I have a theory that the seemingly contradictory statements of the Council of Florence against the possibility of salvation for "pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics" (Decree for the Jacobites), versus the statements of Vatican II that non-Christians, including Muslims, "can attain eternal salvation" (Lumen Gentium), can be reconciled by the utterances of Pius IX (Singulari Quadam and Quanto Conficiamur)in which he uses the words "obstinately oppose", "stubbornly remain" and "invincible ignorance."

Namely, just as Euclid's geometry of the shortest distance between two points being a line is altered if one is living on a sphere; just as Newton's laws don't apply in the same way on the sub-atomic level or as one nears the speed of light; so the *context* of an utterance and the *human condition* of those involved can change the application of a truth. (I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so pardon my lame examples, but those more gifted than I know that not all theorems or laws apply equally, depending on circumstances.)

So, might we say that--before the continents of America and Australia were discovered, when "pagans" meant Moslems (in their eyes heretical Christians) or witches, when most of the ancient heresies such as Nestorians and Monophysistes had been wiped out, and in the midst of healing the East-West schism--to Eugenius IV and Florence, they assumed that, in Christendom, people had good opportunity to learn the Faith and should accept it as a matter of course?

While on the other hand, by the time of Pius IX and certainly by Vatican II, it became clear that there were millions who had no opportunity to hear the Gospel, and that many protestants and orthodox were distantly removed from the original heresiarchs who founded those movements?

Meaning, that instead of a straight plane of "good opportunity to learn the Faith" the Church grew to see a spherical shape of "invincible ignorance" was also present?

Hence, Pius IX very carefully uses the words "obstinately oppose," "stubbornly remain" and "invincibly ignorant" to qualify his teaching of Outside the Church No Salvation. And hence, the Holy Office letter of 1949 overseen by Pius XII carefully uses phrases like, "no one who *knows* that the Church has been divinely established by Christ, and nevertheless *refuses* to be a subject to the Church or *refuses* to obey the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, will be saved." That letter also mentions "those who are ordained to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by some kind of unconscious desire or longing" and says they are *by no means* excluded from eternal salvation, nevertheless "since they lack many great gifts and helps from God which they can enjoy in the Catholic Church," they "cannot be secure" in their salvation.

So on the one hand, those who understand that the Catholic Church is Christ's ordained way of salvation are responsible for that knowledge--hence the statements of Eugenius IV and Florance. Yet on the other hand, people of good faith who don't know that but sincerely follow the dictates of the natural law in their conscience may, with the help of Divine grace and light, gain salvation--hence the statements of Vatican II and the CCC.

I lift up this (perhaps simplistic) question because I seem to note a clash on this topic on certain threads in this forum.

It seems to me that, on one hand, some folk misinterpret Vatican II to mean that the Catholic Church is no longer important or essential, and we don't need to preach the Gospel because everyone will be saved. Yet some other folk stress a hard-line understanding of Florence to the extent that they don't even accept the idea of invincible ignorance.

Doesn't Pius XII put his finger on the real issue, when he says that those not in the Catholic Church lack many important graces? And wasn't Pius IX right to use words like "stubborn" and "refuse"? Outside the Church No Salvation, I think, is not merely saying "you have to be a Catholic because God says so, even if you don't know it"--because then we would be saved by our own brainpower and knowledge, not by Grace. Rather, it is a question of *openness of heart* which accepts Grace and obeys God, versus *hard-heartedness* which refuses to accept Grace and obey God.

For, beneath it all, don't we believe that God really does want to save "the world" and that if we aren't saved it is by our *own* fault?

I'd love responses to this.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 13, 2005

Answers

BTW, in reference to Florence, have I ever met people who gave alms, did good works, or were even willing to shed their blood for the sake of Jesus, who did it out of pharisaism, pride or hypocrisy? Yes, I have. Not all (outwardly) good deeds are a sign of inner obedience to God: "If I give away all my goods to the poor, and hand over my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 13, 2005.

Hence, Pius IX very carefully uses the words "obstinately oppose, stubbornly remain" and "invincibly ignorant" to qualify his teaching of Outside the Church No Salvation.

Exactly. --I figure the Pope was referring to heretics who have been in the Church and later despise her. It was a time of great ferment. The rise of humanism, masonry, skepticism and errant Chrisitan sects was luring away many lukewarm Catholics; as still happens. I don't think the Pope referred to real invincible ignorance in the world's pagan populations, or in souls of many who were unbaptised through no fault of their own.

''Pius XII carefully uses phrases like, "no one *WHO KNOWS* that the Church has been divinely established by Christ, and nevertheless *refuses* to be a subject to the Church or *refuses* to obey the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, will be saved." Very clear; it's *believers who proved disloyal* who were condemned.

Yet, even among these, there were some who repented on their deathbeds, they say. With God nothing is impossible.

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

Michael

great thread. great idea.

as a simple stress test - ignoring the other Dogma - and forget the Pagans, the Moslems, the Orthodox and the protestants. start with the Jewish religion. the Jewish diaspora has lived along-side Christians and Moslems in Europe and Christian Asia since the year dot.

the Jewish people cannot be unaware of Christianity. they knew about it when Jesus explained it to them. they know about it today. they reject it.

what is different about their position today, in 33AD or in the mid- 15th century? how can you say that Florence gave a message that is now out-of-date?

remember, the Jewish peoples have existed for centuries as minority communities in larger Christian and Moslem populations. hence, their need for a Jewish State.

that's a practical objection, btw.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.

Ian, when you first asked me this question I had just started posting on this forum, it appeared alot of responses I had read on different threads indicated a high level of (hmmm) overly uptight Catholics and in-fighting but I'm glad I continued to visit it appears to have moderated some or maybe I just ignore the uptight post. So I will present some potential thought on this subject since Michael has already opened the line up. ( So get your Shields and Crosses out )

No Salvation outside of the Church, True and False-- True on the basis that the Church presents the safest way for people to come to know God and Jesus. By steering people to developing a greater love and compassion for their fellow man, feeding, clothing, visiting people in prison, educating Billions of people over the years and helping to moderate the hardened hearts with the help of the Holy Spirit.

The next area is an equally big factor, steering people away from the untested spirits of the spirit world by taking this task upon themselves in a spiritually safe and protected manner.

