There is great controversy in our church about invincible ignorance. Here ae what popes taught about it. Why is there such confusion when Rome has spoken?

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:

“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.

Every person above the age of reason must have a positive knowledge of these mysteries of Faith to be saved. There are no exceptions. And this truth of the Catholic Faith is why scores of Popes and Saints have taught that every single member of that mass of humanity who lives in ignorance of Christ is under the devil’s dominion and will not be saved, unless he is incorporated into Christ’s marvelous light by faith and baptism.

Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis Sept. 18, 1840: “We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands…They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion… At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.

-- Kit (AlexanderJ@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Kit (AlexanderJ@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

Dear Kit:
Tell us what you fail to understand about invincible ignorance; whether souls go to heaven or perhaps they're damned. What is it damns a soul? Is it ignorance, or sin?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 18, 2004.

Dear Eugene;

I do not mean to start a controversy, but that is what the popes have said. Is it ignarance or sin? O course it is sin, but all have sinned as St. Paul says. How will anyone be forgiven without the sacraments?

Can we Catholics be forgiven without the sacament of confession?. The church says no.

-- Kit (AlexanderJ@yahoo.com)), December 18, 2004.

You do not have to look into the distant past to see what the Church teaches. In fact, limiting yourself to ancient statements on doctrinal issues will greatly limit the fullness of your understanding of those doctrines. The fullest understanding of doctrinal issues is found in the most recent statements of the Magisterium, which benefit from the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit over the centuries. The fullest possible understanding available to date on this specific issue can be found in the catechism of the Catholic Church, section 847. Once you read this you understand the doctrine as the Holy Spirit reveals it to the Church in this day and age. There is no further need to dig back into time to read less substantial statements by Popes of the past.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 18, 2004.

"Why is there such confusion when Rome has spoken?"

Because they are in dissent against Catholic doctrine. Pretty simple.

Invincible ignorance is neither.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 18, 2004.

Dear Kit:
Sin is what bars the way to salvation. No soul is ever to enter into the holy presence of God unless his/her sins are all forgiven. Jesus Christ is the One who brings us forgiveness. He alone.

A person who is in invincible ignorance and yet has true sorrow for his sins may not know Christ. He may never have known the Holy Gospel. But SOMETIMES-- the unfortunate failure to hear the gospel; to meet the Redeemer, Jesus Christ --through no personal fault, --may not damn him. Since God is infinitely Just, and he wishes for all men to be saved, He will likely forgive a soul who acted always in ignorance. He will forgive Him for the sake of Jesus His Son, who died for all sinners.

But NOT if the sinner is unrepentent and dies in sin. Ignorance can't be enough to bring him forgiveness. He must be truly sorry for any evil he did in his lifetime.

It's the Church's teaching that one who lived an upright life, hated sin and never rejected the Gospel, may yet be saved by Christ's infinite merits on the cross; so long as he was completely ignorant of the Holy Gospel. --That is the meaning of invincible ignorance. It's up to God, naturally, to determine whether or not that poor soul would have been a faithful Christian if he had been capable of faith in Christ.

If we deny this, we are guilty of (1.) Judging another soul, which is unjust. And, (2.) Denial of the infinite power of God to discern what's in the hearts of all men. We can't be the judges. We only know this: SIN will bring a soul to damnation, and sin is forgiven those who repent to the best of their ability before death. When sin is forgiven a soul, it is ALWAYS through Jesus Christ; there is no other Redeemer. He will forgive whomever He wishes according to the given circumstance. A very potent grace is given to some in the end; entirely from Jesus; no other one can give it.

He once did it for the dying thief on the cross next to Him. At the last moment; out of His love for those who are sorry and confess their unworthiness. It might be very rare. This is undeniable. But with God nothing is impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 18, 2004.

From the Catechism:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. 1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

"If we deny this, we are guilty of (1.) Judging another soul, which is unjust. And, (2.) Denial of the infinite power of God to discern what's in the hearts of all men."

Neither #1 nor #2 logically follow.

But if they did, it would in fact follow logically that Pope St. Pius X was guilty on both counts. That's the whole point: Kit says that Pope St. Pius X just ruled out what you say the Church teaches about invincible ignorance, and therefore guilty of your deductions 1 and 2.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 19, 2004.

You may construe whatever pleases you. But the Chuurch always taught the possibility however remote, of a soul's salvation (through Christ) who died rejecting sin while yet ignorant of the Gospel. It would have to be a signal grace; God judging that had he been allowed any opportunity he would have believed in Our Saviour and accepted baptism. Only Almighty God would have that knowledge. To us it's altogether hypothetical.

My post merely explains exactly what invincible ignorance is, and we have the Church's word for it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2004.

In all honesty, your post is miles past better than most. To be in complete keeping with the jerk, I'd have to openly state the obvious, which is that Paul's post on the other hand is pure and complete modernism through and through. You couldn't provide a better example of what Pascendi Dominici Gregis was whining about than the example of Paul's own words above. No personal offense intended Paul, but I mean come ON... lol! Tell me you can't see this. Why can't you see it?

But take note at the particular portion which I chose to gripe about, Gene, which are your two conclusions concerning anyone who denied your premise concerning what the Church teaches. Now I deny it. Why? Well, you already a fair idea. Is it because I'm in obstinate denial of a doctrine of the Faith? Absolutely not. I wouldn't be caught dead, literally, denying the Catholic Faith. A sinner to be sure, but no denier of the Faith.

Sure I take issue with your statement about what you say the Church teaches concerning invincible ignorance, saying basically that it doesn't teach what you say it does. What few references are put forth (early on) by Pius IX for instance are taken very much out of context, especially in light of other statements of his which make it clear that he intended no such thing as to teach that ignorance was salvific. For instance:

"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls." --Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 1854

In honesty, you hold to a certain bit principle in your post. Not without compromise, but close. Close ain't good enough, though, not when it comes to the Faith, not where the salvation of souls is concerned.

Think about it. If it really is true that there is no salvation outside the Church, how would this affect your life? My life? What would be different? Perhaps for some people, it would change nothing. Which would be good, because they are already in the groove so to speak. But for others, the truth would turn their world upside down. Painfully perhaps, but profitably. True Christianity should be like that, we might assume.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 19, 2004.

I believe that it is possible to look at this subject like a mirror image.

What if there is no invincible ignorance but hardness of heart.. That way the Lord cannot enter into all those hearts, but He can reach into the heart of those open to Him, and thus will provide them with what they need, (be it baptism with water, and entry into the Catholic faith) In that way He protects the truly innocent without compromising His own words of sacred scripture.

-- Kit (AlexanderJ@yahoo.com)),), December 19, 2004.

Emerald chooses to deny Christ would ever have motive to supercede the letter of the law. Yet we know Jesus had no qualms whatever about it. God is love, and love covers a multitude of sins.

It's easy to tighten the screws on non-catholics, Jews and pagans. All that's needed is to dredge up passages from letters of some Pope. He won't object, because one, he's dead now. Two, the same Pope could have written a hundred letters on the infinite mercy and love of our Saviour. It wouldn't be so hard to see all men as deserving of mercy, if Emerald acknowledged this. But, he won't.

And I will. I'm every bit as traditional as Emerald and clearer indeed than many, on the meaning of Catholic doctrine. To me it's imperative we see it from Christ's overall point of view. Not from that of a Pharisee. He came to save sinners. He founded the Church, and we obey her. But Jesus IS the Church; and can admit any soul He pleases.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2004.

That sounds right, Kit.

"Emerald chooses to deny Christ would ever have motive to supercede the letter of the law."

Are you sure that you can equate the necessity of holding the Faith or the necessity of the Sacraments with matters of the law? I'm not sure you can. If the Sacraments and the Faith are the way things are, or the Truth, how can they be superceded? Some things cannot be done.

"Yet we know Jesus had no qualms whatever about it. God is love, and love covers a multitude of sins."

True, love covers a multitude of sins, but that would be actual sins. But here, we the discussion mostly revolves around Oiginal Sin nd the holding of the principles of the Faith. It would be jumping boundaries to posit that that love He speaks of in any way resolves Original Sin. Besides, I belief the love He refers to in regards to charity of a member of the Mystical Body, not to Himself.

"It's easy to tighten the screws on non-catholics, Jews and pagans. All that's needed is to dredge up passages from letters of some Pope. He won't object, because one, he's dead now."

Believe it or not, that was never the intention. The intention was to tighten the screws on the Catholics, to hold and keep the Faith. If the Catholics have a screw loose, then the world comes unhinged.

Draw up an analogy with children. I'm sure you know what happens when parents grow lenient, lax and soft on their children; because of fallen nature, the path of least resistance is the popular option. Practically speaking, it'll be taken so more often than not that you could bank on it. A couple things happen, though, when you speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and hold to standards, and hold to discipline. If they are good willed, they'll always come back to thank you. If they are of ill will, they blame everyone but themselves for their own actions, while those bad actions continue to pile up in number and intensity. In this analogy, the first is somewhat like salvation and the latter is a lot like Hell. But if you are lax and avoid speaking the truth, then you can gaurantee the second result in nearly all cases. That's pretty much what we have in the Church right now.

"It wouldn't be so hard to see all men as deserving of mercy, if Emerald acknowledged this. But, he won't."

Of course I won't, because it is contradictory at the outset: it is impossible to deserve mercy. Mercy, but definition, presumes that the receiver doesn't deserve it. And we don't deserve it... I don't, you don't, and noone else does either. It proceeds from the infinite love of God.

"And I will. I'm every bit as traditional as Emerald and clearer indeed than many, on the meaning of Catholic doctrine. To me it's imperative we see it from Christ's overall point of view. Not from that of a Pharisee. He came to save sinners. He founded the Church, and we obey her. But Jesus IS the Church; and can admit any soul He pleases."

lol! This is what I like about you, Gene. Gol dernit if I done characterized something in a fashion that cranked you, so now you're all cystal clear-headed, and I'm a pharisee.

I have to admit though, this garment rending I do is costing me an arm and a leg every month in terms of trips to mall.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 19, 2004.

Wait a minute. You didn't call me a pharisee, I think, after reading it a second time. That's too bad, because it was fun to think that you had.

Ah, you can't have it all, I suppose. Pardon the grammar and stuff btw.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 19, 2004.

So, Emmie:
The thread's title is, ''Invincible ignorance is still a controversy.''

We haven't changed that, have we? But you tried. I don't think my posts relied on sophistry, anyway. You get a lot of mileage from sophisms, by calking up the cracks with humor. Invincible ignorance can't be dismissed, however.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2004.

"I don't think my posts relied on sophistry, anyway."

No, I don't think so either, really.

"You get a lot of mileage from sophisms..."

Nope. Uhuh. Disagree.

"...by calking up the cracks with humor."

I'll concede this one.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 19, 2004.

"Invincible ignorance is still a controversy"

A: Well, anything is controversial for those who reject the authority of those who are teaching it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2004.

"Well, anything is controversial for those who reject the authority of those who are teaching it."

Who is doing that?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 20, 2004.

Dear Kit, Emerald, and everyone else,

Perhaps we should move beyond *theory* to *praxis* on this question. In other words, are we inviting our neighbors to Mass? Are we praying for their (and our own) conversion?

As the Fatima prayer so simply and beautifully says, "O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy."

So, why are we sitting here arguing about who may or may not be saved?

Whether we say that no one may be saved outside the Catholic Church, or whether we say that some or even many may be saved by God's mercy on account of their ignorance, the truth still remains as Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Therefore it should be our goal to, by God's grace, be always in close union with Christ the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Doesn't that imply, practically, that we all pray fervently for everyone we meet, Catholics and heathen alike? Doesn't that imply that we engage in a bit of using our lay apostolate?

Frankly, we could argue 'til the cows come home on fine points of papal and conciliar statements. But I think the Magisterium is clear that, regardless, the Catholic Church is, as my old Baltimore Catechism used to say, "the only *safe* way to heaven." So why not invite others to learn about Christ and about holy Church? And pray for *everyone's* growth in grace? After all, being a Catholic, however orthodox, is no guarantee that we ourselves will be saved! We all rely on the mercy of God, and should seek that mercy for others and for ourselves.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 20, 2004.

Thank you, Karl, for the Catechism quote, which is helpful and sensible and true.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 20, 2004.

You are so right. Being a Catholic does not guarantee salvation.

It is a big step in the right direction however and That is why we must stop ecuminism and go back to evangilization.

That is not a popular word these days, but was it ever popular?

Ecumanism is just a lot of talking and back slapping ending up with You are OK and I am OK.

Who was ever ecumanized into the church. I cannot picture Jesus saying " Now get out that and start ecumanizing".

-- Kit (AlexanderJ@yahoo.com)), December 20, 2004.

It hardly matters what you can picture, Kit.

Ecumanism is is one of the tasks of Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the holy shepherd over the whole flock of Christ's followers. Today millions of those followers are scattered; many of them lost and bewildered amidst the diverse little flocks who need the Catholic faith. They are supposed to be found and brought back. Only the Church can accomplish this blessed task.

It is evangelization, the Holy Gospel says so: ''Other sheep have I, who are not of this flock. --They shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold.'' (John 10 :16) Without Peter there is no ecumenism, and the sheep will never return to the fold.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

"ecumenism" is one of those terms that surely needs a definition, in the Catholic context, before it can be lauded or condemned.

there is no such definition in the Catechism, according to my research. [i have checked the index under "ecumenism" etc.]

in particular, does "ecumenism" mean [or equate with]:

- indifferentism; or

- universalism.

furthermore, the actual practice of ecumenism itself ought, presumably, to be a key consideration. has it changed the practice of the Faith in a way that negatively effects the Salvific quality of the Church?

.........and the results of that ecumenism:

1/ has ecumenism actually resulted in the conversion of others to the Catholic Faith?

2/ has it altered the Faith into which they have been converted: a "reverse take-over", such that in truth no conversion, or a limited conversion, has occurred?

3/ has ecumenism hardened the hearts of others to the Church?

4/ ... or has ecumenism legitimised the beliefs of others in their own minds?

5/ ..and has ecumenism weakened the faith of Catholics[, thereby achieving the perverse and opposite result]?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

Ian:
Ecumenism is a movement, a trend; bridging the Catholic and non-catholic Christian persuasions. It stands for the attempt, a mutual attempt, at eventual reunification of all Christians. We have the impetus given the Church not by well-meaning tolerant Catholic prelates and self-ordained ministers of the sectarian Christian faiths; but given by the Holy Spirit.

Christ already stated there would then be only ONE fold; and we as His people must labor to get the fold together. That's ecumenism. If to some (you?) it seems fruitless or unnecessary, because we shouldn't water down the catholic faith-- to the Holy Spirit it isn't so. It's a labor of love. We are called to love our separated brethren; and by love we are inspired to give in to a small number of external changes in the liturgy, such as the vernacular language. The faith isn't being compromised or altered. We have the Mass, the sacraments, our saints, our Church's authorised interpretations of scripture. We do not sell out for the sake of reuniting. We help others to approach with confidence the Church where their ancestors were reared. It's a big task; and again I say, only the Catholic Church is capable of such an effort. This is God's Will; that we be One, not diverse and autonomous, with the Pope over a part and those brethren headless in this life. We must PRAY for the ecumenical movement to gain momentum, not disparage it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

Eugene,

that's a mighty persuasive answer. in its general terms, it addresses, expressly or obliquely, many, if not all, of the questions that i posed.

however, i am most willing to bet that an equally talented "traditional-but-not-you Catholic" could come with something equallt impressive.

so, perhaps, the start point could be referrals to the specific question.

educate me.

where did the Bible or this Creed or that Council or thonder Pope Dogmatically define Invincible Ignorance? is it Infallible? or is it a theory - or a mere spes?

MUST i believe it? [as much as i would like too, btw]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

It's certainly no dogma. Opponents launch the argument that our faith itself is the dogma; that nobody BUT faithful Catholics can be saved. Doctrinally, it's true. Christ gave us the basics; a Church, sacramental life, final perseverance.

But we know from God's Word that He desires ALL men to be saved. Since all salvation is through the infinite merits of Christ ONLY, we expect Christ to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. Why should these two premises be at odds? They aren't. Is it only by His Church; or also His own free gift?

He provides the non-catholic a back-door into the ONE Church. It's not dogma, it's faith in Jesus Christ, the ultimate Saviour. He loves each one of us; Catholic or not.

Whomever He forgives outside the Catholic faith, (invincible ignorance presumed) must be a soul incapable of knowing the Gospel of the apostles. Surely they are many; who live by conscience and good will, in charity, and hate sin. What's lacking? Repentence and reform. Belief in one Supreme being and His Justice. Love.

Jesus cannot be indifferent, much less ignorant of that soul's good will. His grace becomes the Baptism of Desire; granted out of love for all men. The soul is admitted into the Church without further questions. Because we love Him we concede: Jesus needs nobody's approval; He is the Lord.

What is it the angelic choirs sing in the heavens above the city of Bethlehem? ''Glory to God in the highest! Peace on earth and Good Will towards men of good will!'' ----- Telling us that with God, nothing is impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

that's a fine argument, Eugene. but i confess that i struggle to understand its basis.

if it all boils down to "one take" on the fact that Jesus is All- Merciful, consider this:

1/ tell me about those poor people who, having foolishly entered marriage with "the love of their life", find through "no fault of their own", that the marriage was not was it was meant to be. they must live the celibate life, or be denied the Eucharist.

2/ .....or those gay people, who "through no fault of their own", find themselves, for whatever reason, irrestibly attracted to an actively gay life style. who lead good lives. who peform good works. who love and adore Jesus. whose good lives might otherwise shame many priests.

3/ ....or the victims of AIDS/ HIV in Africa who are denied the use of contraceptives when, surely, the Merciful God would just "throw some slack". they may well love Jesus more than you or i. they just happen to have been born into circumstances with which we cannot even begin to empthasise. you say "Jesus cannot be indifferent, much less ignorant of that soul's good will. His grace becomes the Baptism of Desire; granted out of love for all men. The soul is admitted into the Church without further questions."

extrapolate out and ****everyone**** is saved, imho. a fine thought. at very least, a harmless thought, until one considers the Catholic Faith and its importance in all of this.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 20, 2004.

Ecumenism is a movement, a trend; bridging the Catholic and non- catholic Christian persuasions.

A movement and trend that is carried too far, too often by Catholic prelates imo.

Good Ecumenism

Bad Ecumenism

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 20, 2004.

Dear Ian:
Your words aren't very clear.

''--but i confess that i struggle to understand its basis.''What's basis? Invincible ignorance? You know what basis. One who lives outside the Christian faith for reasons he didn't choose. A soul who's born & dies in India or Turkey, for instance. He's never taught about the Gospel, God the Father of Jesus Christ, or the Catholic faith.

''--if it all boils down to "one take" on the fact that Jesus is All- Merciful,'' I never said ''one take,'' God must be the Judge.

''-- poor people who, having foolishly entered marriage with "the love of their life", find through "no fault of their own", that the marriage was not was it was meant to be. they must live the celibate life, or be denied the Eucharist.''

--What do you mean? These people aren't invincibly ignorant, neither does the Catholic Church condemn them. They may be in sin. But hardly owing to invincible ignorance. In fact, they could repent and be square with God someday. Let's hope so. If not, their sins will damn them.

''--for whatever reason, irrestibly attracted to an actively gay life style. who lead good lives. who peform good works. who love and adore Jesus. whose good lives might otherwise shame many priests.'' An active gay life cannot be a good life. It's a sinful life, and has nothing to do with invincible ignorance, but with an impure passion. Someday Christ will judge such a soul and reward him/her according to his works. He will judge us all, including heterosexuals. We must each one of us REPENT of all sin. That will include gay sinners; Sorry.

''victims of AIDS/ HIV in Africa who are denied the use of contraceptives when surely, Merciful God would just "throw some slack". they may well love Jesus more than you or i. they just happen to have been born into circumstances with which we cannot even begin to empthasise. you say "Jesus cannot be indifferent, much less ignorant of that soul's good will.''

Don't ask me or anybody-- what God is supposed to do. He is All- Just, and never damns any soul without just cause. All you're proposing here is that God must forget about good and evil. He is never going to reward evil. When I said ''a soul's good will,'' there was no suggestion we ever sin in an acceptable way. Sin can't be good will, not even out of ignorance. Souls of good will may live an upright life, despite their sins. If it means living a chaste life, that's what God intends for them. Not gay sex, not condoms or anything illicit. They can repent and be forgiven. Precisely because God leads them to repentance, forgiving some for their ignorance of the Holy Gospel. God definitely discerns between good souls and evil-doers. Evil- doers do not repent. They die in sin, barring some revelation prior to death.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

Dear Ian:
Your words aren't very clear.

''--but i confess that i struggle to understand its basis.''What's basis? Invincible ignorance? You know what basis. One who lives outside the Christian faith for reasons he didn't choose. A soul who's born & dies in India or Turkey, for instance. He's never taught about the Gospel, God the Father of Jesus Christ, or the Catholic faith.

''--if it all boils down to "one take" on the fact that Jesus is All- Merciful,'' I never said ''one take,'' God must be the Judge.

''-- poor people who, having foolishly entered marriage with "the love of their life", find through "no fault of their own", that the marriage was not was it was meant to be. they must live the celibate life, or be denied the Eucharist.''

--What do you mean? These people aren't invincibly ignorant, neither does the Catholic Church condemn them. They may be in sin. But hardly owing to invincible ignorance. In fact, they could repent and be square with God someday. Let's hope so. If not, their sins will damn them.

