more than 90 days from 11/17 to 02/29.2. When I write a post, try to read my words carefully. Read what I said, not what your wild imagination tells you I said. [And this goes for Joke too.] It's not that I gave you three months. And it's not you who are "on probation." It's "the forum" that I put on probation. Mainly that means that certain indispensable changes must occur here.
3. Avoid statements that are so obviously wrong that they come out looking like lies -- such as: "John is driven by impulses against friendship and understanding. He wants to BAN those who dispute anything here." It's not like you to lie, Gene, but what other word can one use about the quoted words? The only other choice is to call you one of the most stupid human beings on the planet. Only a liar or a dumbkopf could have written those quoted words.
First, I have no impulses whatsoever against friendship and understanding. There is nothing I'd love better than to be friendly with everyone and to be understanding. Second, I've told you, and proved to you scores of times, that I don't "want to BAN those who dispute anything here". Instead, it takes a LOT (both in terms of multiplied improprieties and time-span) before I call for a banning. So stop lying about me, please -- or, if you aren't consciously lying, stop saying idiotic things that contradict what I've told you time and again.
4. Maybe you would do better here -- would say more sensible things, fewer lies/errors, fewer offensive and sarcastic words -- if you get some more sleep. Being on the forum 16 to 18 hours per day is a bit much, isn't it? Start enjoying your meals at the table with your wife for a change. Stop making her bring the food over by the computer, so that you won't miss anything on the screen. [I know, I know. It ain't that way. But it seems plausible to an observer.]
5. Keep in mind that, if it weren't for me, you wouldn't even be here. That's right, pal. You owe me, but you never pay me back when I ask for a favor (such as asking moderator to ban the Stooges). When we were all mistreated in January, you took flight intending never to return. (I too left, but paid a visit one day and seemed to notice a new atmostphere.) So when the coast seemed clear in April or May, I sent you e-mail inviting you to return. You wouldn't be here now if I had not done that. I guess I must be a masochist, because look what I brought upon myself -- your lack of gratitude and your continued bashing.
6. Keep in mind that I brought you back again (in August, I think), because you left the forum out of total disgust at Emerald and James XWing. [I'll link the thread for you, if you doubt me.] Rather than demand that these two losers be banned (which would have been just), you fled from them and the forum. (Even I left for a few days, so incredibly sickening were Emerald and Xwing at that time.) Consequently, the moderator effectively banned Xwing by frustrating him (deleting almost all his posts). And, astoundingly, Emerald left for a few weeks on his own. [I wrongly assumed he had been banned, as he should have been.] Since the two total losers were gone, I returned and got you to come back again. What then happened? The bleep-bleep Emerald came back to join the other Stooges in the ensuing destruction of the forum (August - November). What did you do to show your gratitude to me for bringing you back a second time? I say it again ... NOTHING.
All right, Gene. I'll try to leave it there and ignore you for a few months -- unless I've move you to so "good guilt" and you decide to turn over a new leaf.
Thanks, Kiwi Glow-Worm, for that compliment (?) about my weird literary skills.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.