Challenges the early Church ( and even todays) faced are the False religions or even true religions which leave their members and Church open to genuine spiritual attacks caused by uneducated people, that seek to be the prophets of church and in their quest to be the holiest person in the Church closest to God they in the most literal sense allow dark spirits to attach to them and "Guide" them thinking they have become one of Gods direct messengers. But they destroy everything that was or should be good within the Church and it never grows and never dies but it kills many who came in seeking to know God.

Next example Pauls 1st. letter to the Church of Corinth, big issue he had to deal with was the competition shall we say, the city had temples with up to 1,000 prostitute priestesses (here is where being truely invincibly ignorant could be pleasant). So as a result we don't have these types of worship services or other corrupted ones but we focus on God, Jesus and we are inspired with knowledge, understanding and wisdom by the Holy Spirit when we seek it in earnest.

Best way to view the Catholic Church is regardless of any failings it may have acquired over the past 2,000 years it remains the closest direct link to the mission of Christ, it doesn't waiver too much or move with the mood of the day in society (exclude some local Priest and Bishops) but as a Whole the organization remains the Core strength from which all other Christian Churches extend from and as we know the farther you get from the core strength the weaker the extended parts become, and are more prone to mutations that we see in the US and abroad.

But the question to ask ( I know this will sound like sdqa) it what is THE Church?, well it IS the body of believers Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist and on an on, BUT not limited to just Christian believers. (i.e.)but INCLUDES People who BELIEVE in God the Creator, or God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son and THE Holy Spirit but not only believe but LIVE out daily what God spoken through the Prophets (the Real Prophets) or through Jesus Christ.

Whether we choose to accept it, like it or not we ARE all responsible too and for each other Christian or NOT and when we come to truely realize this and live it the closer we move to being what God wants from US. How do YOU want your Children to live with each other ( Constant fighting, back biting.... or in love and peace, respectng, helping sharing with each other...) Not much different then what God wants from each of us (His Children)

So the false aspect of the statement would be the belief that Salvation can only be achieved through the Catholic Church of Rome. BUT does this mean that people should be shifting Churches until they find what they want to hear? NO! remember the farther from the Core the weaker and more corrupt it becomes. And when you look for what you WANT to hear you WILL become more prone to greater amounts of Sin pulling you away from God and Jesus.

Perhaps this will start things along for now. Please spare all the Church Documents to justify any position write from your own knowledge, position on the subject in responding to the above. As I have mentioned in the past most Church Documents are structured for reversals without really reversing but for Future "Revelations" "Greater Understanding"

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 14, 2005.

Hello again Michael G!

tell me, what you mean by this: "most Church Documents are structured for reversals without really reversing but for Future "Revelations" "Greater Understanding""?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.

Hello Eugene, Ian and Michael G!!!

I am trying to wrap my poor brain around this subject, so I'm deeply grateful for your input!

I'm accepting as a basic premise that popes are not going to contradict each other on a subject of this import, and I'm trying to understand how Eugenius IV and, say, John Paul II can be best reconciled. (I know some claim that Vatican II is "not dogmatic" but I don't buy that because the ordinary magisterium is also worthy of credence...or we're all sunk in chaos and may as well become Orthodox).

One possibility that occurs to me is that we can use the traditional understanding of mortal sin and apply it to heresy and schism as well. In other words, it requires not only serious matter (objective sin), but also knowledge (understanding) and consent (freedom). So could we apply this to "Jews, pagans, heretics" etc. and say that if they don't have understanding or consent, they are not guilty of the objective heresy or error? I'm not sure where the objective/subjective criteria for mortal sin were developed, it sounds Medieval and surely would be in Aquinas, but it seems to me it might apply to non-Christians as well who act in good faith--and this is what Vatican II seems to say.

My above hypothesis may be weak on some points. I guess, to be more clear, that the discovery of millions of people in various "conditions and climes" as Pius IX said once underscored their lack of knowledge (and hence full culpability).

Augh! I have to leave. Sorry this is so incredibly disjointed. Your point about the Jews is well taken, Ian. Your point about the life of the Spirit working outside the Core is also well taken, Michael G. And Eugene as always is right on and loyal.

Have to get back later, guys.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 14, 2005.

BTW, thanks Eugene for the reminder about the secular drift, masonry, etc. that was happening in Pius IX's day! That's helpful.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 14, 2005.

Ian-- Hmmm, Maybe I should not write so late at night. Not the cleanest word structure to have used to say the least.

Let me try and rephrase it a little differently.

Few Documents are written in a perpetually absolute manner, never changing manner such as the 10 Commandments. Hows that! Hopefully that makes a little more sense.

We know what yesterday was like, and we know what today is like, But neither of us know what the absolutes of tomorrow will be. So if we trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church then is it not reasonable that the Spirit knows how to structure for the future of the Church and man in order to to bring them closer and keep bringing them closer to God.

Michael-- Consider this statement

" Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, ***or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him."***

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp

TC-- That wasn't very nice now was it?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 14, 2005.

Dear Michael G.
Catholics do not believe this: ''[regardless of] any failings it (the Church, She) may have acquired over the past 2,000 years it remains the closest direct link to the mission of Christ,'' --No; that's misleading. God indwells the Catholic faith completely. He makes her actually and forever Holy, and nothing can corrupt her. There's not a link to anything, she is the LIVING Church where Christ is dwelling amidst His people. No other church can claim this. Anyone without a prejudice can see she has spread the Gospel to all nations. No other church has. Her work is to sanctify every soul in the world if she can; for Jesus Christ To say she merely ''doesn't waiver too much or move with the mood of the day in society (exclude some local Priest and Bishops)'' is also false. The Catholic Church can't waver because the Holy Spirit guides her and is her Advocate. She takes almost all the credit indeed, for transforming our society (which is another subject.) And what a priest or bishop causes is not relevant to the Church. We're all sinners. She goes on as holy as if all were saints. This is owing to her Lord, Jesus Christ, in whom she lives right here. Indeed, Saint Paul referred to his people all as saints. We live in the world, which presents daily problems. But Catholics aren't supposed to be OF this world; we are already citizens of heaven in this lifetime.

Nor do we believe:

--''[--] sound like sdqa) ''what is THE Church?, well it IS the body of believers Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist and on an on, BUT not limited to just Christian believers. (i.e.)but INCLUDES People who BELIEVE in God the Creator, or God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son and THE Holy Spirit but not only believe but LIVE out daily what God spoken through the Prophets (the Real Prophets) or through Jesus Christ.''