''--for whatever reason, irrestibly attracted to an actively gay life style. who lead good lives. who peform good works. who love and adore Jesus. whose good lives might otherwise shame many priests.'' An active gay life cannot be a good life. It's a sinful life, and has nothing to do with invincible ignorance, but with an impure passion. Someday Christ will judge such a soul and reward him/her according to his works. He will judge us all, including heterosexuals. We must each one of us REPENT of all sin. That will include gay sinners; Sorry.

''victims of AIDS/ HIV in Africa who are denied the use of contraceptives when surely, Merciful God would just "throw some slack". they may well love Jesus more than you or i. they just happen to have been born into circumstances with which we cannot even begin to empthasise. you say "Jesus cannot be indifferent, much less ignorant of that soul's good will.''

Don't ask me or anybody-- what God is supposed to do. He is All- Just, and never damns any soul without just cause. All you're proposing here is that God must forget about good and evil. He is never going to reward evil. When I said ''a soul's good will,'' there was no suggestion we ever sin in an acceptable way. Sin can't be good will, not even out of ignorance. Souls of good will may live an upright life, despite their sins. If it means living a chaste life, that's what God intends for them. Not gay sex, not condoms or anything illicit. They can repent and be forgiven. Precisely because God leads them to repentance, forgiving some for their ignorance of the Holy Gospel. God definitely discerns between good souls and evil-doers. Evil- doers do not repent. They die in sin, barring some revelation prior to death.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

Eugene

My last post was indeed possibly quite hard to follow.

I was attempting to make two points.

First I wanted to moot a point that the “basis” [I’ll explain that term] of the theology of “invincible ignorance” could be used to drive coach and horses through the whole Catholic Faith. I gave a few examples of areas where this “basis” could be used in future. Areas where the “ugly rigidity” of the Faith ought to be made more “Christian”. You made clear your views, that there were substantive objections to examples I gave.

The second – and more important point – was to attempt to gain an understanding of the “basis” of “invincible ignorance”.

This is where I’ll explain what I mean by the “basis”.

Looking at this from a Catholic view point, we have various notions – that are not just notions, but facts that MUST be believed by each and every Catholic.

DOGMA:

- Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

- Baptism remits Original Sin [and Actual Sin].

- Baptism is necessary for salvation.

- Water is necessary for Baptism.

- Membership of the Church is necessary for salvation.

- Dogma does not change or develop or evolve.

These notions provide the basis upon which “invincible ignorance” becomes controversial – the point of this thread.

According to my research, the corresponding basis of “invincible ignorance” seems to be an understanding of Scripture that: (A) God wishes salvation upon all men and (B) God is merciful. well, indeed He is!

But I just wonder. Is God merciful because, by our standards, He shows perfect mercy? Or is God merciful because He told us what merciful meant – He defines it? it is Him.

Example: if Jesus in Scripture demanded that all first-born Catholics be sacrificed, would that make God bad?

Answer #1: “Scripture doesn’t say that”. [Yes- but that avoids the issue]

Answer #2: “if it DID say that, God would remain perfectly merciful, and perfectly perfect in all respects.” [my answer]

Answer #3: [maybe there are lots - maybe including a new interpretation of that edict]

….just because we feel uneasy with Catholic Dogma, that doesn’t make it wrong. As you rightly say, there is a greater power. However, he has already told us exactly what to do.

in truth, invincible ignorance is possibly the tip of the ice-berg. someone posted Dominus Iesus above. it is based upon the same theology -- though IMHO, and subject to correction by anyone else.

Am I still being cryptic? If so, I will try again.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

btw, just because i answered in the affirmative in Answer #2, that does mean that i could do it. i would most likely sin grievously on that one. but the point is made.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

Games don't make one faithful. You should look at all this with true spirituality and prudence. Not as a game of Gotcha. I always try to make a spiritual statement. (Until someone becomes abusive-- see some other threads here.)

''-- “invincible ignorance” could be used to drive coach and horses through the whole Catholic Faith.'' No-- Not at all. Invincible ignorance is conjecture based on available proofs. God wishes all men to be saved, above all. Yet all men are not baptised Catholics. But, in fact, some ARE; and even without baptism of water. Yet, I repeat: conjecture makes this plain, not dogma. The Catholc doctrine of holy baptism tells us there are three baptisms. Water baptism (biblical), baptism of Desire, and baptism of Blood (also biblical.) Only water baptism imprints on a soul the baptismal character. The others don't, but nonetheless, bring souls into the Church and take away Original sin. They suffice altogether for salvation.

Obviously, a pagan would reach salvation by Desire. God alone is omniscient, and would know the desires of every living soul. Doctrinal truth here is not violated in the least.

''--if Jesus in Scripture demanded that all first-born Catholics be sacrificed, would that make God bad?'' is a sophism, Ian. Of course this wouldn't make God bad. But it is clearly unjust, and God is All-Just. So, the question is; ''Why would you allow God to seem unjust, to bolster an objection against His Divine Mercy?'' And, why would you add something to scripture, to eliminate something you find controversial? What Jesus says in scripture is very plain: ''Nothing is impossible with God.'' But for God to become unjust is not even arguable, much less possible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 21, 2004.

Eugene:

"Games don't make one faithful. You should look at all this with true spirituality and prudence. Not as a game of Gotcha. I always try to make a spiritual statement."

i can't prove it to you, but i certainly do not consider that i have "Gotcha'd" you, nor, if i had, would that bring me any pleasure or profit. in fact, you might do me a favour if you "Gotcha'd" me.

...and the sophistry you allude to is not sophistry, because, in the most straightforward sense, it is a simple question. the question is hypothetical because this has not happened, but "if Jesus in Scripture demanded that all first-born Catholics be sacrificed, would that make God bad?"

that question might be irrelevant, or (imho) it might help us understand the mind-set of the Church; but (imho), most certainly you can't answer it by saying:

(A) "Why would you allow God to seem unjust, to bolster an objection against His Divine Mercy?"

(B) "And, why would you add something to scripture, to eliminate something you find controversial?"

these are things that i could throw straight back at you - in different ways - but, moreover, my answer is a resounding "NO". [the mitigant to my seemingly pristine faith being that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.]

to recap: in the hypothetical sense, if God were to ask us to torure dogs in some ritual, would that make Him a "bad" God? if He were to ask us to burn anyone that is left-handed [sinistra = sinister], would that make Him cruel? or are we imputing our human values onto Jesus?

have we become holier than Jesus? is His primitive desire for Baptism by Water now outdated?

questions posed in good faith.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

Dear Ian,

If God asked us to torture, etc. in a ritual, it would likely be to test our faith as He did Abraham in asking him to sacrifice Isaac. But everything God has *revealed* about Himself indicates He would not command that which is against the fruit of the Holy Spirit, i.e., love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, temperance. Christ and Scripture clearly indicate, "God so *loved* the world that He sent His Only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall *not* perish, but have eternal life." Seeing us trapped in our sin, God has acted in love. The Sacraments are signs and seals and embodiments of His love. To imply otherwise, or to take away their comfort and make of them just one more legal requirement we must fulfill because God is looking for excuses to damn us, is in IMHO to defame the character of God, and to make of Him a devil.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 21, 2004.

Fine; unintended, you say. Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: soph·ism Pronunciation: 'sä-"fi-z&m Function: noun 1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid,

Hypotheticals about God and the scriptures are not sophisms, perhaps. My reply was intended to help you see. If I add to your problems with invincible ignorance, I'm sorry. Let me just reiterate: Doctrine names three types of baptism. I named them. (For all we humans know there are even more never revealed by the Holy Spirit. The three I named are treated in Catholic doctrine.) You should be able to check for yourself. I leave it to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 21, 2004.

Michael

that is the question i ask. is God perfect because we consider, according to our check-list, that He is perfect?

or is He perfect by definition - the conclusion being that, whatever He might ask us to do, is perfection?

hypothetical questions, surely, are only hypothetical.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 21, 2004.

Hello again Ian

God has written His law on our hearts and poured His Spirit into our conscience so that we might recognize and affirm the goodness of Who He is and what He commands, as the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel tell us and as St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed (who said, BTW, that one is obligated to obey one's conscience even if it disagrees with Holy Mother Church, see his Summa Theologia on "The New Law of Christ").

God is the Source of all goodness, and our conscience will tend to recognize and affirm that goodness. I see no reason to set forth a false dissonance between the two. Although I fully realize that apart from Christ our minds tend toward ignorance and destruction: but that is why He has *revealed* His character and will and planted in us a new heart and quickened conscience that recognizes and affirms His will as good.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 21, 2004.

Dear Ian,

One of my posts got wiped out. You said that "dogma does not change, develop or evolve." That is grossly false. Please read "The Development of Dogma" by John Henry Cardinal Newman, which manifestly demonstrates how our understanding of dogma *has* evolved over the centuries.

We could have expected as much from the words of Christ, who said, "I have much to teach you that you are not able to bear now; but the Spirit of Truth whom I send you from the Father will lead you into all truth."

What was considered heresy in the third century (e.g. homoousion) became dogma in the fourth!

If you doubt the development of dogma, I advise you to read Newman, who exhaustively explains it much better than I ever could.

With respect,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 21, 2004.

Michael, i will research Newman.

but please, in turn, explain these [from Vatican I]:

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ***not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine***, but that, by his assistance, they might ***religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles***.

………………………………….. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, ***but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated***.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, *****and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding*****.

ie as questions are asked, Dogma is "expounded"; but the Apostles would have known all the answers to these questions had they been posited at the Council of Jerusalem.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 22, 2004.

St. Thomas Aquinas... who said, BTW, that one is obligated to obey one's conscience even if it disagrees with Holy Mother Church, see his Summa Theologia on "The New Law of Christ"

You are going to have to provide a specific reference for this. I do not ever recall St. Thomas Aquinas saying any such thing, unless you are referencing the disobedience of unlawful orders of superiors, whereby one may disobey if they are told to commit something sinful. But to construe this to mean someone can disagree with Holy Mother Church on any article of the Faith, cite their conscience as an excuse, and actually be right? Impossible. They wouldn't have an ounce of the angelic Doctor's support for it either, because he never said anything like that.

"You said that "dogma does not change, develop or evolve." That is grossly false. Please read "The Development of Dogma" by John Henry Cardinal Newman, which manifestly demonstrates how our understanding of dogma *has* evolved over the centuries."

You mean Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. It was written while he was still a Protestant. Nothing can be happier than a conversion to the Catholic ark of salvation, but still, the essay in no way whatsoever represents anything of teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

It is not grossly false to say that "dogma does not change, develop or evolve.". It IS, however, grossly false to say that it does. In fact, it is heresy. To prove this, we do not need to cite the works Protestants. We have popes and we have dogmatic councils. Just a cite a few examples from a holy sea of resources:

"If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema." V-1; dogmatic.

"First of all they [the Modernists] lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects." -- Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Pope St. Pius X again, same work:

"On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."

The proposal that "dogma can and has changed, developed or evolved": condemned by the Catholic Church.

"What was considered heresy in the third century (e.g. homoousion) became dogma in the fourth!"

There has been no heresy which has become dogma, nor any dogma which has become heresy.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

Italics off.

This bears repeating.

"The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth."

That dogma can evolve or change: solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council I. Engrave this truth in your minds.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

Ian--Many thanks for the Vatican I quote. I'm busy with last minute Christmas preparations and so am unable to talk further for a while. But it does seem to me that there is a development in our *understanding* of doctrine, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas did not accept the immaculate conception of our Lady, which we now understand to be true. Perhaps you (and Vatican I) are however correct in that, once a dogma is proclaimed, it is set in the mind of the Church.

Emerald--Yes, the quote from Thomas was on disobeying unjust laws of superiors, I believe you are right about that. I was not talking about dogma there.

You are also correct about the title of Newman's work!

Yet I believe the word "homoousion" was earlier condemned by a synod of the Church, but later used at Nicea. I'm sorry I can't look it up right now, I will try to get back.

Tell me, do you think St. Thomas believed all along in the immaculate conception of our Lady? Or that St. Cyprian of Carthage believed in the immediate jurisdiction of Rome over his see? Is there not some kind of growth in understanding of doctrine within the Church Catholic? Perhaps I have misspoken, using "dogma" where I should have said "doctrine", yet it seems clear to me that the Body of the Church develops in Her understanding of what the Lord has given Her.

Oh, and are you two (Ian and Emerald) friends? Just wondering.

With willingness to learn and grow in the Faith once delivered to the saints,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 22, 2004.

Hey, I wouldn't blame anyone for struggling through some of this stuff. It's tough to learn and keep the Faith in 2004, and it won't stop being tough until we have gone to our graves, hopefully having persevered.

Growth in understanding? Try this instead to see if it makes sense: what if it isn't growth in understanding, but rather, the removal of impediments... let's say that you come to know a dogma better, or to put it loosely, understand it better, if that's even possible. But you know what I mean to say, I think. At any rate, you come to this deeper knowledge and understanding of a dogma of the Catholic Faith. What you'll find at that point is that the saints of the Church a thousand years before you have already been there. It wouldn't be that you had developed upon a dogma and had produced a yet-not-uncovered understanding of this dogma with which you might benefit your peers, but that impediments to your own understanding had been removed, and your newfound understanding has long been known to those who have long since passed on to join the Church Triumphant.

The whole concept of intelligent and learned men being responsible, by their own effort and ingenuity, for a new and deeper understanding of the mysteries of God is contrary to the very manner in which divine relevation and the Deposit of Faith have been granted to us and put forth to us by God.

If an intellectual for one minute were to believe that he himself was responsible for the origin of the things of the Faith in any respect, God would shut the lights out on that operation in a heartbeat. He is no respecter of persons. If we don't come to Him in humility, helplessness and dependence, like a child, we will be shut down, halted and blocked from any true understanding of the divine mysteries of the Faith. Under such conditions, the most learned of men can be among the most blind. Conversely, some old lady living in a trailor park in Compton, CA with virtually no formal education but yet possessing a rock solid devotion to Christ and His Church, and His mother, might very well be capable of probing the depths of the things of God and may be able to expound upon them without having even a hint of theology on her resume.

It originates in the Will, and not so much in the intellect. That's why this makes complete sense:

"With willingness to learn and grow in the Faith once delivered to the saints,"

With that said, how can you go wrong? Hold to that, and you won't, and I hope you do exactly that. Mary is the one to seek assistance from, I believe, to get that job done. The Fiat was accomplished without the prerequisite of a degree in theology.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

Hello again Emerald!

So, I gather you might say that St. Thomas (on the question of the immaculate conception of our Lady) and St. Cyprian (on the question of the immediate jurisdiction of the pope) had themselves certain impediments that needed to be removed on their knowledge of those questions? I can accept that, yet, especially when it comes to one of so great authority as Thomas, how can we deny that there was some growth in understanding in the Church? I mean, Thomas was no lightweight!

On a purely practical question, it must bother you no end that very few Catholics accept the dogma, "apart from the Church, no salvation." So--and I ask this honestly--where do you worship? Have you found some parish, diocese, etc. where there is not large-scale heterodoxy or even apostasy? Where may one find solace and truth in these days? I ask this because even so great a man as the Holy Father sometimes casts doubt on his own understanding when he has events like the Assissi inter-faith prayer gathering, etc. So, what is your parish or diocese like? How do you survive without going mad?

I'd also appreciate knowing some of your background if you are willing. I'd be happy to share mine as well.

Very sincerely,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 22, 2004.

Michael

appreciate you're busy at the moment. the significance of the Newman treatise may well arise again over here, if you're interested:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CcGe

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 22, 2004.

The word dogma is mistakenly taken for something captive, no longer free or mysterious. But dogma means authoritative, something we accept from an authority.

''That dogma can evolve or change was solemnly condemned by Vatican Council I. Engrave this truth in your minds,'' says Emerald.

You accept a dogma on account of the authority; in our case the Catholic Church. If we expected it to change, the authority wouldn't authorize your change, nor the evolution you might bring to the subject. But that doesn't always mean our understanding can't improve. Dogma is accepted because it's true, not because we'll never understand it.

Our understanding can change. Our faith can even increase, knowing more. Faithful contemplation penetrates to the truth as mind and heart undergo a spiritual evolution from primitive to mystical. But we would believe the dogma even in its long-accepted mystery. At least, some of us.

The Church has always treated dogma as a truth. It doesn't mean truth cannot become clearer from a new perspective. Perspective isn't change. It's not evolution, but resolution.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 22, 2004.

Well said, Eugene!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 22, 2004.

In numerous forms this question of invincible ignorance has come back to this forum and it is very basically a simple issue.

It involves justice, truth and its pursuit.

To be invincibly ignorant of something one must be PREVENTED from having or gaining knowledge of that subject. If there is any choice involved, the ignorance is not invincible. It is chosen ignorance. which retains full culpability and is not reduced in any manner.

If you live in a closed room your entire life and never have the opportunity to communicate with another soul to obtain information, you are safely invincibly ignorant.

If you chose not to pursue a subject, which involves you and which contains knowledge about something you are or have been or will be involved in and have responsibility in, then you do not have invincible igrorance even if you have no knowledge of it because you CHOSE not to pursue the knowledge. This eliminates invincible ignorance.

People who prefer to not know their responsibilites and who consequently fail to pursue such knowledge are NOT, NOT, NOT invincibly ignorant. In fact catholic teaching clearly indicates that such chosen failure further increases culpability for any acts which are sinful. Plugging you ears so you are unable to hear the truth or closing your mind because you do not want to pursue something you are already convinced is true, is not justifiable and is inherently evil - but it is NOT invincible ignorance.

Whenever choices are to be made, there is an inherent obligation to seek truth in its entirety to the absolute best of your ability and circumstances. To mitigate the pursuit of truth by choice, in any way, removes any invincible ignorance.

Karl

It is of course possible to envision any number of situations where an individual does not have control of all of their options to pursue knowledge and they can be impeded from free choice, but the failure to pursue this "knowledge" is not invincible if the choice is exercized in any manner, which prevents that knowledge from being known.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.

''--closing your mind because you do not want to pursue something you are already convinced is true, is not justifiable and is inherently evil - but it is NOT invincible ignorance.'' ------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Well, that settles that. Let's cover one last detail. We can expect to see many devil's advocates arguing before the Judgment Seat. Most of them will be opposing any plea of ignorance. You won't see any of us who gave an opinion in the present thread getting away with that plea. We should hope Jesus Christ will show us mercy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 22, 2004.

"So, I gather you might say that St. Thomas (on the question of the immaculate conception of our Lady) and St. Cyprian (on the question of the immediate jurisdiction of the pope) had themselves certain impediments that needed to be removed on their knowledge of those questions?"

In regards to perhaps at least one type impediment, since there can be many kinds of impediments. In the case of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception, much of the difficulty came from an innocent but erronious philosophical distinction between the moment of conception and the moment of what they termed "ensoulment". Of course, they really are the same instant, but philosophically they had assumed an unnecessary distinction existed such that conception and ensoulment could be considered two seperate occurences at possibly two different times. When you introduce the idea of an Immaculate Conception, the erronious distinction can cause a bit of confusion.

The immediate jurisdiction of the pope situation is something I've never really looked into, and so couldn't really comment.

But a philosophical impediment is only one kind. There is personal sin as well (the focus being off St. Thomas at this point and on to a new topic). Imho, most impediments are supplied by a person's own bad habits and sins, which we all struggle with. For instance, and this is my own personal speculation and nothing more, I believe that if someone is in a state of sin against purity, that they are truly blocked from comprehending anything of the higher truths beyond the flesh. Until they are absolved from these sins, I doubt they can ascend to anything much higher. Take that for the speculation it is and nothing more. But in more general terms this proposition can probably be supported reasonably well: that any person in habits of sin will be blocked from deeper understanding, either by the nature of the sin itself, or by the force of the will of God.

But that certainly wasn't St. Thomas' situation. I think it was simply accountable to the limitations of philosophy. Philosophy's relationship to the Faith is as what they call a "handmaiden to the Faith". It is really important to understand the true and good relationship between Faith and reason, as there are many ways to fall off the bullseye on the subject. There's a really good quote from Pope Leo XIII, where he quotes Clement of Alexandria in his encyclical Aeterni Patris concerning the restoration of Christian philosophy. As the title indicates, there was already a deep corruption in right philosophical thinking at the time, and these corruptions were in turn having an extremely negative impact on the Faith. At any rate, in there he say this:

"Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine."

Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris is an excellent read for this subject; you can google it and easily find it on EWTN's website and many others.

"I can accept that, yet, especially when it comes to one of so great authority as Thomas, how can we deny that there was some growth in understanding in the Church? I mean, Thomas was no lightweight!"

He wasn't any lightweight for sure. But as Thomas Aquinas himself would roll in his grave if he thought anyone were going to point to him as an authority when he himself had always pointed to and submitted to the authority and truth of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. The good theologians also knew well that if someone had a bad will towards the truth or were habitual scoffers or doubters, they would not perceive the truth despite the best efforts of any saintly theologian such as Thomas Aquinas. In fact, St. Augustine goes into this very subject in the opening paragraphs of his work On Christian Doctrine, which you can probably also find online somewhere. Augustine is almost sarcastic the way he puts it across, kind of amusing.

But there's perhaps other even more innocent impediments. It is probably the case that sometimes it just isn't God's will for someone to understand something. Perhaps He wills for even very good people to struggle with a topic for some time, or to be confused or unclear on this or that particular thing. Sometimes he allows these things to happen to particular people at different times because ultimately he knows what is best for them and for their purification and edification. A good reference describing this would be a section out of the revelations to St. Bridget. I'd get the reference for you, but last time I looked for it the particular page was missing out of the book. It would have been perfect, because it specifically addressed, believe it or not, the issue of the Immaculate Conception itself, and was written pretty near the time of St. Thomas when this was a particularly debated topic. In the western Church, that is. The passage expounded something to the effect that God allow what was termed called "pious disagreements" I think it was called, between good people for an outcome of the greater honor and glory of God. Or something like that. If I can ever find it again, I'll put it up. It's pretty good.

"On a purely practical question, it must bother you no end that very few Catholics accept the dogma, "apart from the Church, no salvation."

Not really. More and more are coming to realize it because now they have access to the documents wherein they can read it habitually repeated throughout the Church's history, at all levels of authority all the way up to the highest declarations of the Supreme Magisterium.

There's another more common way that people come to understand this particular root dogma of the Faith, though, and very deeply: devotionally. When they begin to take on their Faith very seriously, it becomes increasing clear that salvation cannot be obtained outside the Church.

What bothers me more than these an obstinance over this topic is something related but a little graver and possibly a bit more comic (if it weren't so sad): people don't actually think they are going to die. Really. To make matters more amusing, I find myself regularly forgetting this fact as well. Truest thing in the world, yet most overlooked and ignored. Bizarre, but that's the kind of anesthetization were are fighting against while walking this earthly plane trying to hold our Faith intact.

"So--and I ask this honestly--where do you worship? Have you found some parish, diocese, etc. where there is not large-scale heterodoxy or even apostasy? Where may one find solace and truth in these days? I ask this because even so great a man as the Holy Father sometimes casts doubt on his own understanding when he has events like the Assissi inter-faith prayer gathering, etc. So, what is your parish or diocese like? How do you survive without going mad?"

I go here. I would love to go into detail about this place of solace, which is exactly what it is. I think I'll do that sometime. God didn't have to provide this, but as time goes by I can't stop being more thankful about it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 22, 2004.

My place of Solace is in my spirit, where Christ dwells. Christ is everything.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 23, 2004.

Eugene

"Well, that settles that."

doesn't it depends upon what "that" is?

an interest in the "orthodoxy" [best word i can think off] of invincible ignorance (& the various non-Water forms of Baptism, generally) has nothing, surely, to do with the number of people that can realistically be counted as invincibly ignorant. after all, we all pray "..and lead all souls to Heaven" when we pray our Rosary. God wants everyone to be saved.

no, the interest is in the "orthodoxy" itself.

now we have Dogmatic statements such as these [repeated from above]:

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, *****and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding"

and then you [Eugene] say:

"But that doesn't always mean our understanding can't improve......Our understanding can change. Our faith can even increase, knowing more. Faithful contemplation penetrates to the truth as mind and heart undergo a spiritual evolution from primitive to mystical."

these can be entirely consistent, or they can collide. the prrof of the pudding comes in a practical consideration.

let me offer 2 hypothetical examples [i can offer real ones of course, but these might be less controversial as they are made up]:

#1 Pope re-visits Dogma of the Assumption and solemnly defines that Our Lady was assumed on a Tuesday at 3pm

#2 Pope re-visits Assuption and solemny defines she was not Assumed but Ascended

in either case, one could argue that our "understanding" has changed/improved etc. of course, case #1 is frivolous and nothing to do with faith and morals [imho]. no problem there.

case #2, however, changes entirely the sense of our understanding of the Dogma of the Assumption (and other Dogma, because Mary has become God).

St Pius X:

"....Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth...."

this then goes back to: (A) Baptism is a must-have for Salvation, (B) Water is a must-have for Baptism.

Ergo: Water Baptism a must-have for salvation?

wasn't a complete Dogmatic acceptance of this the basis for the theory of Limbo - a non-conflicting theory that allowed us to believe that the innocent enjoyed at least "perfect natural" happiness?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

Emmerald:
Experience teaches me that you are never willing to see and absorb what others add to a discussion. Words in a thread like this one merely serve you as more cannon-fodder. I've gone on marathon arguments before with you, while you were disputing ''heterodox'' Catholicism. Many times I and others reached a denouement, only to have Emerald make piecemeal rebuttals, line versus line based on his private morality. It's not a rewarding experience.

You seem once more launched on the endless rebuttal; happy as a lark.

I don't lack endurance. Yet I know by now you treat other Catholics as mere simpletons. Why continue offering you the platform? You won't take anyone seriously.

The entire subject of invincible ignorance in our lives can be summed up easily by a faithful Catholic. God made us all, and God is love; love for us ALL. His divine Son died for all, and even for some you don't think are baptised. Those duly baptised are NOT invincibly ignorant, they're born again. Those not born again of water and the spirit have no other recourse to Christ's saving grace unless He brings it to them. This thread hasn't implied otherwise at all.

We have made the doctrine of baptism very clear for you and the whole world (forgive the enthusiasm).

In Luke 9, Christ Himself said, ''He who loses His life for my sake shall save it,'' and that's basis for the baptism of blood. Does it stand countermanded by John 3 :5,--? To some hard-headed Catholics, Emerald, it does. Because you haven't given enough thought to God's divine will; His holy desire that all men be saved. So, you'll deny any chance of forgiveness and faith other than John 3 v. 5 and argue till the cows come home.

Good for you. You've received it, so you've got a right to love water baptism, just like me. You haven't met a soul who is invincibly ignorant. That poor soul will not be given baptism, ordinarily. But he/she may arrive in heaven perhaps, by an extraordinary baptism. Jesus told us how hard it was for some to enter the kingdom of heaven; not how easy it would be once we're born again of water and the spirit. ''Who then can be saved?'' And looking upon them, Jesus said to them, ''With men this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.'' (Matt 19 :25, 26.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 23, 2004.

Oh goodie..another thread on the same subject as last month where I was called "purposefully obtuse"..

I'll try again, leaving out any $5.00 words which distract me from the core of my question.

Since the newer, fuller understanding seems to be that anyone who ia a baptized Christian and leads a life pleasing to God is "OK", and any non-Christian who leads a life pleasing to God in his own religion is "OK" ..then, according to the newer, fuller understanding, the only people who need be concerned about their souls in the long run are : atheists agnostics

everyone else need not be concerned at all since they need not be Catholic..contrary to what the Church obviously USED to teach as dogma..the Dogma now seems to be that although we still believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and it would be really nice if everyone was a member of it in reality, as long as they are Christians, they are KIND OF a member of it spiritually..non- Christians whose heart is in the right place are going to heaven too since God is all -loving.

I have great difficulty with this ..I'll bring the question up again..since it's OK for Catholics to marry non-Catholics..and it's acknowledged that non_Catholic Christians are all OK and going to heaven just as Catholics are (who live Godly lives)..and "it's all good", than why on earth would anybody expect people to remain Catholic??????????? For the sacraments? Why ? When we're apparently told that Protestants can do just as well getting to heaven without them?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.

Aren't you being obtuse; on purpose?

No, ''all'' are not OK, with or without water baptism and/or belonging to the Catholic Church. Just whoever truly repents of all sin before death. Even a Catholic who dies in his sin shall be damned. Conversely, an unbaptised soul who dies repentent is eligible to be counted among the saved, though not by the Church's normal channels, the sacraments. We should understand; this would be entirely left to God's infinite wisdom, which even the faith of the apostles hasn't yet fathomed.

You seem to dismiss one other basic about salvation. It is always from Christ through His Holy Church. A pagan can be admitted into the Catholic Church in the final moment of his/her life, on account of a state of invincible ignorance. It may not be by reception of the sacrament of baptism as we know it.

We are taught the sacrament infuses sanctifying grace into that soul. A sacrament is an outward sign of the grace actually coming from Christ's merits on the cross. It hardly comes from the priest or the water, it proceeds entirely from Christ under that outward sign, water baptism. The same can proceed from Christ without the sign. Sacrament means mystery; known to God alone. The salvation of some souls around us is truly known only to God. This is well-known, and it doesn't go counter to any dogma. It's presumptuous of some Catholics to say so.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 23, 2004.

I don't see the problem Lesley. The fact that some non-Catholic Christians can be saved by the mercy of God through the measure of truth they have received from the Catholic Church certainly does not in any way detract from the obvious fact that the fullness of truth and grace is far superior to partial truth and grace. Consider this - the majority of Catholics have only a partial knowledge and understanding of what their Church teaches; and many of them don't even accept some of the teachings they are aware of. So, for such individuals, how is "being Catholic" any better than being Protestant? Is it simply membership in the Church that leads to salvation? Or is it acceptance of the teaching of the Church and living by it? If the latter, then is salvation available to people who accept and profess a portion of the truth that is available through the Catholic Church, but not the fullness of truth? If not, then Protestants may not be saved, but neither are most Catholics. If so, then why would a Protestant in this position be less likely to be saved than a Catholic in the same position? All Protestants accept and profess a portion of Catholic doctrinal truth; otherwise they could not be considered Christian in any sense, since all Christian truth comes to men through the Catholic Church. It seems to me that a Catholic and a Protestant who both accept and live by 50% of the Catholic Church's teachings are on even ground as far as their chances of salvation. Except for one factor. The Catholic has had the opportunity to know and accept the fullness of truth, while the Protestant may never have had such opportunity. In that case it would seem the Protestant might be in a far better position to be saved. However, any Catholic or Protestant who is saved is saved through the truth they received from the Catholic Church. Thus, salvation is through the Catholic church alone.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2004.

What I believe is that it is best to be a Jew or a Moslemm. It would seem that the farther one is from the sacramments, the better his chances to be saved by invincible ignorance. If not then a Protestant has the best chance. These Catholics have to dread just one mortal sin and then they are gone if they don't get a chance to repent. Why should I become a Catholic? What do you have to offer me, but a slippery slope.

A relieved Prod.

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@AOL.com), December 23, 2004.

Actually everyone has to dread one mortal sin. Catholics just have the advantage of being aware of the fact as a result of being members of God's Church which the Holy Spirit guides to all truth. Belonging to a church that rejects the truth doesn't mean one is immune to the truth.

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2004.

To a relieved Prod,
Was that Swiss Kriss relieved you, Matey? Lol!

Jews aren't living in invincible ignorance. But they have been made blind by God; and will have their eyes opened someday. They still have to repent of all sin or be damned. Same with a Moslem; who in fact lives invincibly ignorant, likely through no fault of his. What's more, a Moslem may well feel more compunction for his own sin than some protestants. Some prods believe in ''eternal security'' or some such boiler-plate never promised to us by Christ.

Essentially, all souls are damned unless their sin is forgiven them for Christ's sake. In order for them to receive it, they must confess the sin, repent and sin no more. We have no slippery slope, but help in time of trial. The sacraments give us what is truly indispensable for the forgiveness of sin. So having them close is a divine blessing.

But overall, we can't place imaginary limits on God's mercy and understanding. He forgives any upright soul who calls on Him. Christ surely believed this, and in many of His lessons he flatly stated it. There was hardly a Samaritan in the gospels who offended Him. Who did He chastise? ''I say to you that unless your justice exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'' These were the ones who ostensibly followed all the rules; they were always ready with scriptural announcements.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 23, 2004.

Eugene,

pls, pls direst yr attentions to this simple question:

(A) Baptism is a must-have for Salvation, and

(B) Water is a must-have for Baptism.

both Dogmatic.

Ergo: Water Baptism a must-have for salvation? Dogmatic.

where is the error in that?

where does "invincible ignorance" come into it?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

I'm not being purposefully obtuse..really. perhaps just not nearly as eloquent as the rest of you..and I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with what the Church currently teaches, I said I " have a problem with it"..in that I do not understand it.

Paul,of course if Catholics do not adhere to a godly life they have no promise of anything..neither does the Baptist who mouths only words but has nothing but sin in his heart. I'm not speaking about those type of folks at all.

I'm wondering about people who try the best they can to follow what THEY believe to be "truth"..every day of their lives. A Muslim who wouldn't dream of offending Allah. He has heard of Christ of course..but believes that Christ was a prophet. He has even heard missionaries preach the gospel..he thinks they are nice folks, but misguided. He spends his life devoted to Allah. Yet he has rejected Christ.

The person who was baptised in the Catholic church, grew up, left the Church and is now an active member of a Protestant Church. This person believes with all of his heart in the bible as his only guide to living a holy life. He spends his life devoted to pleasing God in all things. He has rejected the "one true Church."

Since the Church teaches that both of these people (as far as anybody knows) will have the same opportunity to reach heaven as a person who is a faithful member of the Catholic Church, who tries every day of HIS life to be pleasing to God, then what difference does it make to BE Catholic since the ultimate goal of being HERE is to OBTAIN heaven??????

Yes, the Church has the "fullness of truth" but if it doesn't matter in the long run, what good is it? It used to be taught obviously that OUTSIDE of the Church their was no salvation..now as I understand Paul, that is to mean that since the Church=Christ and other Christian Churches are founded from the belief in Christ, that they have a bond with Catholicism which equals partial memberhip of sorts..meaning they ARE "inside the Church".

Yet how can this be? How can anyone be part of the Church and be apart from the Eucharist????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.

Dear Ian,

We do know Blessed Pope Pius IX used the term "invincible ignorance", so we can't just ridicule the notion. Likewise Pius XII spoke of non- Catholic Christians who have an "unconscious desire or unrecognized longing" to be Catholics, and said they have a certain relationship to the Church. Also, the fathers at Trent spoke of "desire for baptism" as justifying. So it seems that at least in some cases water baptism, though a command of Christ and a means of salvation, is not always essential. Christ, Himself, is essential, but "the Spirit blows where it wills".

Consider the thief on the cross who was most likely not baptized, yet Christ promised him paradise. Also in Isaiah 45 the pagan king Cyrus is called "my anointed" (Hebrew: messiah!) "though he does not know My name." Also in Acts chapter 10, Cornelius is loved by God for his prayers and giving to the poor, even *before* Cornelius was a Christian, or had even heard of Christ.

Clearly these examples open the possibility of salvation for those who are not baptized, unless we say that somehow Christ baptizes them Himself. BTW, sorry for lack of references; I can look them up.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 24, 2004.

Ian,
You have to study your faith to understand how many shades of meaning its doctrines disclose to us. It's fine to simply demand an answer from me; from above or out of the blue. But more than just knowledge and instruction should be your aim. You must contemplate God's word. It's His wisdom we must look for behind the doctrines of the apostles. Many keys are to be found in the Holy Bible to the meanings of Catholic doctrine. It takes years of contemplation to become truly strong in your Catholic faith. No soul should settle for quick, superficial answers; which is all some Catholics think DOGMA is. If a soul loves God he/she soon begins to love the Church, the place where His glory dwells. Daily contemplation on the holy mysteries leads one to deeper appreciation and eventually joy over the holiness of His Church, and the Church's dogma.

Baptism isn't only the indispensable ritual we must carry out; it means being re-born. There's a rebirth every baptism in sanctifying grace in the soul. Grace saves us, not form and matter alone. Form & matter as sacrament call down the grace of Jesus Christ.

Dogma is what we must believe; not what baptism has to consist of, water and spirit. Water and spirit make up the ritual, matter and the words, ''I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,'' which are the form. All these are but the SIGN of what happens unseen to the soul; rebirth in Christ. This rebirth imparts to a soul sanctifying grace necessary for eternal life. Jesus Christ is the only source of sanctifying grace.

He has the divine power to impart that same sanctifying grace altogether unseen; apart from the ritual. Only it must be for a very unique soul; the most unusual soul, if you wish. Invincibly unable to know Christ, yet just, and repentent of all sin. I don't know where to find that soul. But God can find it, if he/she lives.

Before you object, let yourself contemplate on this mystery for a while. Take a look at Our Saviour without your preconceptions; and love the very thought of Him. He may give you light to understand. Much more than I can give you. But I've sincerely tried and I'm a faithful Catholic. Don't you worry about that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 24, 2004.

Gene; personalities, faults, strengths, weaknesses, writing style, discussion tactics and manners... all of these things are a departure from the topic at hand. I'm not really sure what do if you don't like the way I approach a discussion. But I know I can't approach a discussion in any way that would require me to compromise or to go soft on Catholic dogma.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 24, 2004.

BTW, Ian,

I don't mean to imply you are ridiculing the notion of invincible ignornace! Sorry if my post sounds like that.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 24, 2004.

Invincible ignorance was never put into any binding documents by any pope. Read carefully when popes mention it. They do not demand it as an act of faith that must be obeyed. Some people will try to bind us to it as though it were.

-- Kit (Alexanderj@yahoo.com), December 24, 2004.

Perhaps invincible ignorance was not pronounced in binding form, but surely holy enough popes and saints have mentioned it to make it a respectable Catholic opinion. I have *hope* for the salvation of many, holding fast to John's words in the Apocalypse, that the number of the redeemed was "too many to count". Yet on the other hand, I realize I myself could end up among the damned! But my trust is in the Grace of God.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 24, 2004.

We will always have great numbers of Catholics who argue on dogmatic grounds. For others and me, I will never deny all salvation is in the Catholic Church. That's the particular dogma; not how souls come in and become holy in the sight of Almighty God. Once a soul is given eternal life through Jesus Christ, we must concede the fact: that soul has been brought into the Catholic Church. There is no salvation outside.

We can't fall into the error of so many Christian sects who want to believe for instance, that baptising an infant is absurd, since infants cannot ''believe'' in Christ, --an exclusive personal Saviour. On account of that stage of his/her soul, unknowing and unprepared.

If a baby can receive sanctifying grace and be saved, then it's not much of a stretch to realise any soul might be granted Christ's grace under a VERY RARE circumstance.

Several here are dazed by the dogma, unable to see much else except Church membership. As if it were a room you must get into, a ''Golden Circle''. All souls who are brought to eternal life must be seen as ''members'' of that Church Triumphant in heaven. Seen from that perspective a soul like Mahatma Gandhi is quite likely a Catholic; the same way the prophets of the Old Testament are. Or; many little souls who were nursed in the hour of death by the holy Mother Theresa, for the love of Jesus? Who knows the number of these we shall meet in heaven? Simply because Jesus reached out for them in the last moment of their lives.

The greatest truth is God's Love for His children. We don't require a dogmatic pronouncement to call it truth. Everything the Church teaches us of Jesus Christ reveals an infinite love for all mankind.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 24, 2004.

"Everything the Church teaches us of Jesus Christ reveals an infinite love for all mankind."

Eugene,

that is the killer.

you cannot mix personal feelings with the Dogma.

i ****personally**** [stress that term, pls] have no problems with gay marriage, or divorce, or other social evils that the Church is quick to condemn. does that make the Church "unkind", by m standards? do you accept those unkind teachings of the Church? why not the other unkind teahings?

the distinctions are artificial.

you will find all kinds of people that have done no real harm to others - that have always acted concensually - and, therefore always remained with the social norms of society.

there is deveoping a great hypocrisy, wherein this man-made morality forces us to loosen certain values, yet not others; but the others will be loosed in due course.

you cannot argue this simply on personal grounds.

you have to accept - as i do - and howsoever unpalatable it might be - and no matter how much a serious sinner it makes me - that "de fide" means what it says.

if invincible ignorance is a licit belief for a Catholic, it cannot cut across Dogma. if we think otherwise, we stop being Catholic.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

Eugene

"you cannot mix personal feelings with the Dogma. "

oops. sorry. judging you. my mistake.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

No one is cutting ''across dogma.''

We are discussing here the sacrament of baptism. Once baptised the soul is in the Church; up to and/or until he/she departs from the faith (heresy -- apostacy).

The Church teaches us what baptism is. In the sacramental ritual water with the holy words, ''I baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.''

In baptism of Desire, God himself effects the sacrament, without form or matter visible to the Church. Nevertheless, no doctrine of the Church can ever suggest God is not free to give a soul that sacrament, nor that He DOESN'T do so.

The remaining baptismal truth defers to God as well; and is scripturally ascertained. Baptism of Blood; martyrdom of a non-Catholic in defense of the faith or for the love of Jesus Christ. All three of these are true baptism and do not contradict dogma.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2004.

Eugene

"All three of these are true baptism and do not contradict dogma."

they do when Dogma tells us that Water is necessary for Baptism and that Water is necessary for Salvation.

this we **MUST** believe, surely?

does that we cannot HOPE for alternative remedies - in prayer? i don't know.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 27, 2004.

Dogma doesn't say anything at all about it. You refer to a scriptural passage; and we concurr about that aspect of baptismal ritual. Get your ducks in a row, Ian. We aren't discussing one ritual. One ritual isn't what dogma demands. Belief in baptism is demanded.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2004.

Eugene

"Belief in baptism is demanded."

what exactly does that mean? are you saying that this is allegorical? the water is just a symbol? why bother with water, then, if water is unnecessary?

you have confused me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 09, 2005.

The way our Church has always taught us. The soul must be baptised, period. However baptism is truly effected in the formulary ''I baptise you in the name'' with water--

AS WELL as, in Desire; when God perceives privately that a soul had the potential to DESIRE the same baptism. The usual conditions for adults apply (conrition, belief in the Creator, justice and love for his neighbor.) That presumes also invincible ignorance.

The third way is by dying for Christ or the Gospel: ''He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.'' (Matt 10 :39.) That is baptism of Blood.