Not at all. This is all false, Michael. You mean well. But this won't pass, because it isn't true.

There can't be a Body of ''believers'' OUTSIDE the ONE Catholic Church with Peter at the top. These branch faiths are separated from her, and aren't part of the Mystical Body of Christ, except in potential; because of Baptism. Not one of these sectarian churches sanctifies its members or teaches in accord with the holy apostles. Fully 90% of them teach a false belief, for instance, in Sola Scriptura; a direct challenge to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Their members can hope for God's mercy; but they are never absolved of their sins by any other church, or their own good will. Sin will always stand in their way. There may be a few fortunate exceptions; but their sin will never be overcome by faith in another doctrine excepting that of Christ's apostles. (Galatians 1, :8-9) And it is with the Catholic Church alone their doctrine is taught and lived.

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

eugene-- Thank you for your input!

Now that you have had a chance to relax a little, please go back and study this in a 3rd party manner and see if your thoughts to what is written changes a little. You are already secure in your knowledge of the Church as am I, so look at it in a little wider manner or from the angle that someone not in the Church may view some of my comments.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 14, 2005.

Michael G

"Few Documents are written in a perpetually absolute manner, never changing manner such as the 10 Commandments."

BUT do you agree with these?

"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."

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 15, 2005.

Hello Ian!

I have a very important question. Your quotes about the meaning of the sacred dogmas never changing and that the meaning *once declared by holy mother church* not being something that can change with the times...

1. In the question of "Extra Ecclesiam...", was there a *common understanding*, in the days of Eugenius IV, that those who had not heard the Gospel or did not fully understand it, might neverthleless be ordered to the Church? Perhaps something in Aquinas, who lived earlier than Eugenius IV?

2. What about Caiaphas the high priest, who prophesied "it is necessary that one man should die for the sake of the people"--true enough words, and inspired by the Holy Spirit no less, yet I'm quite sure that Caiaphas did not understand the full import of what he was saying.

3. Finally, does the letter of the Holy Office in the Boston case of 1949, (which proceedings were presided over by Pius XII) *declare* accurately the meaning of Holy Mother Church?

The reason I ask these is because I am, though fairly well red, still rather new to Catholic theology, and I am honestly trying to reconcile Eugenius IV with Vatican II. My sense is that the Holy Office letter of 1949 does that pretty well, balancing on one hand the *dogma* of "outside the Church no salvation* with other doctrinal truths such as "implicit desire" and "invincible ignorance". The letter reminds us that interpretation of Catholic dogmas is not a matter of private interpretation, but a job for the magisterium. So I'm trying to make sure I understand those implications!

I'm guessing so far that (1) We should try our best to convince others of the truth of the Catholic faith, since this is the true fulness God wishes them to have and that the Catholic Church is the true way of salvation instituted by Christ our God, but (2) because of various factors, others may not understand our proclamation or may never have heard the Gospel, and so God judges them with mercy on account of their ignorance.

I am guessing (my personal thought) the example of St. Paul himself shows us that invincible ignorance might be a larger category than we might imagine. First, Saul was a very erudite Pharisee, one of the great teachers of his time, and surely had heard of Christ and his message, yet Paul writes that God had mercy on him *because* he acted "ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1:13). There are also the interesting examples of Cornelius, Cyrus of Persia, and St. Justin Martyr's interesting observation that the pre-incarnate Logos spread seeds of wisdom throughout the world, including to such worthies as Socrates. Many Church fathers had a sense that "Church" was wider in membership than we give it credit for being.

Second, frankly, I know my own severe limitations. Not only do I struggle with this stuff severely (recognizing the Catholic Church as the true fulness of salvation isn't a no-brainer to most people I think), but I will give an example of "putting the shoe on the other foot". It is true that I have heard the names "Allah" and "Mohammed", and have some meager understanding of Islam, yet I confess I am truly ignorant of it in any meaningful way: and frankly, my appreciation for Islam is hindered by 9/11 and Muslim extremists. Your example of the Jews, Ian--are they in a similar bond of not easily being able to appreciate Christianity because of the terrible bad blood between us? Not that I would not try to enlighten a Jew as to Jesus (indeed I have tried), but they may have certain blocks that make them ignorant even though they have heard the words "Jesus" and "Christ". I only recently talked to a Jewish man who never heard the Christmas story!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 15, 2005.

Michael, that's the Cushing letter? yes, i've discovered that quite recently.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 15, 2005.

Yes, Ian! (Thanks for the link.)

I have read that, according to Cardinal Cushing, Pius XII himself carefully crafted that letter from the Holy Office, making sure every word was just right.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 15, 2005.

ALL of the biblical examples of Jesus showing mercy to sinners, baptizing them without water, whatever, are being utilized somehow in various conversations to say "Here, look at this.." as examples of how God does things. Ergo, inference is drawn that these examples somehow validate that whenever a poster takes a position that God will PUNISH a sinner, because the CHURCH said they would be punished by God in a Papal bull from Florence or Trent, that the poster is wrong..God is merciful.

These folks feel they have reason to be concerned. They're not just debating for the sake of hearing their own voices.

These biblical examples such as God and St. Paul..occured PRIOR to Jesus establishing the Church.

They occured PRIOR to Jesus saying to Peter, that whatever the CHURCH bound on earth would be bound in heaven as well.

I think that one should be careful to rememember that it IS the Church which is the voice of God on earth. Sure, God is merciful, yet when HIS CHURCH, in HIS VOICE has declared that He won't be..then He isn't going to be. Because He gave the Church that awesome authority to speak for Him.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.

Dear Leslie,

Do you think God is *less* merciful now, in the time of grace, than he was *before* the coming of Christ?

(Not that I or anyone else is ignoring the judgment of God--I believe there is a hell and don't want anyone to go there! Which is why I *do* ask people to go to Mass, *do* talk about Christ openly, *do* pray for those who don't yet know or understand the love of God. My concern is merely that I want to understand the dogmas of the Church in the sense the Church understands them. And so I take Vatican II seriously.)

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 15, 2005.

Wish I could make Lesley understand one thing: SIN bars the way to any soul's salvation. Catholic or non- Catholic. In that sense the words of Eugenius can be seen for the plain truth. A soul shall NOT be saved outside the Church, since it remains in sin. For that matter, he could have qualified his statement saying, ''Even inside the Catholic Church, souls are going to damnation because of unrepentent sin.''

Our faith is in Christ and the forgiveness of our sins, through His blood. The Church teaches us other religions have no Christ for their forgiveness-- a half truth, since salvation is possible upon perfect contrition and for His love.

The quandary then shifts to WHO is in the Church? Is it the baptised, unrepentent sinner? Don Juan for instance, a cradle Catholic-- and would a perfectly repentent soul, duly baptised but not loyal to the Pope (for instance) become ipso facto one more (secretly entered) Catholic? And therein, SAVED?

If Christ's words are all observed, He would include the repentent soul into His Church; no matter what men may think.

He ate with sinners; He forgave His enemies. He is everybody's Saviour who will truly come to Him in love. The Holy Bible is replete with examples. But, yes; He also says, ''If he will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and the publican.'' He cannot grant grace to the unrepentent sinner.

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

Eugene, what you say makes such sense to me. Granted (as basic) that Christ wants everyone to be baptized and a formal member of the Church. Besides that, though, what is He really looking for? Isn't it lives open to His grace, obedient souls who honor and love Him and others?

This same train of thought is found in His parable of the Good Samaritan. "Who was neighbor to the one in need?" Was it the priest or Levite? No, it was the Samaritan *heretic*, who was in religious error, yet his heart was open to God's grace and he obeyed by helping the robbed and beaten Jewish man.

So perhaps when we ask, "Who is in the Church?" it isn't only a matter of formal membership--though that *is* important!--but also a matter of inward obedience and responsiveness to grace.

I think also of the parable of the two sons, one who said "I will obey" but didn't, and the son who said, "I won't" but then changed his mind and obeyed. Isn't the true Catholic the one who obeys?

Yet as you also say, it is vitally important to "Hear the Church", and anyone who knows Christ wants him to do this is duty bound to obey the magisterium and hear the pope, bishops and parish priest.

May Jesus Christ give us all obedience!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 15, 2005.

No Michael, I don't..but it's not my call..or yours or Eugenes' or anyone's but the Churchs'..

See Eugene's response..it's excellent, and it's truth..including the last line he wrote. 100% accurate. It's not that I don't understand...I do..no argument Eugene, none at all. In reading over many of the recent postings, one MIGHT get the impression that some people MAY think that God's mercy somehow can make an end run around what the Church (old or new) has decreed WILL damn an individual to hell..that cannot happen..because God said it couldn't. Nor can God be any LESS merciful than the Church teaches..

The key point is not what any individual may think, but what the Holy Mother Church teaches..for that is the ONLY truth.

And so it does matter very much what "some Pope" in the middle ages had to say, if he said it in his infallible ability given by God. For in that capacity, it is God's voice, not man's.

And likewise, it matters very much what ANY Pope had to say, when said in his capacity of infallibility. Trent, Florence, Vatican II..it doesn't matter one bit how old or new or how dead or alive a Pope is. His voice in matters of Faith and Morals is God's voice.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.

True, Michael.

One post here is scornful of Catholics like Mother Theresa. True or not, HE claims she nursed the dying with no thought to their conversion. He would have preached to them; forget about their suffering!

Her help and her love for the poor and dying was indirect love for Our Lord; since she was doing that for the least of His brethren. Which is exactly what they are. The logical reason she might dismiss at that moment (of death) the religious faith of these poor souls--

--Is that her heart told her they were unable to change. They'd been living every day of their pathetic lives in that invincible ignorance we've been discussing. But she loved them anyway for the sake of Jesus, their only hope.

I'm sure she was praying for their forgiveness as she comforted them in death. It's a spiritual work of mercy; and her heart was overflowing with charity, not anxiety about ''tradition in the Catholic Church.'' Yet, this man thinks she was just infected with ''modernism'' or some other character flaw. --A bad Catholic! (That's the mentality of a Pharisee.) I refuse to think of her that way.

A great Catholic and prelate, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said on his wonderful TV show: ''We will all be meeting some souls in heaven one day whom we NEVER expected to see there.'' My note, That's provided WE go there. Let's look at our own life; save the acid remarks about other people.

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

Mr. Chavez, You woulld rather excoriate people than come up with even one hard fact.

See what is said for those that die without Christ. Not my words but theirs;If it makes us look like rats by following church teaching, so be it.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Further, the text (iv. Sent. D. 45) quotes the words of Augustine (De Verb. Apost. Serm. Xxxii): ‘If a man depart this life without the faith that worketh by charity and its sacraments, in vain do his friends have recourse to such acts of kindness [prayers and suffrages for him].’ Now all the damned come under that head. Therefore suffrages profit them not.”

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

That's great John Smith. You ought to get the surgeon to separate me from you; I know you're sick of being my Siamese Twin.

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

One of the best ways to bring people to Christ is to model your own behavior after Him. To wash the open sores of homeless human beings with a smile on your face..to not only live among the poor, but to join them in their poverty, and to do these things and many more like them SOLELY because Christ said that when you do these things to others, you do them to Him..THOSE actions make unbelievers take note. Only God knows how many souls were brought to him on their deathbeds by Mother Teresa.

What IS it in such a Faith as this that can cause a person to behave in such a way? What GOD can cause so much LOVE in the human heart that a person could DO these things? Throughout the ages, there have been many such people who have brought Christ into people's hearts..not by preaching "hell and damnation", but by evidencing the purest of Christian love.

Preaching "hell and damnation" has it's place. Fear can motivate people towards positive action..yet it's LOVE which holds them there. Always love.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.

Here's John once more.

''See what is said for those that die without Christ. Not my words but theirs,''

And he gives us the old push into the file. He neglects one little thing: Who knows exactly the ones who die without Christ? Not us.

There's the main difference between us, John. I have no reason to look at anybody who is dying, and determine he dies without Christ. You argue as if you had the power of judging who is and who isn't saved. I hope for the best; because I believe Christ is infinitely merciful.

Naturally if you truly die without Christ, you figure to go to hell. (What is that, a mystery you discovered?) But only CHRIST can say who died without Him. When HE says so, it's over. Not when we say so.

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

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice in the external forum is presumed until the CONTRARY IS PROVEN'

Mr. Chavez; If you read the above slowly and carefully, you will see that it is the Church that teaches this, not John Smith.

Of course I love all the creation of the world, we sure go to Hell without it. But Mr Chavez, is it you or I who is the charitable one... I want to convert them, to scare the hell out of them. You on the other hand just go on with your wishful thinking that all is right with everyone.