It certainly doesn't teach water baptism is unnecessary. It shows us baptism's outer aspects. Please don't try to say in some way I mean water isn't ''necessary'' or, ''why bother with water.'' These have been the teachings of our Church about Holy Baptism since well before the 2nd Vatican Council.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2005.

with respect Eugene,

the Councils say that water is necessary, as does the Bible. show me how Trent squares with anything other than Baptism by Water - and you'll have me singing yr praises, in more ways than one.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 10, 2005.

Take this for the CHURCH's official teaching:

Water is absolutely needed if a soul is to be validly baptised in person by a minister of the sacrament. A priest or deacon must use water; a layman can baptise as well, if it's truly necessary; and either baptism must use water and the appropriate words.

Baptism of Desire and of Blood are equally effected without the water, because that particular soul is baptised directly by God. He alone judges if the baptism is deserved or not. He alone knows if a soul is in real invincible ignorance, yet has the ''desire''. The Church teaches that God can do it, in extraordinary circumstances. And He has spoken in the gospels of baptism of Blood. --In Luke 9, Christ Himself said, ''He who loses His life for my sake shall save it,'' speaking clearly of martyrdom for the faith.

You may disagree over it; but not with me. Disagree with the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

So,a baptised non-Catholic divorces and re-marries. In their religion, this is Ok. Being modern people, they are more than aware that the Catholic Church teaches that to remarry is a sin.

They therefore HAVE the information of what the Catholic Church teaches.

They reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Please assume, for the completeness of the discussion, that they die and do not experience some sort of final gasp of ideation in which they say "I should have been a Catholic." or have some kind of inner realization that their second marriage was adultery and asked God to forgive them..Just assume they died faithful members of their own church, believing to the end that remarriage after divorce was OK.

Since the Catholic Church was the ONLY one given the full authority by God to bind and loose anything on earth in God's name..and the Catholic Church teaches that to re-marry after divorce is a mortal sin..and that person KNEW the Catholic Church teaches that, yet rejected that teaching.."He who rejects you rejects ME"..how can that person have "invincible ignorance"?

I have read where in the spirit of Ecumenicism, Catholics are to embrace their non-Catholic brethren..wonderful. I agree wholeheartedly. It would be a truly amazing thing to have all return to the Catholic Church. I pray that it will happen in full force. Yet when it is suggested that people can reject the "fullness of truth", especially in today's modern world when in the USA the Catholic beliefs are "out there" for all to hear about, and still be OK with God, when God has said "He who rejects you rejects ME" is beyond comprehension.

How can it be that one can reject the Church, thereby reject God Himself, (quoting GOD here!!!) and still have a chance at salvation?

and Eugene..what about all of those non-Catholics whose CHURCHES teach that homosexuality ISN'T a sin? There ARE more and more of them around. So you have a number of truly devout Christian homosexuals who certainly do not consider themselves to be in sin, nor do their churches. Surely, in the spirit of Ecumenicism, how can they be held to accountibility for Catholic dogma, anymore than the divorced and remarried crowd is????? And they too, die unrepentant, since they don't believe they are in sin at all.

I am NOT speaking about what we as individuals may think, but what the Catholic Church teaches.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 10, 2005.

We were only discussing baptism, and our Church's teaching. Why have you listed a number of new subjects to object about? We all know the diverse sins of humanity. Let me give you the only reasonable reply; unless you think to steam-roll everything I've had to say up to now:

No matter what sin you choose to attack here, someone somewhere has that sin on his conscience. You could have a different one yourself; and the answer goes for your sin as well:

God will certainly forgive you if you show Him you are truly sorry and you never sin again. You will have the church to help you, with reconciliation and absolution, if you're a faithful Catholic. Naturally, if you're a non-Catholic, you won't have that great advantage. You're on your own.

Nevertheless; what God may see in your heart is completely unknown to any other soul, including a Catholic Pope. The Pope has only the evidence of your conduct. Not of your contrition or your conversion. He cannot read hearts. God sees your acts as well as your heart and your conscience.

Since the Church rightly teaches us that God is infinitely Just and infinitely Merciful, the truth is that God cannot damn a soul unjustly. He will judge you with infinite wisdom and justice. If you deserve damnation as the outward evidence would indicate, He will send you to hell. If He sees something otherwise in your acts and intentions He may not. He may forgive and send you into Purgatory. (Because you repent.) The world and this universe will surely end, but God will never make a mistake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

This has been done before, and if I recall, it is the reason Emerald is banned.

Emerald, you know that Pius IX affirmed the possibility of salvation for those who obey natural law and seek God.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 10, 2005.

I beg your pardon. The thread's subject was listed as "invincible ignorance". I spent some time reading all of the postings and made a posting of my own. I shall never do that again. Please continue your own dialogues uninterupted. I'll go elsewhere.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 10, 2005.

"This has been done before, and if I recall, it is the reason Emerald is banned."

Uh, no. But you've made mistakes before, anon, such as claiming that I was a closet sedevacantist, when I have never, ever even hinted at having such a stance, and have always argued against sedevacantism.

"Emerald, you know that Pius IX affirmed the possibility of salvation for those who obey natural law and seek God."

If you think that Pius IX thought that there a way of salvation that could be had outside the Church, then go ahead and make the case. It won't stand up for long. It can't. Pope Pius IX:

"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion ... For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood ... Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls."

--Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 1854

You know, it's up to you. If you want to discuss this, that's fine with me. If you want to harken back to an old ban because you find it too difficult a case to argue, and getting rid of the poster is easier than discussing it with him, then, that's fine with me also.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 10, 2005.

Everybody who is banned claims it is done out of "fear for the truth," or incompetence, whether they are righteous prophets or vicious criminals. For that reason, such complaints are meaningless and only demonstrate an attitude of insubordination.

Pope Pius IX wrote,

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." - Cuanto Conficiamur Moerore

I motion to continue the ban on Emerald's posts of a heterodox nature.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 10, 2005.

"Everybody who is banned claims it is done out of "fear for the truth," or incompetence, whether they are righteous prophets or vicious criminals. For that reason, such complaints are meaningless and only demonstrate an attitude of insubordination."

Be honest, anon. The ban wasn't about this. I can tell you exactly what it was about. There was a thread in which took place a discussion of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some people were branding other posters as having a deviant kind of devotion, and I took their brandings as an unnecessarily incredulous attitude towards a real and true attitude of devotion to the Blessed Virgin. One of the old moderators thought that silencing those who were promoting devotion to the Blessed Virginon a manner they didn't like. Like you, they proposed banning them from the forum. I snapped off a rude comment to him, because it irritated me. So he banned me.

That is what the ban revolved around. Please don't insert other reasons in place of this.

Now we have it here again... someone calling for a ban instead being willing to partake in conversation and healthy debate.

"I motion to continue the ban on Emerald's posts of a heterodox nature."

If that's the only way you can deal with these discussions, then by all means, go right ahead.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 10, 2005.

If you're banned, that's too bad. Let's simply forget your ban, Emerald. Nobody cares what the cause was; and it doesn't stop you coming here.

Your comment, ''If you want to harken back to an old ban because you find it too difficult a case to argue, and getting rid of the poster is easier,'' is self-serving. Who is backing off your arguments? Are these so bullet-proof? My friend, you shouldn't flatter yourself.

We assert there's plenty of Catholic teaching to support baptism of Desire. Yes, a condition known as invincible ignorance has a strong bearing on the efficacy of such a variation. We can be sure the incidence of this baptism is rare. And it can only be certain in God's eyes. The Church acknowledges that.

Invincible ignorance is not rare. It's far too ordinary. If it existed in a truly righteous soul who repents of all sin, that would be nearly miraculous. Are Catholics willing to deny God is loving enough to work miracles? We already know He is All-Merciful; since he has forgiven us. He is the One who grants every Baptism of Desire; and it is equal to any other giving of the sacrament. He makes it equal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.

"If you're banned, that's too bad. Let's simply forget your ban, Emerald. Nobody cares what the cause was; and it doesn't stop you coming here."

"Who cares" is correct. Hey, I didn't bring it up.

"Your comment, ''If you want to harken back to an old ban because you find it too difficult a case to argue, and getting rid of the poster is easier,'' is self-serving. Who is backing off your arguments? Are these so bullet-proof? My friend, you shouldn't flatter yourself."

You have a real bad habit of assigning motives to people and pointing out faults, whether imagined or real. It doesn't bother me in least, but still, you should be aware of the fact of it.

And yes, they are bulletproof. They're not mine. They're the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

You constantly allude to the fact that you have this great depth of understanding whereby you can reconcile all sorts of newer understandings of dogma which conflict with older, clear and precise declarations of dogma.

I'm just saying, hey, you don't have that depth of understanding. It isn't possible. The dogmas of the Catholic Church are clear and precise. They say what they mean, and mean what they say.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.

The dogmas of the Catholic Church are clear and precise. They say what they mean, and mean what they say.

No one questions this statement, Emerald. The trouble is you think YOUR INTERPRETATION of church dogmas are the TRUE interpretation of them, LOL! This is why you never want to really listen to anyone else, you think you know the truth from the get-go, and anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with church dogma!

No one ever says your quotes of popes are wrong, just your interpretations of their meaning. C'mon, this isn't the first time you've heard this.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.

OK, Emerald. Keep the dogmas of the Catholic Church coming. If it seems to you all others have never been informed enough. I never asked for you to be banned.

We already knew, in fact, that all salvation comes in the Catholic Church. You argue as if it were being disputed. If I for one were saying; ''Heck, salvation can also be had in the Mennonite Church; or the Baptist Church, Methodist, Christian Scientist;

I'd be contradicting Catholic dogma for sure. If another person came here and said that, I would oppose him. Just as you would.

So, where's our trouble? Why argue at all?

Because you say, '' [You think you have] a great depth of understanding whereby you can reconcile all sorts of newer understandings of dogma which conflict with older, clear and precise declarations of dogma.'' --But, Emerald; we aren't ''reconciling'' conflicting declarations of dogma. We all support the Church's teachings. Would you prefer then, to prove that Gene DOESN'T have a greater depth of understanding, [than you] or at least isn't afraid of understanding? [As you are.]

Don't pretend to introduce any statements of the Popes here for the first time. Especially not to knock other people's faith in the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.

Emerald, I remember it too. It was someone named ProMary I think. You asked Ed to ban you, I think upset about what he had said to ProMary.

I remember that it was "insubordination" because you said it was ironic since it was on the feast of the Annunciation, and you called it, "the day of ultimate, non-insubordination."

That statement stuck with me. I thought it was an interesting connection.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 11, 2005.

"...or at least isn't afraid of understanding? [As you are.]"

There you go again.

"Don't pretend to introduce any statements of the Popes here for the first time. Especially not to knock other people's faith in the Church."

There you go again. You want to assign a sinister motive or personal fault, Gene. You can if you want, obviously. Again, it doesn't bother me much; I'm used to that kind of stuff. But it does serve to throw the conversation off focus, which is unnecessary.

Frank says "No one questions this statement, Emerald."

Sure they do, Frank. The evidence abounds all around us. I've visited many gatherings, talked with many people, read many things, visited many places, and can without a doubt tell you that today's Catholics, by and large, absolutely positively do question the statement "there is no salvation outside the Church". They laugh at it, say it is ridiculous, deny it without qualification to your face. They call it obsolete and cite all the same things you would, and Gene would, as their reason for believing so. I would challenge any Catholic to ask any other Catholic this question to see if this is the truth of the situation. Nobody really believes it. And yet it remains one of the most core dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

Try it sometime. Just ask someone next to you at Church next Sunday. You'll find that I'm right about this.

"The trouble is you think YOUR INTERPRETATION of church dogmas are the TRUE interpretation of them, LOL!"

Frank, dogmatic declarations and definitions do not admit of interpretation in that manner. Anyone can look at these statements and understand what they intend to say at first read. They are so simple. Only someone who is trying to get out of the truth of them is going to spin them.

"This is why you never want to really listen to anyone else, you think you know the truth from the get-go, and anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with church dogma!"

I would merely say, hey, that's not me. That's what you and Gene are doing. After all, what the heck's the difference? If I don't see it your way, then I must have it wrong in your book. In all truth, there is far more interpretation from your and Gene's end. You're the ones trying to explain stuff away. All I'm doing is saying, hey, look what it says. So people look at it, they read it, and they don't like what it says. So they look for a way out.

I've said it more than once, and I'll say it again, because it is true: what you erroniously believe to be the teaching of the Church on this matter, if it indicates another way to salvation outside the Church, then it is a theologumena (theological speculation) and not a doctrine.

There is absolutely nothing hereodox about taking a standing-ground position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

"C'mon, this isn't the first time you've heard this."

The first time I've heard people speak out of both sides their mouth?

Of course not.

By the way, you wrote upthread that the SSPX side with me on this issue, and that no one should listen to those schismatics. Be informed that, no they don't, but the SSPX (by and large) agrees with...

...your position. That's right! lol. I've always noticed you do things like that a lot in conversations.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.

"That statement stuck with me. I thought it was an interesting connection."

Really? I don't recall all the details of that thread, and don't remember making the detail of making that statement, but the statement itself does make sense.

Don't feel obligated, but what struck you in particular about it? Just curious.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.

Emmie:
You continue making the self-serving observations. ''You're the ones trying to explain stuff away. All I'm doing is saying, hey, look what it says. So people look at it, they read it, and they don't like what it says,''

What did we [I] explain away? Can you put your finger on that? Stuff?

''All you're doing'' is gilding the old lily you were never able to palm off; ''Hey, look what it says.'' But it isn't relevant to this case; you can apply it but it won't stick. The bishops are in authority. They've all read their own Church documents. I am surprised you think you're the sole authority on Trent. Get a life, Furor Scribendi.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

You know what? Whenever I've read Emerald's posts, at least he can keep his dignity. You never seem to be short of the ad-hom's Eugene. Do you expect people to respect what you say when you trash them all the time?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 12, 2005.

Thank you for the brief admonition, Oliver. Yes, you're right.

Emerald and I are ultimately friends. This swapping back and forth is done with our customary levity.

The ad hominem charge doesn't count as I see it. When one attacks the messenger and not the message,'' ad homs are reprehensible. But I go straight to the message, and the added barb is hardly ever cruel. Not at Emerald, anyway.

Forgive me for the audacity of justifying what seems evil to you. I dislike evil; we all do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

Eugene

"Take this for the CHURCH's official teaching"

i've given you stuff from Trent. here's more from Florence:

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. ***If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected***." NO WATER, NO BAPTISM.

"Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church.

.... Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. [NO BAPTISM, NO SALVATION]

....The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold.

....The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt."

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the ***only remedy*** available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God,

... it [the Church] admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can;

.....and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay...."

ie no mention of these new baptisms that you advocate, even for the innocent child that dies in childbirth -- who is truly blameless to the point of defining the term "blameless".

you also say: "In Luke 9, Christ Himself said, ''He who loses His life for my sake shall save it,'' speaking clearly of martyrdom for the faith."

the Church teaches [your name-sake Pope at Florence: Cantate Domino] "...nobody can be saved, ... even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church..."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 12, 2005.

We can argue about it forever. You seem to think God only has permission to accomplish a soul's salvation by formula. The texts you're quoting refer to the Church's rite of baptism only. Yes, there is a rite that must be followed for Holy Baptism. It's how new souls are admitted into the church and sanctified.

God can also sanctify. A soul He saves personally is saved, whether the rite of baptism is administered our way, or not. Do you think Moses was baptised, or Christ's ancestors? We call them saints and they're in heaven. Who baptises those saints? (They are baptised, in some other way.) God knows that way, we don't. We attach concepts that help to answer what only God can tell us. But they point to a truth.

As to the rites of the Catholic Church, they're well-known and we don't deny them. Because you speak of a visible, present baptism. Not a concept explaining something POSITIVE, -- but not as demonstrable here and now.

Yet we know God has saved souls who were never in the Church. We're not guessing. Can you, or anyone else here, show us a Catholic document on the baptismal rite that pre-dates ours? What about a Pope at Florence: Cantate Domino; find out what he taught us about God's infinite power. Leave the theology to somebody who knows what he's talking about, this time.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

Emerald, I found the original post in question:
Will "The Passion" bring some evangelicals to better respect Mary? The incident is very near the bottom of that thread. (March 14, 2004)

I cannot find the post I was referring to, so perhaps the moderator deleted it since you were banned. I think it was on another thread anyway, in which Ed told you that if you had not decided to leave, he would have banned you.

Emerald said: Don't feel obligated, but what struck you in particular about it? Just curious.

First of all, I said it stuck with me, not that it struck me. But small matters aside, I had never before known about the Feast of the Annunciation. At that point I had just recently decided to become Catholic after being raised Protestant. I thought it was an interesting way to think of Mary and the conception of Jesus. Her submission of will and saying "Yes" to whatever God had for her. I suppose I just liked the way you phrased it.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 12, 2005.

You're right, I read through your post too quickly Emily, sorry.

Believe or not I would much rather talk about Mary than extra ecclesiam nulla salus all the time. That is, if I could forget for a moment that the two topics are actually inseparable from each other, just as all like all seamless Catholic truth is.

A friend from another place recently showed me and a lot of others an interesting quote:

"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Yeah, I went postal in that old thread.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.

Oliver & anon,

Apart from defaming and slandering the indefectible Extraordinary Magisterium of Vatican II, the inerrant Novus Ordo Masses, and the infallible Pope John Paul II & his College of Bishops & their Teachings, I suppose Emerald behaves in a dignified kind of way. Clarification: He is not a closet sedevacantist (TC is the infamous sedevacantist). He is a closet SSPX apologist (if not yet a fully-pledged SSPX member). Jake kisses his feet. Ian is in danger of joining their elite newbie club - God forbid.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

You forgot demonically possessed. Maybe that's it. Someone tried that one too. roflol.

Maybe there's a real problem and it ain't the traditional Catholics that are the problem.

For instance, What's this?

Take a good hard look at that. Do you know what that is? I'll tell you what that is: it's an occult incantation. Look who is authorizing it. Is the archdiocese of San Francisco right with Rome, while traditional Catholics are not?

Could it be that there's a genuine problem out there in CatholicWorld, and it's really not the trads who are the problem?

By the way, you may want to go look up the exact meaning of Extraordinary Magisterium, otherwise known as the Supreme Magisterium. The excercise of the Supreme Magisterium belongs to the Roman Pontiff and consists of rendering solemn definitions concerning the doctrines of Faith or regarding morals.

As far as ever becoming a "fully-pledged SSPX member", you'll be comforted to know that this can't ever happen. The SSPX is an order of priests.

I'm married.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.

As a closet SSPX apologist and a potential fully-pledged SSPX follower ("follower" might suit his delicate elite taste), Emerald has a set agenda for his self-styled traditionalist propaganda. His closet goal is to persuade others to go into pre-schism where he is. He presents himself as more Catholic than Pope (St.) John Paul II, more enlightened than the Supreme Magisterium, and above the Novus Ordo Mass.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

He is a closet SSPX apologist (if not yet a fully-pledged SSPX member).

Au contraire. He assists at a Mass said with the approval (I guess "tolerance" would be a better word) of his Bishop. I assist at Mass at a chapel of the Society of St Pius X, and thanks be to God. As Emerald has correctly pointed out, the SSPX is a priestly society. There are no secret bloodletting pin-the-tail-on-the-Archbishop rituals that elevate laypeople to its membership rolls, unless you want to count its Third Order, to which I plan to be professed, with the grace of God, this Spring.

Formal adherence, baby.

Jake kisses his feet.

He does pretty well on his own, but you've not provided much of an affront. Try searching the archives & copying & pasting "your" thoughts from there. That's what other regulars posing as trolls have done in the past. You won't fool anyone, but it may help you sleep better.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 13, 2005.

Correction: Joke kisses Emerald's feet.

As expected, schismatic self-styled traditionalist SSPX member Robin, dissenting troll that he is, showed up to love and serve his closet SSPX apologist Batman. That's how the self-styled traditionalist SSPX dynamic duo operate - one more lost than the other.

Formal adherence to SSPX is, in truth and fact, Formal Schism, baby.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

Formal adherence to SSPX is, in truth and fact, Formal Schism, baby.

This is no way to get onto the list of invitees, pal.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 13, 2005.

unless you want to count its Third Order, to which I plan to be professed, with the grace of God, this Spring.

Formal adherence, baby.

Let me see if I'm following this, from a logical perspective:

Since Pope Eugene was pre-vatII, you think he spoke truly, and therefore accept that schismatics will go to Hell.

You claim to accept (at least nominally) the authority of the Pope today.

The pope has excommunicated Lefebvre by name, as well as those in formal adherence to his schism.

NOW, you profess to be in formal adherence to his schism *yourself*, and with the above, this means that you believe that you will be going to Hell by the standards you acknowledge. Why bother calling yourself a Catholic or going to church at all? Your fate won't be any worse, and you can save at hour or two every week for watching football or whatever else you'd like to do.

Frank

P.S. Emerald, behold your next step. Be careful with yourself, like the old saying goes, "if you sleep with dogs, sooner or later you wake up with fleas." A year or so ago, Jake would have denied or quibbled about being in formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism, now he's PROUD of it. Turn from your path before you end up in the same boat.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 13, 2005.

The pope has excommunicated Lefebvre by name, as well as those in formal adherence to his schism.

What schism was that again?

NOW, you profess to be in formal adherence to his schism *yourself*, and with the above, this means that you believe that you will be going to Hell by the standards you acknowledge.

No, it means that schismatics will go to Hell. Pope Eugene. It's all there. Black & white.