I do believe that you think that no one goes to hell. You say you do not but your words belie that.

The first commandment is to love God.. the second is to love oour neighbor. Please don't reverse the order.

And you still have not come up with a church teaching that contradicts what I say. You have a wonderful habit of ignoring any documents that you don't like.

Please come up with something more than the Holy Ghost talking to you. Let the church talk to you for a change.

And I do love you and all the tidal wave victims and everyone else in Christ, so don't presume what I am thinkiing.

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

Smith:
''And you still have not come up with a church teaching that contradicts what I say. You have a wonderful habit of ignoring any documents that you don't like.''

Dear Mr. Smith, I don't even want to contradict you. I agree with you. Souls who are in unrepented sin at death must go to hell. And; it's very plausible most non- Catholics are dying in sin because their faith will not cleanse them. You haven't seen me post otherwise.

I spoke only of the potential in every man of good will to repent if God is merciful toward him. Would you care to tell me there's nothing plausible about that?

You boast here: ''I want to convert them, to scare the hell out of them. You on the other hand just go on with your wishful thinking that all is right with everyone.'' ---- ------------- First, YOU never converted a soul in your life. That's why your bluster doesn't impress us. Second, who says I'm ''going on'' with wishful thinking? That's your opinion. I BELIEVE Christ can save whomever he chooses; and you can't stop Him. That isn't a wish; the Church has always TAUGHT us this. He single- handedly brought Saul the Pharisee into the Catholic Church, didn't He? On the road to Damascus.

Saul; Saint Paul was guilty in his past of persecuting Christians. ''Positing an external violation of the law, malice in the external forum is presumed,'' --as you pronounce so self- importantly; and yet Jesus Christ wasn't interested in your presumptions. Paul was brought out of sin into holiness. So was the Good Thief, and many others, even the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod as victims for the sake of Our Lord the Christ Child.

Because He forgave them the Original Sin, as well as his malice, in Paul's case.

So, don't correct your Catholic friends John. Because in this one instance, they're more Catholic than you, and more willing to hear the Holy Spirit than you.

I need only to receive Holy Communion frequently and pray. I have been reading the scriptures and every Catholic writer under the sun since I was 18; and I'm now 67. I've forgotten more than you can learn for the rest of your life; everything about our faith except what shows no imprimatur.

My erudition doesn't make me vainglorious; pride isn't called for. I loved studying Catholic faith, lives of the saints, theology and everything devotional. I just did that, and it should stack up quite well versus your ''scare the hell out of them'' bombast.

Because Jesus Christ supports my cause. How do I know? You haven't shaken my faith at all. Yours is shaken, not mine.

You're resorting to lying shamelessly. As in, ''I do believe that you think that no one goes to hell. You say you do not but your words belie that.'' Too clearly a lie; and it was gratuitous; I didn't deserve it. (It's OK, I can't complain over trifles.) Now, if you had better to offer, it would take the place of lying.

I don't worry about the documents you challenge me with; I'm a total believer in them. I never contradicted them; you've invented that sham too. I spoke of things unrelated to that-- about mens' souls and God's infinite love, his mercy. Things over and above the conventional arguments. But YOU ignore what I say. You are on a witch hunt all over these threads. I advise you to keep quiet and confess your ill-will. God will forgive you then.

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

Peace Mr. Chavez, peace. I don''t want to rile you up. Don't say that I have never converted anyone. You don't know that.

Let's make a deal. I will pray a rosary for you, if you pray one for me. Better yet, I'll pray one for you whether you do or not.

God bless you Mr Chavez.

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

''Don't say that I have never converted anyone. You don't know that.'' You don't scare the hell out of anybody, either, John. I do know that.

''Please come up with something more than the Holy Ghost talking to you. Let the Church talk to you for a change.''

I let the Church teach me all my life. And; you'll pardon me. But when I'm speaking to you and your cohort, the Holy Spirit is speaking to you. I get no credit; He wants you to hear. Why do you resist Him?

My mother prays Rosaries for me. She's 90, John. Can you pray one for HER? I'll offer my Holy Communion tomorrow, for you and others, who divide Catholics under the pretense of serving God. I'll be at the Mass of the Novus Ordo liturgy; a joyful celebration. Jesus comes there to be with us without fail. We love him, you see.

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

Hi Ian--

Please give consideration to these

"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."

PRETEXT a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to *cloak the real intention or state of affairs*

PRETEXT suggests subterfuge and the offering of false reasons or motives in excuse or explanation

subterfuge-deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade 2 : a deceptive device or stratagem

profound 1 a : having intellectual depth and insight

#1 If we believe that the Holy Spirit reveals new or greater understanding on any issue--(Progression of a child-Milk>Soft foods>Hard Foods with an assortment of developing food knowledge and taste in each stage) to the Church we Must assume that if the Whole SD was abandoned it could NOT be for any False reason since the Holy Spirit speaks no lies so *pretext* so is ruled out.

#2 If the SD is not abandoned in the Whole but the core becomes more expanded even if it seems to oppose the orginal SD understanding we can NOT say that it is because of a more *profound* Understanding because profound deals with intellectual depth and insight NOT Spiritual depth and insight and the Holy Spirit is dealing with Spiritual issues not intellectual.

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has *understood* and *understands*: let him be anathema."

Example: Yesterday I **understood** water to be a fluid liquid which remains stable in a contained area, But Today I **understand** that water can go from a liquid to an unseen gas and back to a liquid again all while moving hundreds of miles away from where it was when I first saw it. Is this really advancement of knowledge? Remember I already *understood* what water was (that was my knowledge) but now I *understand* more about water and it's flexibility.

Afterall The world IS Still Flat and we are still the center of the universe, right?

**Next I would like to ask one queston which can help put things in a different or brighter light.

"outside the Church—no salvation"-- Can we say that this statement is a perpetually absolute statement in favor of the Catholic Church of Rome? I say NO!

If the intent is to make it Very Clear that you MUST be within the Catholic Church Should this statement not read as one of the Following?

#1 "outside of the Catholic Church of Rome—no salvation"-- #2 "outside of the Roman Catholic Church —no salvation"-- #3 "outside of the Catholic Church —no salvation"-- #4 "outside of the Universal Catholic Church —no salvation"--

But no we have outside **the Church**, What Church? The Church of Christ! Who is the Church of Christ? They ARE the Body of Believers! Who are the body of believers? They are the people who accept Christ as their Saviour, their path to Eternal Salvation, their chance to return home to God's Eternal Kingdom!