Why bother calling yourself a Catholic or going to church at all? Your fate won't be any worse, and you can save at hour or two every week for watching football or whatever else you'd like to do.

Smells & bells, I guess.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 13, 2005.

Turn from your path before you end up in the same boat.

..as if you consider him to be on some different boat.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 13, 2005.

The katzenjammer twins, Jake und Emmeraldt, Haha!

Have to go back and check this one,

--''Maybe there's a real problem and it ain't the traditional Catholics that are the problem.

For instance, What's this? etc., --a hard look at that. Do you know what that is? . . . that is: an occult incantation. Look who is authorizing it. Is the archdiocese of San Francisco right with Rome; traditional Catholics are not?'' No Lil Darlin'. There is nothing quite so sensational. You show us a somewhat florid, poetical, Emerald-like invocation of the Holy Spirit. Styled very much the way you embellish your own contributions here. With some excess? You should be pleased with it. Come, Holy Ghost and enlighten the hearts of Thy faithful was much more refined and to the point. but It's the self-same Holy Spirit, Emmie. Jake will likely agree.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.

No thanks, out Robin, you and closet Batman can have a ball between yourselves. Invite flaming Lefebvre instead into your pride party. Brainwash elsewhere.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

Emerald said: "All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Thanks for sharing that lovely quote, Emerald. Over the last few months my love and understanding of Mary has grown, due in part no doubt to praying the rosary. I love that part in mass where we pray that God would make us worthy to spend eternity with the Blessed Virgin and the Saints (sorry I didn't get the wording perfect).

I am currently reading Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux. In it she describes a lovely experience of a statue of Mary coming to life in a vision, and I heard it's called the Virgin of the Smile. How wonderful it would be to have such a vision! If I ever do become a nun, I am considering having part of my new name after Therese.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

There is nothing quite so sensational. You show us a somewhat florid, poetical, Emerald-like invocation of the Holy Spirit. Styled very much the way you embellish your own contributions here. With some excess? You should be pleased with it. Come, Holy Ghost and enlighten the hearts of Thy faithful was much more refined and to the point. but It's the self-same Holy Spirit, Emmie. Jake will likely agree.

"Somewhat florid and poetical" LOL! Ya think? But is it Catholic? Ummm no. This would more likely be found on some pagan website. What lunacy!

Oops, just checked, the prayer has already been altered on the website, no doubt due to e-mail bombardment from mean old rad- trads. No more spirit of the north, south, east and west...sigh.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 13, 2005.

Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is invoked. Not ''four spirits,'' just so you know it. I agree it's an unwise idea.

Not everybody's type of invocation; but hardly ''occult''. You guys might lighten up.

I've spotted a number of posts right here that launched into hyperbole. ''Filled with the Spirit.'' Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.

If I ever do become a nun, I am considering having part of my new name after Therese.

Emily,

Whats with this "IF" stuff? You will become a nun, we need you! Just kidding, no pressure. You'll do great things wherever God calls you.

I'm glad you mentioned St. Therese. You recently mentioned you were considering blessed Kateri Tekakwitha as your patron saint. I've always seen you as more like the Little Flower (St. Therese). But then, I used to think your e-mail address was Jesusflower instead of Jesusfollower so maybe that has something to do with it. :-)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 13, 2005.

Thanks, Brian! At this point I do believe that it is my calling, however one cannot presume to know the future. In my opinion, the day cannot come quickly enough when I would be able to join the sisterhood. I even found an order/group that I love. However, I am in college and then there are loans to pay. Plus, with joining the Church this Easter, they tend to make you wait 3 years after converting. God's time is not always our timing. And who knows? I mean I could die tomorrow.

Brian, I believe that Blessed Kateri was interceding for me at a certain point in my life. Also she is called "Lily of the Mohawks" and I like the name Lily. It has meaning to me on multiple levels. (Read Mt. 6:28 and surrounding). I also love St. Therese so the choice is indeed a difficult one.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

"Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is invoked. Not ''four spirits,'' just so you know it."

Nope; it's merely four spirits. You can read a reprint of it here.

Press Ctrl F, then enter "holy". You won't find it anywhere in the prayer. If you don't call it Holy you could summon just about anything I supposed.

That's so good about saying the Rosary and the understanding of Mary's role Emily. There can't much better news than this... keep it up. Spread what you learn.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.

"Since Pope Eugene was pre-vatII, you think he spoke truly, and therefore accept that schismatics will go to Hell."

No, not for the reason that is was spoken pre-Vatican II. You can do better than this, Frank, I'm sure you can. Pope Eugene spoke truly because when he made the statement, he did so in the context of directly and intentionally calling upon his capacity to speak infallibly, from the Chair. It's an infallible statement, Frank. That's how we know he spoke so truly.

"You [jake] claim to accept (at least nominally) the authority of the Pope today."

If anyone denies the authority of the Roman Pontiff, then they have suffered shipwreck of the Faith. That, too, has been pronounced infallibly.

"The pope has excommunicated Lefebvre by name, as well as those in formal adherence to his schism."

Again, if you go back and look, he didn't actually perform a formal excommunication, but rather stated that Lefebvre had already incurred, previous to the issuance of Ecclesia Dei, that kind of excommunication which was envisioned by canon law, or in other words, latae sententiae excommunication.

You need to recognize this fact. It was not a formal excommunication, but a statement the Lefebvre had already excommunicated himself. The reason cited was rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Now if this were truly the case, it would really have been a case of ipso facto excommunication.

It would have to have been actually true the Lefebvre "rejected the Roman Pontiff". To understand exactly what this rejection looks like in action, look no further than the Orthodox. They simply flat out reject his need to exist. We don't have that situation here by any stretch of the imagination.

You have to understand that a pronouncement of excommunication, while certainly well within the power and right of the Roman Pontiff to issue, is not in and of itself an infallible declaration of any kind. There first actually has to be a just cause for a formal excommunication. If not, it is actually possible that a formal excommunication can be rendered which is not just and without real basis in truth, and which therefore is void and ineffectual.

History bear this out. Several Saints have been formally "excommunicated", some of them multiple times, and all of them unjustly. The formal excommunications were invalid due to a lack of serious matter.

The following situations are possible and all have happened in the history of the Church:

A person who was justly and truly excommunicated by formal decree, and was truly outside the Church.
A person who has been formally excommunicated without just cause, in which case the formal excommunicated was null and void, and therefore they had remained at all times in the unity of the Church.
A person who is latae sententiae excommunicated, and truly outside the Church, though not formally declared to be so.

Add on top of all this that Lefebvre's excommunication wasn't even formal, but rather, invoked a judgment of latae sententiae excommunication.

Alright, piling more stuff on top: listen to this with all your might. Fact: Lefebvre was NOT judged to be excommunicated because of his stance on any doctrine or because of the Latin Mass. It was over the matter of disobeying the pope in a matter of ordaining bishops.

However, his unfortunate situation is used by many to indicate that traditional Catholicism and the Latin Mass had been amputated from the Church. As if that were really possible. How can a body live long with its heart ripped out, huh?

I said it a long time ago, and I'll say it again: Traditional Catholicism has not been excommunicated. It's a sure thing that people want to make it look that way, but sorry, other people out there have what it takes to think more deeply than this.

"NOW, you profess to be in formal adherence to his schism *yourself*, and with the above, this means that you believe that you will be going to Hell by the standards you acknowledge. Why bother calling yourself a Catholic or going to church at all? Your fate won't be any worse, and you can save at hour or two every week for watching football or whatever else you'd like to do."

Clue in, Frank. What jake was getting at was that he's not in schism, and that he hasn't lent his assent to anything which is truly schismatic. That's the point he's making. There is no schism to which he has attached himself. He just goes to the Latin Rite of the Mass, that's all, besides being able to see straight through the modernist mess that's killing what's left of the so-called Catholic Faithful's Faith. Jake's blunt with the truth and has an aggressive and effective style. We need more people like this. It's charitable to tell the truth.

"P.S. Emerald, behold your next step. Be careful with yourself, like the old saying goes, "if you sleep with dogs, sooner or later you wake up with fleas." A year or so ago, Jake would have denied or quibbled about being in formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism, now he's PROUD of it. Turn from your path before you end up in the same boat."

Jake is a very humble man, believe it or not, devoted solely to his Faith, and his growing family. He teaches them the Faith and prays the Rosary with them each night. He has a very, very deep understanding of what it is that is required of a soul in this life in order to see God in the next. I'm not worried for him in the least.

Pardon me if I don't find a suitable comparison of all that with a flea-ridden dog.

As for myself, and holding the Faith, you'll know I've gone off on the wrong path if I ever come back in here and say to you "hey, know what? There really is salvation outside the Church". Then you'll know for sure that I've lost the Catholic Faith. But in the meantime, and of true substance and import as opposed to these other phony concerns, I've got enough personal sins to keep me busy.

That you saw up there? That's just jake's way of telling you he isn't in schism in the first place. He's just drawing your own conclusion for you, knowing the whole time that one or more of your premises are in error.

Now let's another look at that logical perspective, Frank. If you don't believe what Pope Eugene said in Cantate Domino, then according to you, even if jake were actually in full- blown schism, he could still be saved.

Which logically begs that question... why do you care?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.

Moral of the story: House of Flying Daggers.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

Go to any SSPX website - Emerald speaks verbatim.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

Actually, in all honesty J. Greene, I have yet to read through an SSPX website and sift through the case as made by them, in any great detail.

I've merely read the various documents of the Church throughout the ages, and looked at the text of Ecclesia Dei, and have conversed with people regarding the issue.

That's the origin of what is put forward in my post above.

If you think they're canned arguments, try me. You'll lose.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 13, 2005.

Hard not to react to this one:''As for myself, and holding the Faith, you'll know I've gone off on the wrong path if I ever come back in here and say to you "hey, know what? There really is salvation outside the Church". Then you'll know for sure that I've lost the Catholic Faith.''

Well, sure. Same here. There is no salvation outside the Church. Who said there is?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

Emerald's revelations are surprising. He became a closet SSPX apologist without the help of SSPX documents. What a natural! Church documents mysteriously spoke schismatic beliefs to him. He tries to provoke for more opportunities to parade his dissenting sophistry and private misjudgment.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com.), January 14, 2005.

(Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is invoked. Not ''four spirits,'' just so you know it.) Nope; it's merely four spirits. You can read a reprint of it here.

If you don't call it Holy you could ----summon---- just about anything I supposed.

Oh? ----assume, you mean----. But you assume the worst; a typical pharisaical knee-jerk. You assume wrong.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

I assume wrong? Here's one of the lines from that, thing:

"We greet you, Great Spirit of the Earth. It was from you we came as from a Mother; you nourish us still and give us shelter."

So, they're invoking the Holy Ghost? Yeah, sure.

"But you assume the worst; a typical pharisaical knee-jerk."

Really now. This is Hippy-Gaia spiritualityism. I never really would have thought you would've gone for something like that. Until now.

So these people are ok... merely misunderstood, but the trads are a real danger to the Faith, huh?

That's really messed up.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 14, 2005.

Emerald,

Just so you know, I read that and figure it's some nut who fell off into schism on the left of the church. You won't hear any defense of that rubbish from me. Your trouble is you ONLY see the schism of the left wing of the church and refuse to admit that on the right wing of the church that even someone who was excommunicated by name did anything wrong! What's the point in pointing out one person's error if you quite obviously turn a blind eye to somenone else's? Same post towards you Eugene, when I read that I didn't anything about the "HOLY Spirit", but then we don't know who posted it there, do we? Especially in SF it could have been some secretary and it got pulled when the father found out.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.

"Just so you know, I read that and figure it's some nut who fell off into schism on the left of the church. You won't hear any defense of that rubbish from me. Your trouble is you ONLY see the schism of the left wing of the church and refuse to admit that on the right wing of the church that even someone who was excommunicated by name did anything wrong!"

What's frustrating is that you can't see that it is the very strategy of modernism itself to depict a Church that actually has a left and a right wing. This is an absurdity. It is the classical strategy of liberalism in the broad sense to first posit that there is a left and a right as a divide a conquer strategy. Whether it is liberalism which is political, social, economic, or ecclesiastical, the first move is always to posit the extremes and then to play them against the center.

What's sad is that you think I've left the Church, but you fumble when it comes to stating the exact reason why. But when somebody from the diocese posts something like this, were supposed to think the best of them, the diocese and the bishop. They receive every support imaginable and are pardoned latae sententiae.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 14, 2005.

What's frustrating is that you can't see that it is the very strategy of modernism itself to depict a Church that actually has a left and a right wing. This is an absurdity

O.k., if the semantics bother you let's put it this way: There are people who follow the church, and those that don't. Neither the person who posted that poem nor Lefebvre follow the church. Better?

What's sad is that you think I've left the Church, but you fumble when it comes to stating the exact reason why. But when somebody from the diocese posts something like this, were supposed to think the best of them, the diocese and the bishop. They receive every support imaginable and are pardoned latae sententiae.

I don't think you are willing to say you've actually LEFT the church, rather I think you want to straddle the fence of doing what you want while claiming to be within the church's boundaries. Unlike Jake who is proudly proclaiming his excommunication, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

The difference between Lefebvre and his bunch and the people who posted this poem is that Lefebvre took his disobedience to the grave, whereas these people *removed* the poem after it was posted (the same day as I read it, actually). All of us sin, Emerald, You, Me, Lefebvre, and the person who posted that poem. The poem poster had the wisdom to remove it, (since we don't know them, one must presume they realized their error out of charity), whereas Lefebvre did NOT recant of his errors. Don't you see the difference there? One person is an UNrepentent sinner, the other person is a REPENTENT sinner. One is forgiven, one isn't.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.

Oops. opps opss

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.

Excellent points, Frank.
I might have made the same ones; instead of continuing polarized. You're right; Emerald demands the buck stops at that diocese, that bishop. Of course he's right. Yet I think it's as you picture it, a loose cannon was the problem.

Emerald insists the whole Church is infested with these radicals, but he ought to know better. Our Church was founded by Christ on love. When charity has grown cold amongst us, we'll know the end is near. If Mother Theresa was one of ours, we can't be so ''modernist''. The Church is giving praise and glory to God through her saints and the faithful. I think of the other great saint; Theresa of Avila. Can't get more traditional than Santa Teresa de Jesus.

She did combat with bad actors in the Church all of her life. Her words advise us here and now: ''Let nothing perturb you. Everything is passing.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

"I don't think you are willing to say you've actually LEFT the church, rather I think you want to straddle the fence of doing what you want while claiming to be within the church's boundaries. Unlike Jake who is proudly proclaiming his excommunication, you want to have your cake and eat it too."

Emerald supports Jake's full public schism but Emerald does not have the bullocks to live out his heart's schismatic beliefs. Emerald is neither hot nor cold. Lukewarm ...

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

We have no right to dump on Emerald, whatever we think of his faith. I don't truly KNOW how to tell a schismatic, frankly. There's no set pattern, is there? For one thing, I see Emerald supporting our present Pope, no matter how much he lives in the past.

A certain level of distrust for all that's revolutionary is healthy enough. But I grow very impatient with individuals who love God, but semm to deny that He isn't a respecter of persons. Today we suffer the pains of division, when God is calling us all to unity in One Communion. That pain's a result of love withheld from a brother; even a Catholic brother-- because he worships God ''out of character,'' or freer, than rigid traditionalists.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

does not have the bullocks

Careful, mate. Your bullocks are showing. You've been spanked in this forum under your real name for using such newchurchspeak.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 14, 2005.

How dare you say it's what the Catholic Church speaks. You show your colors again, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

Oh, stop.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 14, 2005.

Jake ;

Why do you argue against such unshakable faith and "logic"

You cannot win, so stop tryuing!

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 14, 2005.

Jake never tries to win. He just obstructs. But today he's especially offensive.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.

John Smith,

It would be interesting to see a discussion between you and Matthew from the Tracing Bishops Back to the Apostles? thread. I'm serious about this.

He says: "Something that is infallible can NEVER change. It is NOT POSSIBLE. Introducing new missals is a form of changing the official missal. And yes I know that there have been changes throughout the history of the church, that was exactly my point and one of the biggest reasons that i know the Catholic church is not the true church of Christ."

But he's reasoned himself out of the Faith altogether.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 14, 2005.

"I don't think you are willing to say you've actually LEFT the church..."

Of course not. Because I haven't. It's all in your head.

"...rather I think you want to straddle the fence of doing what you want while claiming to be within the church's boundaries."

Stradling a fence is not the imagery best used by someone who just got done saying that the place to be is not too far leftnot too far ritht. At any rate, what do I do that's so wrong... such as what? Name it.

"The difference between Lefebvre and his bunch and the people who posted this poem is that Lefebvre took his disobedience to the grave, whereas these people *removed* the poem after it was posted (the same day as I read it, actually)."

Are you saying that they suddenly saw their error, got all long-faced and remorseful, and then, removed it?

You can't be serious. They removed it, Frank, because they got some worldwide exposure. Exposing modernism is a bit like turning on a light in a roach infested kitchen. You have to step on them fast before they take cover. I can assure you they have absolutely no remorse whatsoever. Their aim is to undermine the Catholic Church. They just got a little too cocky this time, and had to tone it down a bit.

Now I've heard everything. Unbelievable. Frank, this is ridiculous.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 14, 2005.

Andy;

I read that thread and I hate to say it but I do agree with Michael on many things.

He says the Church is no longer the Church, he is wrong. The church is still the church but it's pastors have (most of them), entirely lost the faith. Even the pope has done some terrible things which is common knowledge. I cannot argue with Eugene and Paul as it would be going around in circles. Let the fruits speak for themselves.

I recently say a video called "What we have lost on the road to restoration". If that doesn't bring one to tears not much else will.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 15, 2005.

Wow; he saw a video.
Get back to work on your own lives. Jesus said whoever would be His disciple should pick up his cross and follow Him. What's happened? God is still the Lord of all; He lives. He can't come down from heaven and give you your pills. Get over it.

The more I see of this forum and this mutter of wanta be high priests, I wonder when they'll start their own church. The church of hardly any faith; which thinks itself Catholic? John Smith is pope; and maybe he's infallible. Let him, who cares? I don't even think he's really John Smith. He was Pocahonta's darling or something. Now he's negotiating here; on very slight credibility. Short pier, Smith; take the long walk, keep going; Adios!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

Emerald,

You really do get me scratching my head. My post was about showing how both people who *claim* to be traditionalists and people who clsim other things can both fall in to error.

For about the 5oth time you comment on the people you don't agree with and say how terrible their actions are, but completely ignore the people you do agree with who have been EXCOMMUNICATED for their errors. I just wish I knew whether you were doing this deliberately, or do not even realize what you are doing.

rank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2005.

Thank you for your kind words Eugene. As a prototype of the Catholic faith there should be a lot more of you coming forward since V2.

I don't care 2 cents worth of what you think of me but my Catholic faith is the most important thing in the worrld, and to see what this hierarchy is doing to it is a crime.

Pius XII and 259 popes before hime hand a gem over to the next four. What do they do with it, just trash it in forty years. Just the time the Jews spent in the desert.

It is people like you that are the problem. You are working witnin, but doing what. Being a cheerleader for the destruction. What a guy!

-- John Smith & Pocahontis too (A@A.com), January 15, 2005.

Dear Bob Doe -- Three things to say to ye, Laddie: Physician, cure thyself.

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

Frank,
Emerald is rarely responsive to any serious and well-founded reply. He loves rhetoric. This became his Super Bowl for him; the Catholic Forum versus the Trads.

Now Jake is involved once more; and apparently some others of the anti-Vatican II camp; --a ''John Smith'' who reminds me of Ed Richards, and Ian; an invincibly intransigent doomsayer. Not bad people, I know. But they live all in a private world, their own Peter's Bark upon the seas.

It seems they don't care where the true Church is going. You and I have never amounted to Catholics in the eyes of our detractors. Just cockroaches or chiggers or something. Carry the cross, Frank. This is penance; no relief for now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

Dear alias John Smith--
Can't take a joke, Hmmm? I figured you'd get your back up.

Why say such a thing? >>> ''It is people like you that are the problem. You are etc., --'' Only I'd reply, why isn't it people like you--? Who are always the problem. Don't you cause division and dissent? Over the end of exclusivity in the Catholic Church, you want no charity or reform, by which to include the rest of humanity--

Because of human pride? Pride in the ''accomplishment'' over two millennia? (So am I--) -- But not willing to be guided by LOVE, as if the Holy Spirit were giving us wrong impulses-- ''Love thy neighbor as thyself''--? ? ? You'd rather have darkened sanctuaries where neighbors can't come in. Isn't that part of the problem?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

Dear Mr. Chavez,

You have bought into the humanism of the past 40 years. Of course you are not alone as even a wonderful woman like Mother Teresa fell for it.

She said on more than one occasion that she never tried to convert anyone. "Die a good Muslim" was her advice. Imagine that. She fed the bodies with compassion that few ever exhibit, but she forgot about Our Lord's admonition.

"Do not fear those that kill the body but those that kill the soul".

If she brought even one Muslim to Christ she would have done more than feeding the bodies of ten thousand.

The pope is doing the same thing, being a great humanist but neglecting the Lord's words.

The church of the past build many uiversities and hospitals. How many has V2 built? They are in the business of closing hospitals, selling churches, and covering the sins of many priests.

Do you deny this? Not with a straight face you can't.

But we who want to have those hospitals and colleges returned to the faith are the bad guys. You and those who defend the present situations are the martyrs.

Well some guy in a mental institution thinks that he is Napoleon. He is happy in his little world, so why try to bring him back to reality.

-- John Smith, and Pokey (A@A.com), January 15, 2005.

Certainly I deny most everything you think, Smith,

>Jesus Christ had it out with the Scribes and Pharisees, you know. The majority of these men considered themselves vastly better suited to speak to Jerusalem that that son of a carpenter. Much as you now think you're protecting the sanctity of the Church.

And me? I've invoked the Holy Spirit and the command of Jesus Christ, ''Love one another as I have loved you.'' That makes me an immoral humanist to you. Even Mother Theresa is a silly goose to you.

You demand a sanctimonious Church or no Church at all. But you can't make points here, I'm afraid. --We favor the Holy Spirit, not pride.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

"And me? I've invoked the Holy Spirit and the command of Jesus Christ, ''Love one another as I have loved you.''

Sounds very Protestant Mr. Chavez.Sounds like "Jesus spoke to me". right out of Protestantism.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 15, 2005.

Whereas, all your posts smack of the Scribe and Pharisee.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

"For about the 5oth time you comment on the people you don't agree with and say how terrible their actions are, but completely ignore the people you do agree with who have been EXCOMMUNICATED for their errors. I just wish I knew whether you were doing this deliberately, or do not even realize what you are doing."

Jake indeed has the bullocks to get himself excommunicated and risk eternal damnation by jumping off the Catholic Ark of Salvation. Emerald, who is in an SSPX brand of pre-schism, condones Jake's SSPX brand of schism. They are soul mates. Emerald, obviously, has double standards.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.

You're just here to sow discord, J. Greene.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 15, 2005.

Eugene,

Thanks for the support, but dealing with these guys is tiring, and after awhile I know I'm not showing my best side.

Emerald,

And still no answer...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2005.

Thanks, Ruby.
I'm sorry you have to feel that way. Would you explain why you say my ''language'' is foul? I never call others ''pathetic''.

I've yet to call anyone's opinion ''stinky BS,'' even when they deserved it. And I'm definitely not filled with hatred. I have the deepest love for God, the saints, Our Blessed Mother in heaven, the catholic religion and for my neighbor.

This just happens to be an open forum, Ruby. There are some who speak in a bashful whisper; and some who are bold. When I speak out, it seems unfriendly. It's not intentional; I actually want to be friends. Why would you ever say I'm a hypocrite? Isn't that a hateful thing to say to your Catholic brethren? Hypocrite? And I'M the one who has the foul mouth?

Just ask me, Ruby.-- You be a forum representative. Do you want me to leave? I'll get out of this forum and never return. All you have to do is order me as if I were the devil. And I'll go.

Here's the reason. I'll go because you'll be speaking for all faithful Catholics. The ones who count in this forum. If I have to accept being called the hyocrite here, why stay? I don't stay where I'm not wanted. Just say Get Out. I'll take that seriously; you'll get your wish; no hard feelings.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

"And still no answer..."

To what in particular, Frank? I'll answer anything up front.

Gene, it seems possible that we have a single poster who is making agitating statements under different names to both parties of a debate. At least it seems that way to me. Imho neither you or I or anyone else needs to take those kinds of posts too seriously. We all should just blow past them. They're clearly meant to take advantage of a situation.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 15, 2005.

Eugene;

You could not function very long without this forum. Neither would I, so stop all the histrionics, and remain as the same loveable person that you are. I am also loved by many, but what the heck, that is the price we must pay.

On a more serious note; The novus ordo mass, (with few exceptions), is killing the Church. It was a big mistake and not admitting it is spiritual suicide.

Of course you will not agree, but please do not tar and feather me in the process.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 16, 2005.

Save it, John Smith. Our Mass is holy and pleasing in the sight of God. I will forgive you the snide remarks. No tar to worry about. Aren't you being the divider once more? You hurt the Church, not her faithful, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.

Oddly, those who are suffering as a result of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, novus ordo, are invariably those who do not attend it. Those who attend it regularly invariably feel blessed. I wonder why that is?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2005.

I have attended the novus ordo mass for years, and put up with the afronts to Our Lord,but then I did not know any bettter.

I am not knocking the N.O. per se, but the way that it is conducted more often than not.

You do not walk into the average N.O. mass and see EWTN masses. If that were the case it would be OK.

The N.O> the way it is being conducted is killing respect for the sacrament. Comng up to receive in short shorts and a bra halter is common enough. The way communion is being received by many is like they are receiving a piece of candy. Please don't tell me that I am wrong because I witnessed it often enough.

If you have the Mother Angelica mass, good for you. You are the exception and not the rule.

Please turn your anger on the perpetrators and not the reporter.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 16, 2005.

John, why would we show you anger? We simply disagree with your blanket statements. They are unwarranted and uncharitable. I feel sorry for you; nominally a devout Catholic.

But being devout in Mass entails certain acts of humility and love. Humility calls for us as God's people to serve Him by serving the least of His brethren; not judging their fitness or state of grace. Instead of devoting your full attention to Jesus, the tabernacle or altar, you're lamenting other people's unworthiness. Or the girl in the bimbo bra? Do you watch to see how much your neighbor puts in the collection basket?

Say an act of love to Jesus, when you fall into these temptations. Pray for those who are failing in their devotion, don't pack it in and stop attending. That's clearly elitism; PRIDE. God won't favor you over those whose presence or behavior you can't tolerate. He expects you to LOVE them, as you wish to be loved.

Keep posting the foolish things you post. You will be receiving only this kind of rebuff every time you do it. This is my spiritual work of mercy directed at you-- admonition. And; in case you're intersted, I offered my Communion for you today. With my own act of humility, as the offering of one faithful Catholic for his brother in faith. You NEED a lot of prayers, John.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.

"Keep posting the foolish things you post. You will be receiving only this kind of rebuff every time you do it. This is my spiritual work of mercy directed at you-- admonition."

One would get the impression that by rebuking people, you cause truth to happen, Gene.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.

Oddly, those who are suffering as a result of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, novus ordo, are invariably those who do not attend it. Those who attend it regularly invariably feel blessed. I wonder why that is?

Well that's an opinion that can't be proven, presented as fact. But assuming you are correct (and you probably are) so what? For probably 95+% of those who attend regularly, that is the only mass offered. There is nothing else to compare to. I would bet that before the inception of the Novus Ordo, those who attended the TLM felt blessed as well. I agree with Mr. Smith. The Novus Ordo was a mistake. I assume it was done with the best of intentions, and I don't see any going back, but I don't think it has been a benefit for the faithful nor for the sake of ecumenism. The Church will survive, of course, but we shouldn't pretend that the She is thriving (in the U.S. anyway) nor that we are in the springtime of some great renewal. Lest anyone think I am some TLM crank, I probably attend as many or more Novus Ordo masses per week than anyone here. My $.02.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 16, 2005.

Brian:
To say it bluntly; what does it matter if you agree with a fanatic? He's wrong. And; what's a TLM?

A finer Mass, or your choice? No; it's to Almighty God our hearts are raised in the Eucharistic offering, not to men of excellent taste.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

Eugene,

Let me educate you on the very basics of the Catholic religion. TLM means Tridentine Latin Mass. Ever heard of it?

-- Emerald Isle (EmeraldIsle@Ireland.com), January 17, 2005.

I have studied the "basics of the Catholic religion" for 50 years and have never seen the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass referred to as a "TLM" by anyone. This is apparently an example of STJ. Schismatic Traditionalist Jargon.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2005.

"a finer mass, or your choice"?

It would be nice to HAVE the choice to attend a Tridentine Mass, as Pope John Paul II who is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church has said we should. Yet, American bishops, who are supposed to be obedient to the Pope, are not obedient to him. They simply flat out ignore him.

Those Catholics who wish to attend a Tridentine mass cannot do so, since there are so few of them. And WHY is that? There are only a few possibilities as to why. 1. The people don't want them. 2. The bishops don't want them

The people were never given the opportunity for a choice in any kind of a meaningful way. Ever. There was never allowed to be a Tridentine Mass said in each diocese, where people could choose between the Tridentine Mass and the New Mass. The Tridentine Masses were only offered in such locations and times which made it so impractical or impossible to attend that it COULD be said that people weren't interested, or not offered at all.

Right NOW, if the Bishops WANTED to, a Tridentine Mass could be offered each Sunday in every diocese across the USA. They simply don't want to . So much for offering it "freely" as Pope John Paul II has said it should be.

God forbid that the Catholic people would embrace it again.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2005.

I have studied the "basics of the Catholic religion" for 50 years and have never seen the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass referred to as a "TLM" by anyone. This is apparently an example of STJ. Schismatic Traditionalist Jargon.

***LOL And I bet you had never heard of LOL until being on the computer or brb, tmi, bbl, rotflol, lmbo, j/k, fyi? ;o) TLM has been said here on this forum by myself a few times and in person no one refers to the Mass as TLM it's just computer talk not Traditionalist Jargon! For anyone who might be waiting patiently ;o), I will post the prayers I promised. Will have to be right before Lent and that way those who have never heard or seen the prayers will have some growth..God willing that is. :o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 17, 2005.

Lesley,

Right NOW, if the Bishops WANTED to, a Tridentine Mass could be offered each Sunday in every diocese across the USA

It wouldn't necessarily be that easy. When our new pastor arrived, he had to learn the Tridentine rite, because the parish wanted it. It's kind of fun seeing him work through the Latin at times, but really, it's just a *rite* of mass, not the mass itself. If someone insisted on a mass in classical Greek, the church couldn't ramp up to do that overnight either.

TLM has been said here on this forum by myself a few times

LOL, ;-) I've never heard this abbreviation used before either, but then I don't always follow as closely as I could. I did figure it out though, as I'm sure Paul did. It's not quite as bad an abbreviation as BRBPR, but it's getting there...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 17, 2005.

I have studied the "basics of the Catholic religion" for 50 years and have never seen the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass referred to as a "TLM" by anyone. This is apparently an example of STJ. Schismatic Traditionalist Jargon.

Check to see if the CCC addresses the TLM and the NO it in terms of the GIRM, subject to the USCCB IRB, of course.

Lol. And stuff.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 17, 2005.

OK Frank, since I'm being taken literally, I'll post literally:

There are sufficient priests available across the USA who used to say the Mass in Latin (including the bishops themselves) so that IF the Bishops wanted to, each diocese COULD offer the Tridentine Mass each Sunday in a relatively short period of time. How's that?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2005.

Yes, you could force everyone to do so in a short period of time, or the church could force the mass to only be said in Tagalog if they wanted. I think I've lost the thread here. LOL, if they tomorrow they said the mass MUST be Tridentine, is there any prominent clergyman who you think would become the Novus Ordo Lefebvre and refuse to accept Papal authority and keep doing what they wanted? Not to cast any aspersions, but I'd vote for Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 17, 2005.

Lesley,

Let me interrupt; you are making comparisons; and others here too; the superior of two liturgies. Of the Eucharist you have nothing to compare; we all receive the true Body and Blood of Jesus. So you're talking about liturgies; and how come bishops don't bring back more Latin Masses?

The answer has to be, Because we must assist at Holy Mass in the way our bishop chooses. Not the way we desire, necessarily. We aren't in authority, there is no voting in our Church; by rank and file.

If Jesus Christ had willed so, we could prevail on a bishop to accept our will. Jesus clearly did not.

If I carry this to some extreme, it could be inferred that Jesus Christ wants you to assist in the vernacular Mass, Novus Ordo (I can hear the screams of the ultra- conservatives). I wouldn't go that far; but certainly your bishop is Christ's spokesman; His Lieutenant. We are enlisted members, not officers. Give them your obedience and God will reward you; this is our Catholic doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

at the heart of this latest discussion-ette is the question - why did they change the Mass? why? exactly why?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.

This thread began with Invincible Ignorance and Baptism at the heart. Maybe you'd care to start a new one about the liturgical changes?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

Eugene,

You hit the heart of the matter. In the end, we are the soldiers, not the generals. It is our job to obey.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 17, 2005.

Eugene

"...at the heart of this ***latest discussion-ette*** is the question..."

"This thread began with Invincible Ignorance and Baptism ..."

who's reading whose posts?!?!

a little bit of intellectual honest will never hurt anyone.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.

"You hit the heart of the matter. In the end, we are the soldiers, not the generals. It is our job to obey."

Right. That's why when the Church infallibly defines that there is no salvation outside the Church, we're supposed to believe it.

This whole theory you have, about people erring on the right and erring on the left? The Church never taught anything like that. That's a theory, and a lousy one rooted in Hegelian dialectic. It springs forth from self-divisive Americanist and liberal principles.

Who exploits this theory to explain the way things are in the Church? Not the Church itself, but people who are supposed to be mere footsoldiers. People like Steven Hand, who have absolutely no authority whatsoever. That act the part of a Lay Magisterium in void of catechesis left by prelates who have failed in their duty. And Catholics who want to be orthodox think that by listening to these other Catholic lay people of note and prestige, who they think are orthodox, that they will be hearing the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church.

They aren't hearing the traditional teaching of the Church. Instead, the get theories that the Church has never taught.

Most of the thoughts, opinions and theories you think are rooted in orthodoxy, I would be willing to wager, has actually come from laypeople and lay organizations in the Church who have no authority, and who are all too happy to serve you up their opinions as if they were the middlemen between you and the Church.

But most of the stuff you hear, the Church never defined or declared.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 17, 2005.

further, Eugene:

here's something that Lesley posted above that, at some point, you ought to counter:

"and Eugene..what about all of those non-Catholics whose CHURCHES teach that homosexuality ISN'T a sin? There ARE more and more of them around. So you have a number of truly devout Christian homosexuals who certainly do not consider themselves to be in sin, nor do their churches. Surely, in the spirit of Ecumenicism, how can they be held to accountibility for Catholic dogma, anymore than the divorced and remarried crowd is????? And they too, die unrepentant, since they don't believe they are in sin at all."

i've asked you about this before. and this is one reason why i posted that stuff about the Irish Bishop of Killaloe (sp?).

PS he's 70 yrs old now. even age is no defence.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.

You keep repeating the dogma; no salvation outside the Catholic Church; even though we haven't denied it. Everyone who has been saved, from Moses to the Holy Innocents to Saint Dismas and the invincibly ignorant and perfectly repentent souls; Is saved IN the same Church of our baptisms. The Catholic Church. The precious blood of Our Saviour saves them all. Grace drawn from His infinite merits is channeled EVERY saved person through the Church. Only their manner of Baptism varies from the ritual sacrament.

Do you doubt that unbaptised souls are now in heaven by grace of God?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

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

at the heart of this latest discussion-ette is the question - why did they change the Mass? why? exactly why?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005

Yes why did they change the mass, and the other 6 sacraments. Did it make things better?

Any answers other than the pope said so.

Why did he said so.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

We have the same Mass. We still have the same sacraments. The Church has not changed. The Creed hasn't. The veneration of saints hasn't. LOVE hasn't changed. --------The truth never changes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Too many people in denial! I see too many just going in doing the rituals without knowing the meaning. Too many not being directed to confess at LEAST ONCE A YEAR, yet they can receive weekly. Too many who are divored or not married yet shacked up going up to receive Holy Communion and the priest knows. Too many thinking it is OK to be homosexual, bisexual, plain do whoever you want, yet not told this is displeasing to our Lord. Too many dressing in a provactive way yet they are not told to be more pleasing to God instead of pleasing to the latest style of fashion. There is so much abuse right and left especially in the Novus Ordo that all I can do is pray for them and if one wants to be blind and think their is love all around well so be it. I love them enough to pray for them. That is the most I can ever do on my end to never forget and pray.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

SSPX propaganda is not a peacemaking mission.

It is high time for SSPX apologist Emerald to read, believe, and obey the CCC and become truly orthodox and Traditional (but this is only wishful thinking, of course).

The CCC is neither Hegelian nor Americanist nor liberal nor "Lay Magisterium" nor any other STJ.

The CCC came from the sacred belly of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. It is today's Cathecism; not yesterday's. Today's CCC incorporates, synthesizes, expounds, simplifies, and clarifies all of yesterday's teachings. Catholic footsoldiers give their assent of faith to the Authoritative Magisterium's CCC.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Dear Jalapeno,
How would you like it if the man next to you in line for Holy Communion were thinking: I was in confession twice this month, but never saw this Catholic (you) going in or coming out. Two whole weeks and no confession! I just know this person's receiving Communion with mortal sins on his/her conscience.
That's what you think of all those other souls at Holy Mass. How do you know what God thinks? YOU know everything about the rituals you take part in, but what signs do you see in the soul who doesn't know anything? Or what sign shows who is shacked up, and yet goes to Communion? That's ridiculous.

I don't deny there are many who outwardly seem very unprepared. I'm not in favor of denial. That's why I am constant and careful, during Mass; to set an example for my brethren. To genuflect at the proper time, not speak out loud, say a solemn prayer of thanksgiving on my knees when everyone is leaving after Mass, etc.,

Not because I'm such a saint (as I've heard from a sarcastic few) but for God's glory, and so that the Holy Spirit might open another person's eyes, if he/she noticed me for a moment.

It's the Holy Spirit who finds your soul in the crowd and changes you for the better. Not the scorn of your fellow Catholics. After all; do you think the lukewarm or sinful Catholic nearby CARES what you feel about him? Nothing you dislike will affect him. Father will say what he pleases and not be heard. It's the Holy Spirit deep in that man's mind, his heart, Who can inspire him.

We help him by example and by our intercession in prayer. And not only him/her. We must pray for all the Church; as you've stated. But we leave judgment to God. That is not denial; we have been commanded not to exalt ourselves, or humble another. We are to humble OURSELVES.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Mr. Chavez;

Should we have voted for Kerry,because we cannot judge his heart?

It is one thing to concentrate on one individual and not judge him. It is another to not speak out in protest for the general behaviour in your Church.

Was Our Lord out of line in getting so angry at the money changers?

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

How would you like it if the man next to you in line for Holy Communion were thinking: I was in confession twice this month, but never saw this Catholic (you) going in or coming out. Two whole weeks and no confession! I just know this person's receiving Communion with mortal sins on his/her conscience.

***Eugene, you are losing it. You really don't see it do you? I live in a small town and know many people PERSONALLY and KNOW for a FACT they don't go to confession nor do they find it important. I have told them on a few occasions that they should, but they don't.

That's what you think of all those other souls at Holy Mass. How do you know what God thinks? YOU know everything about the rituals you take part in, but what signs do you see in the soul who doesn't know anything? Or what sign shows who is shacked up, and yet goes to Communion? That's ridiculous.

***What I think? Pity that they are not being directed properly, sorrow that their souls are at stake that they think that just showing up on Sunday is enough and all that God should get, anger that many are not being taught. Do I know all the rituals? Probably know more than most and still learning especially since there is far more in the TLM. As for shacking up...I know a couple who have three children and are not married, have been together for 22 years and receive weekly. Does the priest know this? Yes and I asked her personally because I was shocked that they received Holy Communion. I can tell you that if this couple showed up at St. Stephen's and confessed to a priest there how they were living they would receive the truth and not be given a pat on the back. I live in a small town where we know everyone's business whether we like it or not. There are many at the Novus Ordo Mass here in town who receive and should not. Not my rules either, but rules that Our Church has passed down to us, rules that we have no right to break!!

It's the Holy Spirit who finds your soul in the crowd and changes you for the better. Not the scorn of your fellow Catholics. After all; do you think the lukewarm or sinful Catholic nearby CARES what you feel about him? Nothing you dislike will affect him. Father will say what he pleases and not be heard. It's the Holy Spirit deep in that man's mind, his heart, Who can inspire him.

***What the heck does all the above have to do with me? LOL Do I care if they know how I feel? Do I share it? I only try to lead them to the truth and after telling them once if they don't listen at least I told them they were in error. The Holy Spirit does move our mind and heart, but God also uses us to lead others to Him.

We help him by example and by our intercession in prayer. And not only him/her. We must pray for all the Church; as you've stated. But we leave judgment to God. That is not denial; we have been commanded not to exalt ourselves, or humble another. We are to humble OURSELVES.

***So if someone comes in Church and curses I am to not say a thing? I am not to judge (this did happen a few years ago and I did let the girl have it after she used the f-word and called the Mass stupid)? If I see a g-string hanging out of a girls pants, I should feel nothing? When I lived in sin I did feel nothing nor did I care. The more the Holy Spirit grows in me the more offensive the sins of others are. If I am offended and sorrowed by others who sin, how does God feel? How does God feel knowing His shepherds and not herding the way He commanded? I guess to you it's all hunky dorey, but it really isn't. It can be a very humbling experience when you are scolded for trying to lead others away from sin. I would rather humble myself that way than sit back and do nothing.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

God bless you Jalopino. That is what true Christians are called upon to do.

This "non judemental" thing since V2 is tearing the fiber of the Church apart because for some strange reason they think they are being unkind.Tell then to read St. Paul. Warn your neighbor nd if he fails to act kick him out of the church. Or words to that effect.

Oh Boy! Would he be out of place in today's ecumenical climate.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

I marvel at the words, '' I live in a small town where we know everyone's business whether we like it or not. There are many at the Novus Ordo Mass here in town who receive and should not.''

Did you even realise gossip is a sin? How can you know everybody's business if you aren't gossiping in some way? ''Whether we like it or not!'' Haha! Talk about invincible ignorance.