The **Church** IS inclusive to ALL that Believe in Jesus Christ and is NOT Exclusive to Catholics.

I believe that anyone who gets upset and states that no Sacred Dogma can Never Ever be changed or modified shows strong faith in the Church but little to No faith in the Holy Spirit doing his job the way he knows it needs to be revealed to man.

When we were 3 your world most likely consisted of your house and yard, at 5 the world grew to include your block as well, by 10 it included a large part of your town, at 15, at 18, at 25....-- how much do you think the Holy Spirit has to help us learn?

All Christian Churches need to put down their swords and ignorances towards each other and acknowledge their goals ARE the Same and to try and Work together to strengthen the Church of Christ--The body of believers as the Pope and the Catholic Church has been trying to achieve.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 15, 2005.

So in other words, Michael, we should be talked out of our immutable Catholic realities, and evolve ourselves, or let's say, be absorbed into a universal religion whose borders far exceed the Catholic Church to include all religions in the name of temporal peace and justice, right? Thus rendering the Catholic Church, in and of itself, unnecessary.

Would you have us become a church in which our Sacraments have devolved into mere symbols and are no longer considered essential; where Jesus Christ is no longer present in the Sacred Species but rather, present amidst the gathering of people?

Have you now given us reason to shift our focus away from the passive virtues and the theological virtues, and towards on exclusive adoption of only the secular, democratic and active virtues, such as the charity spoken and practiced by mere freemasons?

It is always interesting, but not at all unfamiliar, to one who holds the revolutionary ideas work, as you have from the top of the thread to where we are now. I also know where it's going next, because it's old hat, familiar territory. It is the essence of modernism in action. If you'd like, I can rattle back to the whole strategic gameplan from where you began, to where you are now, to where you will end up next. It's basic modernism in action, and once anyone is sufficiently familiar with it, it's no big matter to see right through it when it happens.

Ian or Leslie or anyone else here has a choice right now. They can either hold fast to the doctrine and commands of Christ, or they can listen to a new and enlightened way of thinking.

What will happen if they chose not to consider what you proffer, but instead, hold fast to the dogma of the Catholic Faith?

I can tell you. Their devotion to the Blessed Virgin will increase. Their devotion to the Blessed Sacrament will increase. Their concern for the salvation of souls will increase, and their efforts of prayer and small sacrifices towards that end, that is, the salvation of souls and the conversion of sinners, it will increase. They will eliminate their own vices and aquire virtues. They will become holy, they will become saints.

But if they listen to your vision of Church, there would be no need of any of the above. The concern, the devotion, the purity of faithfulness. None of it would be any longer necessary.

Let that, then, be the measure of truth: let the fruits bear witness to the truth.

If you want to get into detail, theologically, as to why you can't possibly be correct about the idea you put forward, let me know and we will hash it out charitably. Promise.

The definition of Peace is: the tranquility of right order.

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

Let me provide a couple examples of your thinking in action, Michael.

I recently horked a missal from a local Novus Ordo parish. Inside the front cover is an explanation of the new ecumenism, explaining basically how we are all just one big, happy and all inclusive family of faith. But it's what's contained in the remaining pages bear out the real nature and essence of that new and ecumenical big happy family.

The missal has lots of songs in it. Here's one of the songs, called "Sing A New Church":

Refrain: "Let us bring the gifts that differ and, in splendid, varied ways, sing a new church into being, one in faith and love and praise."

One of the verses: Draw together at one table, all the human family; shape a circle ever wider, and a people ever free.

Here's another one that expressly denies that Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament. It is a song called "See Us, Lord, About Your Altar". Here's one of the verses:

Once were seen the blood and water
Now is seen but bread and wine
Once in human form He suffered
Now his form is but a sign.

Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 1:

"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema."

It can be shown that the ideas you express here consists of common modernism, and are of the ideals being foisted upon the Catholic faithful, with deliberate intent. I can show you what methods are used to convince the faithful to absorb these errors. I can describe how it effects the devotion and lifestyle of those who allow themselves to be absorbed into these ideas. I can describe in detail what the erronious ideas consist of, where they come from, who pushes them, and why they push these ideas. I can show you where these ideas are subtly expressed, and other places where they are boldy expressed. I can show you the documents whereby ideas such as these have been clearly and concisely condemned by Holy Mother Church.

I can tell you what the effects are of rejecting them and continuing forward in faithfulness to the dogma of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

There's two concrete, in-the-missal examples right there of what your ideas lead to: denial of the necessity of the Sacraments, denial of Sacramental reality, and the widening of the definition of Church to extend far beyond the borders of the Catholic Church.

It is the making of a new and universal religion of man. It is not religion of the City of God, though. The two cities are universally and seemingly inextricably entwinted at this team. It is the wheat and the tares. They are allowed to grow up together, and they will be sifted and separated later.

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

Michael is wrong; the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ in the world. Whoever believes in Christ but rejects His Church is in a heretical state; out of the Body, without membership or communion.

It's true Jesus said, ''Whoever is not against us is with us.''

But He also said we must be One fold and One shepherd; not One shepherd and a flock here, a flock there. And the apostle Paul warns against belief in any gospel other than the one preached by him; even if we hear it from an angel of light (Gal 1, :8-9). That means there CAN'T be diversity in belief. Only what the apostles taught from the beginning is truth; other teachings are anathema. That Gospel is the Catholic Church's.

It's quite plain to see that the Church is One; others only pretenders. You must decide on WHICH One-- It's the Will of God. Then you must center all your worship in that faith ONLY. No free-lance worship pleases Jesus Christ. Their diverse and opposed doctrines outside the fold deprive sinners of all the grace in His sacraments. That's self-destructive. What kind of ''body of all believers'' can be self- destuctive and yet the Body of Christ? It's an absurd idea.

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

Emerald,
you picked up a suspect hymnal. There's no relation between its song and the Missal of the Holy Mass. So, you're over the top here.

Not to say everyone must approve bad verses; I hope no one does. It just seems your greatest thrill is scourging the Novus Ordo Missal these days. Go on; gloat over one word in that banal hymn book. This has no bearing upon the faith of Catholics and the holiness of our Eucharistic liturgy. We all know what the mystery of Transubstantiation is; we don't need the definition from a ''trad.''

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

Sometimes it seems like you post form letters, Gene.