Let me tell you here; I hate that sin. I'm PROUD of my Mom and sisters, who never spoke disrespectfully of their neighbors, because our mother taught us not to gossip. We minded our own business, ''whether anybody likes it or not.'' Try that sometime, Jalapeno.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

My friend,

Why should Saint Paul be ''out of place'' in an ecumenical climate? Isn't he a Catholic anymore? Is the Holy Spirit out of place?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Did you even realise gossip is a sin? How can you know everybody's business if you aren't gossiping in some way? ''Whether we like it or not!'' Haha! Talk about invincible ignorance.

What the ???? Um, let me say this as charitably as I can Eugene, (thinking, thinking......) You are a real piece of work! Let me ask you. Do you now know or have ever known anyone who is living together in sin, anyone using and abusing drugs, any Catholics who are contracepting, anyone abusing their wife or kids, etc. etc. If you answer yes, using your own logic, you must be gossiping. If you are convinced Jalapeno is a sinning gossiper (thereby knowing her business) YOU must be gossiping in some way. You have no stinkin idea how far off base you are.

Let me tell you here; I hate that sin. I'm PROUD of my Mom and sisters, who never spoke disrespectfully of their neighbors, because our mother taught us not to gossip.

Good for them! I wonder if they'd automatically assume the worst of Jalapeno as a gossiper? Did your Mom teach you not to speak with a poison tongue as well, or did you miss that lesson?

We minded our own business, ''whether anybody likes it or not.'' Try that sometime, Jalapeno.

Lol! Interesting use of the past tense. Yeah mind your own business Jalapeno, Eugene's busy minding everyone else's here in this forum!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 18, 2005.

Thank you, Brian.
However, you're speaking for Jalapeno, not the Church. Because you've magnified just the statement on gossip, and left out these:

''We have been commanded not to exalt ourselves, or humble another. We are to humble OURSELVES.''

And before that: ''We have the same Mass. We still have the same sacraments. The Church has not changed. The Creed hasn't. The veneration of saints hasn't. LOVE hasn't changed. --------The truth never changes.''

It was following those words Jalapeno came at us with the local dirt about her neighbors in Church. I reacted to her sharp denunciations of other Catholics. Maybe this bothers you; so I ought to stop? (''You have no stinkin idea how far off base you are?'')

OK; let's all fire at the Church. Let's moan and groan about other folks' sin, and learn every bad thing about them, so we can fire harder at the Church. You're right, and so is she: The Church is to blame. We're straight-shooters, we only point our fingers. --Because you guys are false Christians!!! Just tell me when I step outta line, Brian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Did you even realise gossip is a sin? How can you know everybody's business if you aren't gossiping in some way? ''Whether we like it or not!'' Haha! Talk about invincible ignorance.

***LOLROTF WOW! Aren't you a quick one to judge. Shame, shame on you! I bet your mom taught you better! hmmm I guess if I see someone who lives together and they produce children some how they are not sinning? Let's do another one, if I see someone who is married all of a sudden shacking up with another person I should not think think they are together even if they also produce a child? What about people who abuse drugs? Maybe no not maybe, I used before so I still to this day know all who do. Many would like to see me "party" again, but that part of my life has been over for over 18 years. I'm not a gossip and never have been if anything many come to me for advice and many times they don't like what I have to say. I've had many tell me they don't believe they need to confess to a "man", but only to God. I don't spread rumors nor do I engage in this type of behavior. I am busy with my children raising them and quite frankly they are first in my life.

Let me tell you here; I hate that sin. I'm PROUD of my Mom and sisters, who never spoke disrespectfully of their neighbors, because our mother taught us not to gossip. We minded our own business, ''whether anybody likes it or not.'' Try that sometime, Jalapeno.

***And how are you speaking about me right now? You seem to be trying to start an EVIL rumor that I am a gossip. Shame, shame, shame on you again!! Maybe instead of being proud of your mother and sister you should try to behave as they and be proud of the person you are.

Yeah mind your own business Jalapeno, Eugene's busy minding everyone else's here in this forum!

Brian, you are a gem! God has blessed me with such a great husband who can always put a smile on my face. :o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

It was following those words Jalapeno came at us with the local dirt about her neighbors in Church. I reacted to her sharp denunciations of other Catholics. Maybe this bothers you; so I ought to stop?

***LOL OK, if it is gossip it causes scandal. Please come to my Church Eugene, and point out the people of whom I speak. Show me the scandal and the gossip. My sharp denunciations? All I've have spoken about could change if they were lead correctly by a priest who upholds all the laws of the Church. A good priest would try to make all of these people holier which is possible with the grace of God. If not taught how can one change their ways?

OK; let's all fire at the Church.

***Good grief!! I am not firing at the Church at all, but at the HUMAN ERRORS that exist in It!!

Let's moan and groan about other folks' sin, and learn every bad thing about them, so we can fire harder at the Church. You're right, and so is she: The Church is to blame. We're straight-shooters, we only point our fingers. --Because you guys are false Christians!!!

PUKE!! Quit pointing your finger at me Eugene!! Look in the mirror and see all that you claim we are, it is you. You seem to love to attack anyone who has traditional values. Some how you can judge us, but lets not speak ill of the Catholics who show up as slobs and show no respect for the Eucharist. They are the Catholics...we aren't. LOL Oh my!!

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Haha!
You're a gem, Brian! Sharp lady, the Jalapeno. She really DOES have the latest dirt on those demons living in the parish.

I'm disarmed. Now I see Brian's her husband. Well, who's going to blame him then, for biting me in the ankle? Way to go, BC. And I hope all your prayers are answered. I'll let you go then, to your next case. Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Haha! You're a gem, Brian! Sharp lady, the Jalapeno. She really DOES have the latest dirt on those demons living in the parish. I'm disarmed. Now I see Brian's her husband. Well, who's going to blame him then, for biting me in the ankle? Way to go, BC. And I hope all your prayers are answered. I'll let you go then, to your next case. Ciao.

***LOL Where have you been? It's been stated on this forum a few times. Maybe you've been drinking too much of your Merlot. Oops..better not start a rumor. TAke that last statement back. ;o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Thanks for the God bless, Dear.

And thank Brian. Only, just tell me;

Why did you say I love to attack anybody with traditional values? Is that what you think? I mean, I said that about sin, not about the sinner. I'm sure you're a wonderful lady. Many ladies gossip; maybe not you. But that's more traditional anyway, than values. I hold every traditional value you do. Maybe some you never heard of. So, bring charges when you can back them up, Jalapeno. Just as I was blamed for suggesting you're a gossip, you're blaming me now. We're really on the same page, BTW. I've told some kids to behave in Mass. I'm a vigilant Catholic, with a traditional background. (This John Smith guy has branded me a modernist all of a sudden. Well; if I'm a modernist, he's a Tool of Satan and you're a gossip, Hear? Just setting the record straight. Ciao---.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

She really DOES have the latest dirt on those demons living in the parish.

***You are a harsh one with words Eugene where does your LOVE come from? I would never call any of them demons. Instead they are just your normal Catholic who aren't being told the truth nor being challenged to change their ways. All of us are called to live holy lives and do our best. We are to live in this world, but not become part of it.

Thanks for the God bless, Dear.

***You're welcome, sweetie. :o)

Why did you say I love to attack anybody with traditional values? Is that what you think? I mean, I said that about sin, not about the sinner.

***Your losing me here. What do you think my beef is? I have a problem with the human error that exist right now in our Church. Souls are at stake and maybe you just can't see it. It hurts me to see and know the truth is not spoken to them. Take the same sins to St. Stephen's and they will be told correctly. I had a general confession a few years ago. It took me almost 2 hours and it was a humbling experience. This priest was awesome! He did not make my sins seem small, he let me have it the way I should. He also told me to do daily and certain prayers to become holier, and told me the moment I get up to get on my knees and pray. He said nothing comes first at all, but your prayer. It's incredible, but at times when I'm heading to the bathroom my knees will almost buckle right before the crucifix on the wall making me say my prayers before anything else. The advice that I was given can only help me because it is through prayer we become as God wants. How many priest do this any more? In all my years of being CAtholic I had never encountered someone like him. I want this for everyone! My children have all become better Catholics because of the advice given. All Catholics all over the world should have this very type of advice. It is the advice that the Church wants all of us to have, but it is not being preached any more by many.

Just as I was blamed for suggesting you're a gossip, you're blaming me now.

***The way I've been taught about gossip is, if you spread rumors or something false about someone that can cause scandal or do anything that can hurt their reputation it is gossip. The people I have spoken about no one in this forum will ever know who they are. I would never in a million years point them out to you either nor would I give the name of the priest (no longer with us) who gave ill advice to many. You on the other hand have said I do these things when I do not in a place where my real name is known. I have written it out at least three times on this forum. So..all of this really doesn't matter. I do not think I am better nor do I hold myself above anyone. I only know my heart hurts for many who will never know the truth nor seek it out on their own. We can't put full blame on the human errors that exist in the Church, but also on the person. God gave all of us free will and either we put Him first or this world.

God Bless. ( I do mean it..funny it is one of the things that can bother Brian a little bit too)..uhoh..was that gossip? ;o)

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

''They are just your normal Catholic who aren't being told the truth nor being challenged to change their ways.''

That's debatable. You leave it to them; they hear the truth every day in our Church. And what was I suggesting? Set the best example. Let the Holy Spirit operate; He'll help them change their ways. You and I never will. They believe in God, Jalapeno. It's simplistic to think any Catholic is there who doesn't believe; unless it's an incorrigible kid. They attend for God; not for any other motive. Naturally many are sinners. The proper place for a priest to pressure one of these sinners is in the confessional. Just like you receive that grace. Pray for priests; that they assert their authority. That's what I do. Letters to the Vatican? Like Smith writes? Nothing wrong with that. But the letter kills, the Spirit gives life. Anyhow he thinks the Vatican will be under the devil's control. In other words, he writes to Satan? Ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

I think you're both "half-writes". Having lived in large cities, and currently a smaller town, I can say that you do indeed get gossip (or at least people's personal information) thrown at you whether you want it or not. I can ALSO say that depending on your personal attitude, and how you interact with others you can get much less or more of this information. To me, it would really be a personal question for Jalepeno, (but a personal one, and I don't expect or want an answer): do you look for or tolerate people telling you others' business or not? If the answer is "no", you are blameless, if you don't mind hearing it, then you should correct yourself.

Where I am now, other people's medical problems are the main topic of conversation on most days. God knows I don't want to hear any more of it than I have to, and you'd be suprised how *little* you can find out about people if you really try! Of course you may be left out of things a bit, but that can be its own reward.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.

To me, it would really be a personal question for Jalepeno, (but a personal one, and I don't expect or want an answer): do you look for or tolerate people telling you others' business or not? If the answer is "no", you are blameless, if you don't mind hearing it, then you should correct yourself.

***You can't ask that publically and not get an answer. ;o) No I don't look for it nor do I care to know the sins of others. Quite honestly I would much rather be left in the dark and not know what some people are capable of doing. Even when my children play sports I try to sit by myself (Brian normally coaches), but because I grew up in this town it would be rude of me to tell people to go away. Some times I can be innocently sitting by myself and hear crap from all directions. At one point I started to sit in my vehicle if where they were playing permitted it. Ever live in a small town and have your hair or nails done? My, my.

You leave it to them; they hear the truth every day in our Church

***OK, maybe you have never heard it in one of the homilies, but homosexuals were talked about in a way and said that God made them that way and we should not judge, but embrace them. No truth there, but who am I to question. Also during one homily the rosary was made fun of. He mocked the "little old women" (his words) who pray the beads and also mocked women who covered their heads. Is this Catholic? Getting off track, but the bottom line there are many priest just like the ones I have witnessed how will they direct properly? There is no answer or maybe the only answer is for the person to seek the truth with the same passion God has for us. One now can not act as if they don't know any better. Lots of information ready for all to read.

They attend for God; not for any other motive. Naturally many are sinners. The proper place for a priest to pressure one of these sinners is in the confessional.

***We are all sinners. I am a cradle Catholic and 38 years old and only a few years ago did I learn about venial and mortal sin. I went to CCD too yet how was my knowledge so little? I have yet to hear a priest preach about confession or how confession is needed to purify our souls. There is a night and day difference in the homilies that go on at a Novus Ordo Mass vs. the Traditional Latin Mass. How can they be so different when both are Catholic? How can one preach one way and you see the change in people yet the other is lacking in growth? It was in God's very hand that lead me to this Church. I was honestly thinking about leaving the Church because four out of five confessions (all different priest) I was directed incorrectly. Some of these sinners that I have mentioned have gone to confession and were told nothing. That is why there is such a division with Catholics with what is right and wrong. Unless a person picks up a book many will just believe what priest tell them without questioning it. Why should they question it? I didn't nor did my dh and we fixed a past sin where we were both counselled incorrectly.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Very interesting. I don't want to call you a liar. But you send up a red flag in almost every post you submit here, Jalapeno.

I never see the word Love. Your choices of words leave Joy, Faith, Trust, Compassion, all OUT. Only the steady drumbeat, disappointment.

I go to Mass each week and my heart is always uplifted. Sometimes the wacky hyms irritate me. The priest ad- libs or rambles a lot. Ups and downs. But the entire experience is love, sweet holy love. For him, and her. For the words of our lector; the sign of the cross and the unity in our worship. This is God's holy presence. Communion especially; the more the merrier, Jalapeno. Does it bother me, who might be offending God? Sure; if it's clear to me and everyone. I once saw a drunk being turned away by our celebrant. He didn't receive. Somebody publicly sinning, Kerry for instance, would bother me a lot.

But, in my heart I can leave that to God's mercy. It's too bad; but no personal sin has power to repel God. He will overcome and bring good out of that sin. It says so in the Holy Bible. All He asks of me is undying faith. Love and good will from His children; as the angels sang over Bethlehem; Glory to God and Peace to Men of Good Will!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Jalepeno,

Ever live in a small town and have your hair or nails done? My, my.

Call me old fashioned, but I've never gotten my nails done! Can you believe it? ;-) If you want to hear gossip, I wonder what would be said if I DID go to have my nails done... I got into the habit of giving myself haircuts when I never had the time to go to the barber, and it sort of stuck. I guess I'm just OUT of the LOOOOp :-D

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.

Very interesting. I don't want to call you a liar. But you send up a red flag in almost every post you submit here, Jalapeno.

***What is interesting? How do I send up a red flag? You want to call me a liar? Are you judging me yet again? I don't come here to lie and how would others benefit from it and how would I? I was raised by a man who hated liars and I can tell you he did not raise one and I despise that trait in anyone myself. I respect people and have no need to make up lies and expect the same back from the people I meet. Your statement above has offended me, but I have seen by many of your post to others you seem to have a knack for that. Not a good trait, but then again maybe now I am judging you. ;o)

I go to Mass each week and my heart is always uplifted.

***Mine is too so what does this mean? What does your experience, your feelings have to do with the others who are in mortal sin receiving Holy Communion? I've already stated when I go to the Novus Ordo Mass we sit in the front and after receiving Holy Communion my head is down in prayer or singing with the book in front of my face. Don't want to see who is going up. Occasionally I get grabbed by people who know me, but I don't care, it is mainly the elderly which I have a soft spot for..normally that is. ;o)

I once saw a drunk being turned away by our celebrant. He didn't receive. Somebody publicly sinning, Kerry for instance, would bother me a lot.

***The scandal the gossip! How could you Eugene? Who are you to judge Kerry? :-O I do know many Kerrys, but I guess if it saddens me it is gossip, judgement on my end and feeling I'm a better Catholic. Right?

He will overcome and bring good out of that sin.

***Yes He can and I have never said He couldn't, but only if that person seeks Him out and directed properly.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Call me old fashioned, but I've never gotten my nails done! Can you believe it? ;-) If you want to hear gossip, I wonder what would be said if I DID go to have my nails done...

***LOL Thanks for the good laugh Frank. Was needing that at this very moment. :o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Listen to HERRRRR:

***What is interesting?'' Nothing. Your attitude. '' ****How do I send up a red flag?**** I already told you. An apparent lack of charity. No gladness. Anxiety and disappointment with your brothers and sisters. If it weren't for those signs, you would raise no red flags; lack of credibility.

''You want to call me a liar? Are you judging me yet again?'' I said I didn't want to. I only judge your words, the way you do mine.

''I do know many Kerrys, but I guess if it saddens me it is gossip, judgment on my end and feeling I'm a better Catholic. Right?''

Wrong. That's a red flag, Jalapeno. --What another man does won't make us better or worse than our personal actions. What we think about the Church where we meet your many Kerrys. That's good or bad. Trust God & give them your compassion. It makes you a better Catholic; the other extreme makes you the opposite. You already knew that, I think. I tell you this; you could have told me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Nothing. Your attitude

***My attitude? You have to elaborate better than that. What attitude? To who?

I already told you. An apparent lack of charity. No gladness. Anxiety and disappointment with your brothers and sisters. If it weren't for those signs, you would raise no red flags; lack of credibility.

** Don't ever put words in my mouth or judge me again Eugene or you will see the jalapeno in me which I am trying to squash right now (forgive my parents for mixing Irish and Mexican blood together). No gladness, anxiety? Show proof of this please. God has blessed me in too many ways and I am only happy when in Church. I personally have it all and see God's gift in every thing He has made here. Disappointment for my brothers and sisters? You are a piece of work. I have disappointment that they put this world ahead of God and they do as they PLEASE not do what pleases our Lord. Crucify me for it Eugene. Because I see this it makes me bad? Lack charity? Lack of credibility? This made me LOL. How does one have credibility over the internet? What have you shown over the internet? Any newbie that comes here will see your anger towards a few. I could careless if you have a past with that person, but I guarantee you, your words here are not lead by the Holy Spirit as you seem to think. I can also guarantee you no matter how upset a person makes me I would not judge them or say the same things you have. You my friend lack the charity you seem to think you ooze of.

I said I didn't want to. I only judge your words, the way you do mine.

***LOL Good with words yet I have four brothers and you have a knack for twisting things. Sorry doesn't work. Read the thread over and see who is passing judgement.

Wrong. That's a red flag, Jalapeno. --What another man does won't make us better or worse than our personal actions. What we think about the Church where we meet your many Kerrys. That's good or bad. Trust God & give them your compassion. It makes you a better Catholic; the other extreme makes you the opposite. You already knew that, I think. I tell you this; you could have told me.

***Give them my compassion? ROTF Some are personal friends! Would someone new be able to see who they are? Of course not. My gosh as my kids would say, what is up with you? I've stated enough that I don't judge others I am only saddened by the abuse and lack of leading many correctly. End of story. If I am so bad for feeling sorrow well then maybe God has a lot of work left in me. Maybe I am suppose to be happy if and when I see abuse (don't go to the Novus Ordo weekly and daily Mass is different). Bad me!! Maybe instead of keeping my head down in prayer or singing I should raise it up and be happy when I see all receive Holy Communion no matter who it is especially those living in mortal sin. Shame on me for feeling saddness when I see the lack of respect given to our Lord. I have a lot of growing to do and maybe one day when I see someone chomping gum and put it to the side of their mouth before receiving Holy Communion I won't feel a thing. I will work on that.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

Seems like the tides are turning. Ave Maria, and pass it on. Good job Jalepeno and Brian.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 18, 2005.

“Too many not being directed to confess at LEAST ONCE A YEAR, yet they can receive weekly….I live in a small town and know many people PERSONALLY and KNOW for a FACT they don't go to confession nor do they find it important. I have told them on a few occasions that they should, but they don't.” You seem to imply that EVERYBODY commits at least one mortal sin per year.

“homosexuals were talked about...we should not judge, but embrace them. No truth there” Eh?? This is exactly the truth which the Church teaches.

“Also during one homily the rosary was made fun of. He mocked the "little old women" (his words) who pray the beads and also mocked women who covered their heads. Is this Catholic? Getting off track, but the bottom line there are many priest just like the ones I have witnessed”

I have NEVER heard a priest mock the rosary or mock women who cover their heads in church, and I find it hard to imagine even one priest doing it, let alone “many priests”. (I have worshipped in many different parishes in several States.)

And maybe I need to get out more, but I have NEVER seen anybody I knew to be in a state of mortal sin going up to communion. If your parish and its priest are really as you describe them, they are VERY atypical and you should not judge all Catholic parishes and priests by that example.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 18, 2005.

You seem to imply that EVERYBODY commits at least one mortal sin per year.

**Steve, I was wondering when you would creep up. ;o) I can imply that the people I know who live in mortal sin and still receive should not. It is not my teaching, but our Catholic Church.

homosexuals were talked about...we should not judge, but embrace them. No truth there” Eh?? This is exactly the truth which the Church teaches.

***Eh what? I am to embrace them and not tell the truth? LOL

I have NEVER heard a priest mock the rosary or mock women who cover their heads in church, and I find it hard to imagine even one priest doing it, let alone “many priests”. (I have worshipped in many different parishes in several States.)

***I do hate answering to people who twist, but being you are one I have to answer. Show me where I stated "many priest" said the above? Don't EVER put words in my typing that were not there. I said HE which means ONE! DUH as my kids would say. Sheesh!! As for going to different parishes in several states, I have too. I've been to 31 different states myself. I've seen abuses in a few, but as for the state of a person's soul, how would I know if I didn't live there?

And maybe I need to get out more, but I have NEVER seen anybody I knew to be in a state of mortal sin going up to communion. If your parish and its priest are really as you describe them, they are VERY atypical and you should not judge all Catholic parishes and priests by that example.

***Happy for you Steve, but we have a few in ours and it is known. I for one did not know for years they were not married. I have seen the abuses in all the surrounding parishes too. We have many small towns surrounding us and once you live here you will get to know different people. I have also gone to confession to different priest because I was trying to find one who would direct ME properly. So, I will say it again and please quit with the jumping to conclusions because you know I am a conservative Catholic, I DO NOT JUDGE ALL CATHOLIC CHURCHES ACROSS THE STATES! THE ABUSE IS REAL AND DOES EXIST AND I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN BY STATING THESE FACTS. So lucky for you that you have never seen it. I at one point in my life did not see any abuse either, but at that time in my life I was also one who would never go to confession and was a lukewarm Catholic.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005.

God made them that way

***you left this part out Steve so I thought I should share my knowledge of what the Church teaches. God makes us all in His image. Only good can come from Him. When one sins this is not from God, but from free will. All homosexuals, some with bigger crosses are not living God's will. They have been given free will yet choose to please their bodies and not God. Before you say I hate all, my best friend of 31 years is a lesbian. She has been for the last 7 years and it has taken a toll on our friendship. She knows how I feel and at times talks about changing. If anyone doubts that I might be a liar, I will have a photo taken with her and you will see. You won't have to ask who is who either. ;o) There are also a few family members on both sides who are either bisexual or homosexual.

Seems like the tides are turning. Ave Maria, and pass it on.

***Oh no! Now I will be branded too. ;o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005.

The trend becomes unmistakable: Jalapeno will have the last word; and when you even dare to suggest a different POV to her, it's met with confrontation and defiance. Since she levels just that attack at me: ''What have you shown over the internet? Any newbie that comes here will see your anger towards a few.'' --That settles the question with no further peace, you LOSE.

I'm aware she is Mexican; and her Irish is up. But what's it got to do with spying on the guy who's ''chomping gum'' in the house of God? Where is her Christian charity? Hold it; who can show charity over the Internet? How is her credibility going to appear on the 'Net? She must think that's impossible? Because I show ''anger'' just as bad as hers? But I haven't any anger. I show my love for God's holy people the Church. -- Not disgust. Not suspicion over; when was that guy's last confession??? In this website we always show good will. This discussion, Jalapeno, is helping somebody somewhere to focus on our LOVE for one another. --I hope to God.

Unfortunately there are contributors who leave their love on a shelf; they display fury instead. Fury at the neighbor they can't understand. Or at the stupid priest they hold in contempt (You know, that priest is human. A sinner like me.) --Or, our Holy Father. And they're blessed by other dividers: John Smith? ''God bless you Jalapeno. That's just what true Christians are called upon to do.''

It's enough to make a person cry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

It's enough to make a person cry.

***Yes your whole post is. *shaking head* You are out there my friend and if you didn't see the humor in my mexian/irish joke then you need to lighten up. I wasn't going to ever let me temper get the best of me. I haven't in four years....yes only four. :o) When writing a response back you would not believe how much I remove. In the heat of things I will write exactly what I think yet when I reread it is the grace of God who makes me take my insults out. As for me wanting the last word? Read as many threads on this forum you can and see who will be last. LOL Not me unless you give me this one. ;o) Charity for someone chomping gum? You are reaching for whatever you can Eugene to try and make me look like I am this angry suspicious person, but I'm not. Won't say sorry for it either. :o) It's been four years this month since my horrible experience with a priest. Since then I have met many wonderful priests and our parish in this town has a new young priest who seems to know the rules and wants to lead souls to heaven. My faith has grown as has my knowledge. I only wish all knew and understood what truly exist in our faith. If they did they would never leave the One True Faith. I want what I have for all. I want all to receive awesome counselling true to our faith, better understanding of our faith, and greater love for God. That is where my passion comes from not from anger nor suspicion. So, so far from the truth. Good day and I have said all I have to about this subject so if you want the last word (I know you can't help yourself) go for it!

God Bless you!

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005.

It took a while. Maybe she really won't bug me anymore.

Yipppeeeee!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Join the club Jalopeno; I have only posted here for about three weeks and Mr. Chavez has yet to nswer a question in a direct manner.

He will twist what you say ,and then after insulting you ,he will act like the offended party.

Clever, but not that clever. He is defending the indefensible. Having little to work with, he tries to do a good job.

He must be doing this for quite some time. It's almost as good as the professionial schmeersters in Washington.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.

I'm not an offended party, Smith. What gave you that Idea?

Nor do I twist anyone's words or insult them.

These are direct accusations. Have you concrete examples? Here I was, advising love and patience and understanding. You were advising suspicion here & in other threads. Now you hope to advance rancor between other contributors. I'm not offended with Jalapeno. We had a parley-vous, nothing that conclusive.

You try to bust up the Communion of Saints from within; bashing the Pope. Where have you spoken in favor of love, patience and understanding?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Dear Eugene,

Over the years, you have remained the same. IMHO, you are a bitter person; your posts show it. You are not charitable. You are harse. You are not here to admonish as you claim. You are here to win the battle in your mind. You are rude, sarcastic, unfriendly, caustic -- all in the guise of admonition. You exude hate despite of your claim that you love. You are known for your countless brutal insults cloaked in defending the Church. You especially prey on new posters. Most of the old-timers here, I guess, have grown accustomed to your severe offensive halitosis. You are just unwilling to be kind. You want the upperhand no matter what the price. You have a persistent anti-social attitude no matter what your excuse.

-- Edward C. Chavez (edwardcchavez@aol.com), January 19, 2005.

Keep watching me, Edward. Return quickly and accuse me, the moment you see a hint of what you're accusing me of. It will focus my direct attention on the truth.

One thing I can assure you of. I'm open to criticism. Feel free. What's the use of naming all my faults later? Please send me the notice as soon as I commit the sin.

I won't reply in turn; hatred isn't in my nature. I reprimand when the Spirit moves me; as many saints of the Church have done. Not for malice; only for Jesus Christ and His Holy Gospel.

Permit to contradict you emphatically, about this: I have nothing to be bitter about. I apologise if something in my style of writing told you that. I'm truly happy. How good Our Lord has been to me; a sinner. Each day I love Him MORE. I'm 67 years old and might be meeting Jesus in Person, seeing His holy FACE,

. . . In the next hour, or day, or month. I've yearned for many years for that first look I'll have into His eyes. And who can be bitter, waiting for that; eager for it? Not me, Edward! Ciao; may GodC bless you and all your little Chavezes; I hope you have some.

(Could you email, and tell me about yourself; and where you're from? I'm originally from New Mexico. Chavezes are there since 1609; multiplied like rabbits. Maybe we're related?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Sigh! Jal, who’s “twisting” who? Of course I know that “people I know who live in mortal sin and still receive [Communion] should not”. My point was that the Church requires us to “receive the Eucharist worthily” at least once a year. “Worthily” means without having committed an unconfessed mortal sin. If you haven’t committed a mortal sin, you aren’t legally required to go to Confession, so don’t say that Confession is legally required. (And yes I do go regularly and am not "lukewarm".)

“I do hate answering to people who twist, but being you are one I have to answer. Show me where I stated "many priest" said the above? Don't EVER put words in my typing that were not there. I said HE which means ONE! DUH as my kids would say. Sheesh!!”

OK, just scroll up to your earlier post, Jal: “during one homily the rosary was made fun of. He mocked the "little old women" (his words) who pray the beads and also mocked women who covered their heads. Is this Catholic? Getting off track, but the bottom line there are many priest just like the ones I have witnessed” DUH!

“I DO NOT JUDGE ALL CATHOLIC CHURCHES ACROSS THE STATES!” No but you claim there is “so much abuse left and right” in the whole of “the Novus Ordo” as you call it, on the basis of what happens in your parish. I don’t doubt there is some abuse going on, yes even in places that have the 1962 Mass, I just dispute your unfounded assertion that the vast majority of Catholics are abusers.

Yes I deliberately left out “God made them [homosexuals] that way” because I know that is NOT true. I was just disputing your statement that there is “NO truth” in saying that we have to embrace and not judge homosexuals. So why do you think you have to give me a lecture on it and claim that I’m about to say that you “hate all”?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 19, 2005.

My point was that the Church requires us to “receive the Eucharist worthily” at least once a year. “Worthily” means without having committed an unconfessed mortal sin. If you haven’t committed a mortal sin, you aren’t legally required to go to Confession, so don’t say that Confession is legally required. (And yes I do go regularly and am not "lukewarm".)

***Did I say you have to confess more than once a year if you don't have a mortal sin? Twisty, twisty, twisty. How can one who lives together producing children receive weekly? Guess I am being judgemental and the priest who told them it was OK knew better. Does the new priest in my town know about this? Don't know and don't care. Doubt the couple will let him know being they were told how they live was fine. Yes you are not lukewarm, but not hot enough to make you own daughter who is still a minor go to Church.

there are many priest just like the ones I have witnessed” DUH!

***There are, but it doesn't mean they state what this priest did.

I just dispute your unfounded assertion that the vast majority of Catholics are abusers.

***Show me where I said vast majority. >:-/ Many does not mean vast majority. The amount of money that has also been spent on the sex abuse is proof that there are problems right and left being it touched just about every state or maybe all not 100% sure. Not my unfounded assertion either, but by public admission by the Bishops all over the world.

Yes I deliberately left out “God made them [homosexuals] that way” because I know that is NOT true. I was just disputing your statement that there is “NO truth” in saying that we have to embrace and not judge homosexuals. So why do you think you have to give me a lecture on it and claim that I’m about to say that you “hate all”?

**NO, you left it out to argue with me Steve. LOL His homily should have been we can love them, but hate the sin. Never should he have stated that God made them that way and we should embrace them. Well maybe I was putting you in the same boat as Eugene is why I thought you might think I hate some or all. Sorry for that. I don't hate any one no matter what they do. Hate many actions and sins, but never the person. I've committed far worse sins in my life than many and know it is possible with the grace of God to change your ways.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005.

“Did I say you have to confess more than once a year if you don't have a mortal sin?” Yes you did actually: “Too many people in denial! I see too many just going in doing the rituals without knowing the meaning. Too many not being directed to confess at LEAST ONCE A YEAR, yet they can receive weekly.” OTOH if someone was committing mortal sins every week he would need to confess them every week before receiving communion, not just once a year.

I won’t go on further as like most of my previous discussions with you, it seems to get down to semantics. I don’t think you literally mean some of the things you say, you just don’t express yourself very well sometimes, or else I am too dense to understand your meaning. Goodbye and God bless.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 19, 2005.

Did I say you have to confess more than once a year if you don't have a mortal sin?” Yes you did actually: “Too many people in denial! I see too many just going in doing the rituals without knowing the meaning. Too many not being directed to confess at LEAST ONCE A YEAR, yet they can receive weekly.” OTOH if someone was committing mortal sins every week he would need to confess them every week before receiving communion, not just once a year.

***So what was your argument? Not one thing that I stated above was false. Of course they would have to confess weekly if in mortal sin, but don't and that was my point. How you made it to mean more is beyond me. Some how my saddness over knowing people on a PERSONAL level who are not being directed properly was bad on my end and me being judgemental.

won’t go on further as like most of my previous discussions with you, it seems to get down to semantics. I don’t think you literally mean some of the things you say, you just don’t express yourself very well sometimes, or else I am too dense to understand your meaning. Goodbye and God bless.

***Me semantic in my discussions? :o) hmm I could go back to the thread where we were discussing your daughter, but will leave it alone. You've never gone very far with me in any post and I let most if not all go. I'm so sorry I don't express myself well enough for you Steve. You just like to make more out of what I write and then when you see there isn't anything wrong with what I stated you back off and become a little nicer.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005.

It's obvious that there are some folks who adamantly refuse to discuss, in any meaningful way, that there ARE problems within the Church. Many problems.

These problems range from priests shirking their pastoral responsibilities to Bishops and Cardinals advocating things which clearly are in conflict with Church teachings.

Does this mean that ALL of the Church has problems? No. Does discussion of the problems mean that whomever brings up these issues is against the Church, a dissentor, a person who is seeking to undermine the Church? No. Far from it.

To ignore these issues..to have one's head firmly stuck in the sand, is to give more power to those who WOULD seek to harm the Church.

A hymn in a Catholic missal proclaiming that the Eucharist is bread and water..that needs to be brought to the attention of the Bishop..it needs to be removed from the missal, post haste.

The priest who makes jokes about the rosary and head coverings needs to have a visit from parishioners.."Hi Father..we're concerned."

Catholics who see that in their parishes, people are taking Communion who are in mortal sin, need to DO something about it. Talk to the priest, talk to the Bishop, the Archbishop..In our community, there are plenty of people who live together and aren't married..they troop up to receive Communion..you know why? Because they BELIEVE that they are married "in the sight of God"..a personal conscience thing..they do not believe that they are in mortal sin. They know that the Church teaches otherwise, but they think the Church is wrong.

Since they never hear a peep from the pulpit..I guess they are the Catholic/Protestants that Paul M speaks of..meanwhile, they receive the Eucharist.

All of the Catholics who use birth control and think it's a "matter of personal conscience"..when will they hear from the priests on Sunday that it's a sin?

All of the people who receive the Eucharist every Sunday and have not gone to Confession in many months..when will they hear from the Priests on Sunday that they NEED to get into the confessional box..it's NOT an option?

One of our priests came over our home a few weeks ago for a visit since I was very ill. As he was getting ready to leave, I asked him to bless me. He laughed. I asked him why he thought my request was humerous. He explained that except for one other "older woman" in the parish, I was the only person who ever asked him for a blessing when he came to the house. He said he found it to be "old-fashioned".

"Old-fashioned"? To receive a blessing from a priest is "old- fashioned"??? I told him that surely that surely he was joking with me. Nope, he wasn't. Not only were there only two "older women" in his entire parish who ever asked for the priest's blessing, the priest himself found the concept "old-fashioned" and amusing.

I'm sure that Steve will say he's never met such a priest..LOL.. Perhaps Eugene might counter with I should merely have more "faith" and love..

All I know is that the Church is full of problems..lots of them. The Church is also full of faithful people who want to see the Church cleansed of all of this error..no MATTER where it is. The Church can and WILL be strong again because God promised it would be so. Just as God used His people in times past to heal the Church from within, He will use His people again.

The Holy Spirit works within people to make the Church strong. Ignoring the errors, hiding our faces in the sand, allowing false teachings to go unchallenged in some sort of misguided mind-set of "it's all good" is not being a tool of God. It's apathy.

Talking to the priests, writing letters to the Bishops and Cardinals, and indeed, bringing these issues to the forefront of other Catholics is not harmful to the Church..it is healing.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

Lesley,

Your voice counts. Keep talking to the priests and writing those letters to the Bishops. You are a component of the feedback system. When a part of the body hurts, the whole body hurts. However, as you know, the Church is a hierarchy and we the laity are at the bottom of the totem pole.

-- (Mike@verizon.com), January 20, 2005.

Lesley:
Sorry, but you make too many blanket statements. And, you imagine some kind of unwillingness or mental block which separates you from those who aren't angry.

All of us see undeniable signs of lukewarm or indifferent faith. We have the problem in our very homes. Many of our pastors don't have such control as Catholics have been accustomed to; leaving the devout ones among us anxious for malediction and anathemas.

Yet, it's not prudent for us to chide our priests and bishops so openly. We haven't the authority as faithful followers of Christ. We must have greater faith; our prayer must go up to God, who loves His people. And, above all; we shouldn't fall into the sin of the ''reformers'' --chastizing the Body of Christ for the faults of the few. It's a sin, in fact, to murmur angrily about something God already knows; as if we had a passive or lazy Father Amighty. Nothing we think or feel can hope to approach REMOTELY-- His own divine Wisdom. We PRAY; that's our obligation to the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

Sorry Lesley, you may say I have my head in the sand but I honestly have never heard a priest laugh at blessings or say they are old- fashioned, nor can I honestly imagine any of the priests I know saying that. And most of them are probably what you would call “liberal”. And yes if I DID see/hear a priest commit any of the abuses which you and Jal are convinced are everywhere around you, I would certainly protest.

“you are not lukewarm, but not hot enough to make you own daughter who is still a minor go to Church.” I may not be as “hot” as a jalapeno, but I asked you before HOW you would propose to MAKE an adamantly unwilling teenager go to Church. You replied only to the effect that, apart from the fact that you didn’t think any of your kids would ever do this, you would tell him/her you are very disappointed upset and opposed to their decision. I had already done that. So what else WOULD you do when that doesn't work, seeing it’s illegal to put them in irons and padlock them to a pew? Kick them out on the streets? Refuse to speak to them? What? I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to know.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 21, 2005.

Hi Steve..My husband and I had 5 kids of our own and 11 foster children (not all at one time, thank God). In their teen years, there were a few times when one or two of the kids would suddenly announce that they were "done with church".

This was simply not an option. To evidence how important it was, if they chose to be incredibly stubborn about it, all privileges were immediately withdrawn, and I mean ALL. No phone, no TV, no friends over..they became like the "prisoner of Zenda." We had one who lasted an entire month like this. Oh well..it was her choice.

She finally realized that we were never giving in to her. Our kids all knew that our home was not run on democratic principles.We'd rather have our kids sitting in church unwillingly than not at all.

Lastly, if one of my children defied my husband or myself in such a manner by refusing to speak to us, or slamming bedroom doors, or leaving the house without permission, she would VERY quickly find herself seated on the couch with us demanding her house key, her telephone, her car (if she was lucky enough to have one of those) and told that she can begin NOW to act in a respectful manner if she wishes to have the privileges afforded to her age.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.

So what else WOULD you do when that doesn't work, seeing it’s illegal to put them in irons and padlock them to a pew? Kick them out on the streets? Refuse to speak to them? What? I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to know.

***I just tell them to do something and they obey. My oldest and youngest son lost all their computer privileges just two days ago because they were getting a little behind in school. This really gets to them, but you use what you can to let them know whatever they have done is not acceptable. They will change whatever it is that got them in trouble before they get back whatever you took. Your daughter's soul is a stake here Steve. Far more serious than my boys getting behind in certain subjects. You might have more to do because this pattern with your daughter didn't just start, but your only hope right now is to take away what she loves best and stick with it. You love our Catholic faith and now you need to teach her about it and make her feel what you do. Let her know the love and passion you have for God and Our Blessed Mother. Give her the knowledge you have and talk to her daily about all that you know. Don't worry if you won't be popular with her either. Someone far more important will be pleased with you.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.

Thank you Lesley and Jalapeno. Of course she would see it as most unfair if we withrew all privileges and favors etc. since two of her older siblings also ceased going to Church when they were “minors” and did not get this punishment. The other thing is that this is one of the few issues on which my wife and I have had to agree to disagree. Yes I know you think I should just tell my wife who’s boss, but I can see her side too. Our kids are exceptionally intelligent (not just boasting) and we have always tried to teach them to be as independent as possible. I have met too many people who are bitter and jaundiced towards the Church because, they say, they were “forced” to go to Church as teenagers. When they leave home they will do what they want anyway. All my kids still have a basic sense of morality, and all but one still describe themselves as Catholics (yes I know).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 22, 2005.

Steve, you can still do it right with your last one. So what if she cries it is unfair that the other two got to choose. You now see your error and let her know. As for your wife, if you have a mutual love, respect and trust she won't doubt what you are doing is for the glory of God and your daughter's soul. As for your children being of high intelligence, it's too bad then that you didn't give them some great books to read about our faith. Do this for your daughter. Have her read, The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Etienne Gilson. My oldest son who is 17yo just started reading this. It was given to him by a priest because he tends to ask very complex questions about God. I also don't buy into all the Catholics who left because they were forced too either. Too many highly intellectual Catholics out there who were forced, but also knew our faith well enough to know not to leave. Those who left really didn't know their faith at all or were not taught properly about it. Good luck!

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

Steve, just some added thoughts:

When the kids are living at home,of course it is the job of parents to teach them to learn to be independent. How else could they function as adults in the world if they couldn't make decisions?

Yet SOME decisions remain the purview of parents as long as the children ARE dependent upon them. This is only logical. Do parents consult with their children on how the family income is to be spent? Why not? Because they ARE still children, not adults. They do not have the knowledge or maturity YET to be informed decision makers about certain matters. That is why they are still dependent upon their parents. If they were not, they could simply move out and be INDEPENDENT.

When it comes to matters of Faith,children ARE CHILDREN still, and do not YET have the maturity or knowledge to to be informed decision makers about those matters either. To allow them to make a decision to stay away from Mass, is to allow them to make an adult decision when they do not have the maturity to make.

My daughter..the one who gave us the most grief as a teen ager over attending mass, is incredibly active in the Church. Had we given in to her teen-age rebellion, she would still be sitting home.

It's EASIER to give up and give in. The teen-ager is happier, and nobody in the house is angry..the parents can simply throw up their hands and say to themselves "Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

One last thing Steve. If your children ever told you they wanted to drop out of school would you let them make that choice? If the answer is no, then you have put this world ahead of our Lord. You know with school you will have to answer to someone. Guess what..I know you know it..you will have to answer to God when you die and you will have to answer as to why you didn't not put Him first and make your children go to His home on a weekly basis. God first not this world. Be OF this world, but don't become a PART of it. BE HOT for Him! He deserves ONLY that.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 23, 2005.

*blushing* So many mistakes above again. *sigh* It should read (this is advice from a monk), be a part of this world just don't become of it. Or is the above right? ;o) This one is correct. Sorry for my mistake for the didn't not...sheesh proof read you stuff already!

Reminds me a little of the saying, is it liquor before beer never fear, and beer before liquor never sicker or the other way around after you've had a drink? :)

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 23, 2005.