I can't even understand what your complaint is. Something about trads and gloating and scourging and stuff. I can't even figure it out.

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

"Emerald, you picked up a suspect hymnal."

The missal I picked up was published by the organization responsible for supplying two thirds of the missals used in Catholic Churches in the United States today.

In other words, chances are good I picked up your missal.

So if you're correct, then most of the missals are suspect. By your own admission.

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

Emerald-- On this thread please note that there is a "Michael" and myself "Michael G"., I suspect you are referring to my post, so please make sure you don't perpetually condemn the wrong Michael. (not that you seem to be the condemning type lol)

So Please clarify Which Michael you are responding too. Actually make sure you are not blending posts to arrive at your confused response.

You wrote: "I recently ** horked** a missal from a local Novus Ordo parish."

This word was not in my New Order dictionary-Is Horked another way to say that you STOLE a Missal from a Church? please remember to do your confessions before you can receive Communion again.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 16, 2005.

It was your post, Michael G.

"please remember to do your confessions before you can receive Communion again."

No.

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

"Actually make sure you are not blending posts to arrive at your confused response."

It isn't confused in the least, and you know it. I addressed you straight up and to the point. You said these things:

"The **Church** IS inclusive to ALL that Believe in Jesus Christ and is NOT Exclusive to Catholics."

In other words, there's salvation outside the Church... all you have to do to pull this off is to widen the definition of Church, and wallah, those outside it are suddenly inside it. I pointed out an example of how your idea was already to be found in a hmynal used by over two thirds of the Catholic Churches in the United States. I said I could show how these ideas have been roundly condemned by the Church, and I can.

Then you said this:

"I believe that anyone who gets upset and states that no Sacred Dogma can Never Ever be changed or modified shows strong faith in the Church but little to No faith in the Holy Spirit doing his job the way he knows it needs to be revealed to man."

In other words, dogma can change according to the whims to the spirit. But as everyone knows, the idea of changing dogma is condemned by the Church, which can be shown. I can shwo it.

It was anything but confused response, Michael G.

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

Emerald-- I view your response as the same type of fearful responses I see from some Protestant denominations. Everyone is afraid that they will have to give up their own beliefs and traditions and fear to acknowledge that they have the same goals of salvation through Jesus Christ. Afterall each one has the Only road that leads to the Town Square right? However you have read far more into my writings then what is actually there.

The Issue of Dogmas being written in a manner that can never be changed is unrealistic, if this was so then Church documents would fit in a small 3 ring binder because the Holy Spirit would have established all that is to be revealed at the very start. But judging from the number of documents accumulated over the past few thousand years I suspect more revelations will continue to unfold.

Or are you convinced that the Holy Spirit stopped revealing things Prior to the start of Vatican 2?

you write: "Ian or Leslie or anyone else here has a choice right now. They can either hold fast to the doctrine and commands of Christ,"

I would hope that ALL followers of Christ will hold to his commands I don't believe simply having faith is the sure ticket into heaven, and surely I have no intentions on trying to shake anyones faith, if that was this case I would point out that since the Trads Churches are not recognized by Rome as TC had mentioned in a different forum, that would mean to me at least that they are NOT in communion with the Catholic Church and as such have lost their salvation because they are "Outside of the Church-NO Salvation" Wouldn't this be a correct statement? I mean sure you can call a dog a cat but it is still a dog.

But since we are on the subject of the Faithful. I was wondering If someone says that Satan has taken over the Church, is it more faithful to Run and Start your own church because surely The Holy Spirit and the Guardian Angels are defenseless or Is it more Faithful to Stay in the One True Church Knowing that the Holy Spirit and the Guardian Angels will drive out the bad and Restore it to the Goodness that Jesus Expects? Hmmm I wonder if this could be one of those test in TRUE Faith? Eugene which do you believe is a sign of the True Faithful? Emerald?

Now Emerald, Eugene-- What IF Jesus Walked up to each of you and said WHY do you want to continue to see me Church Split? Why do YOU Believe that Traditions are of greater importance then tying to bring my Sheep back into the fold? Do they believe in me any less then you do?

Well afterall it is the "Universal" Church--code named "Catholic" Church, We use Catholic in public until we know if we want to include those "Other people" in Our Universal Church. you know the "P" people.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 16, 2005.

Mr Chavez"

I kept my promise for you, and I certainly will offer today's rosary for your mother.

You made a good point about St. Paul. God took a zealot and let him keep his zeal, but turned it in another direction. Mr. Chavez, both you and I are zealots with a different approach but I will pray to God for the right direction. Will you do the same? Wherever it leads.

I have never been proud Mr. Chavez. Maybe a bit smug sometimes, but never proud.

I will offer my communion for you at the eastern rite church this morning.

God bless you sir.

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

goodness me! this thread has moved on apace! and i have learned a new word - "hork"!

i am left wondering whether anyone feels that i owe them a response to anything. if so, pls say so and i'll get researching.

imho, there are 2 ideas here which i crudely summarise as follows:

1. EENS is but a specialise case of Mortal Sin. it is not enough that one commits the act of being outside the Mystical Body, but one must know that this act is sinful and consent to it.

2. Florence and VII are consistent. we just need to look at the history and the context.

there was also a very kind offer, not made to me but to Michael G, viz "If you want to get into detail, theologically, as to why you can't possibly be correct about the idea you put forward, let me know and we will hash it out charitably. Promise."

i'd personally like to hear more about each of these, even if only in snippet or summary form.

finally, for anyone interested, here's St Pius X's Oath against Modernism: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

EVERY word is worth reading.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 16, 2005.

GOOD GRIEF.

Eugene..is it impossible for you to admit in any way, shape or form that there ARE things going on within the Church which ARE grossly WRONG? One doesn't have to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to look around and say "YES"...this and that are WRONG. Plain and simple. On cannot simply cover one's eyes and pretend that there is no LEGITIMATE basis for concern when Emerald (or anyone else) presents lyrics such as those from a Catholic hymnal. There are LEGITIMATE concerns when someone posts that in their Diocese, the Latin Mass is not permitted to be said despite Pope John Paul II saying that it should be offered freely to those who desire it.

The Latin Mass IS an approved Mass. There is nothing irregular about it. Not a thing. There is NOTHING in the missal which could be construed in any fashion as heresy. There is NOTHING said or done at the Latin Mass which could lead any Catholic into error.

Once again, I will say that the INTERPRETATION of Vatican II has led many people to do and say things which are quite disturbing and definetly do NOT follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. One CANNOT permit a hymn such as the one Emerald evidenced to be included in a CATHOLIC liturgy. Just the fact that it's THERE says there is a problem.

To dismiss that there IS a problem, and merely attack Emerald as a nit-picky "Trad" is not productive.

Should Catholics be MORE concerned about being so attracive to non- Catholics, to draw them into the fullness of truth, that in the process the very fullness of truth is eroded?

What good does it do to invite hungry people to a banquet when while you are out in the streets looking for the homeless there are mice inside the storeroom eating away at the food?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 16, 2005.

Emerald;

You did someone a favor by horking that missal. One less heretical song for someone to sing.

The word Christian is bandied about to include other than Catholics. If anyone does not believe in the Real Presence he is not a Christian. That includes so called Catholics that receive every Sunday. Seventy percent of "Catholics" do not believe in the Real Presence, including about fifty perent of priests.

Nope! No belief... no Christian.

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

So much to address. Still getting ready for Mass this AM. At least a look at:

''I pointed out an example of how your idea was already to be found in a hmynal used by over two thirds of the Catholic Churches in the United States,'' (Emerald replies to Michael G.)

Two thirds of Catholic Churches do not subscribe to Michael's belief you've ''pointed out,'' Emmie. None of us do. You suggest it's being taught; but a single word in that hynmnal is no teaching. It may be an amateur song-writer did that poor writing, untenable under the Church's exegesis. But it isn't what you imply.

You still did one good work, though. Michael must be told the truth, you've sent him a message. There IS no salvation to avail us without the Catholic Church. No outside sect passes on to the world Christ's exact Holy Gospel. Paul stated in Galatians: Outside the apostle's Church any gospel taught is anathema.

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

Thank you, John Smith,
Yes, we'll pray for the right direction, God's counsel. We must see the truth; not our personal intuitions. And we mustn't despair. Remain optimistic, even when we're worried. Think a little: Jesus was calm all the while His cousin John the Baptist was rotting in Herod's cistern. Was Jesus unaware? Not likely; He was well aware of John's sufferings, and his coming martyrdom. But He was serene, finishing the things HE had to do before His own hour arrived. He gave the Church this loving example. We must imitate Christ always.

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

Dear Michael G: With all due respect; We realise the way isn't easy for you. Keep trying to understand, Jesus is with His Holy Church. If you merely believe He loves anyone who believes in Him, you're right. Do you think a Catholic must reject all those Bible Christians, Catholic-bashers or whatever? And tell them, ''Depart, you evil-doers, into the everlasting flames--?''

No-- We must assist in their rehabilitation; their full confession of faith. We don't condemn these brethren; we only reject any deception taught in their assemblies. One of which is, ''We are Christ's body of believers, and the Catholic Church has no power to marginalize other Christians.''

They're mistaken. We want them to return to the fold. We believe they are as lost sheep; and till now they don't care. ------WE CARE. They can learn from your example. It's never too late to come home.

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

When fanatics give us the low-down, this is what we get: ''--so called Catholics that receive every Sunday. Seventy percent of "Catholics" do not believe in the Real Presence, including about fifty perent of priests.''

That kind of slur against not only the faithful, but God's priests is unforgiveable. You're going beyond the pale. Thanks for placing the scare-quotes around the title, Catholics. You're including me in that. Go back to your beads, Saint.

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

Hello Ian!

I totally concur with your concepts about EENS being but a specialized case of mortal sin, and about Florence and Vatican II being thereby reconciled. (Vatican II is actually more conservative on this subject than some appear to think.) I find your thoughts helpful.

Blessings to you, my friend.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 16, 2005.

1. Good grief, is it possible that things are so bad that most Catholics don't believe in Christ truly present in the Blessed Sacrament? Don't folk still genuflect, and perhaps wonder what that means? That would be truly scary.

2. The hymnbook purloined sounds truly *awful*. But is that *because* of the holy Mass according to Novus Ordo usage, or simply a demonstration of thoughtless purchasing on the part of the priest?

3. Yes, Ian, I do need to read the St. Pius X Oath against Modernism! We cannot but thank God for the leadership of that holy pope, who also gave us the great blessing of encouraging daily Communion.

4. Emerald, I am a Tolkien fan also. In his letters, his Catholic faith shines through so beautifully. BTW, thanks for the link (a week or two ago) to your home parish, that sounds wonderful. How fortunate you are to live close to it.

5. Michael G., I have to think more about your words. Thanks for the thoughts.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 16, 2005.

me in that. Go back to your beads, Saint

Well Mr. Chavez, that niceness did not last long. You did get out the tar and feathers, but I am not going to respond in kind.

Maybe it is the beads but I can't get angry at you. I think that I understand where you are coming from.

God bless you and Mom.

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

"Emerald-- I view your response as the same type of fearful responses I see from some Protestant denominations. Everyone is afraid that they will have to give up their own beliefs and traditions and fear to acknowledge that they have the same goals of salvation through Jesus Christ."

Well let me try to answer everything as clearly as I possibly can. First up, I already know that I don't have to give up my beliefs and traditions. But to put it yet more strongly: I do not have the option of giving up my Catholic Faith. These beliefs are the truth, and there is no alternative truth to be had. Anywhere. None. If not this, then, nothing.

Fear would be the position of someone who stands to lose something, to have something wrested from them. That fear I don't have, because I know well that only I can decide whether I keep the Faith of let it slide. If I let it slide, who could I blame but myself? There is really absolutely nothing to fear. In fact, it is not a matter of being on the defensive at all. The excercise of the Faith in many respects can seen portrayed as going on the offensive. In the words of one saint, you fight with one hand and build with the other.

But here, look at this: "...and fear to acknowledge that they have the same goals of salvation through Jesus Christ."

I have absolutely no qualms about coming right out in the open and denying this. Catholics and other Faiths most certainly do not have the same goals. They might say they do, but it cannot be. Not if they deny Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Not if they fail to honor His mother, just to mention the two greatest differences and none of the others.

Now have I failed devotion to His mother in the past? Yes I have. Failed devotion to the Christ in the Blessed Sacrament? That too. Am I saying that those fail Him and His mother now, that they are hopeless and must ever stay out and away from the fold? No. Are they welcome inside the fold? By all means.

But not while they yet deny these and other things. It cannot be. If that situation were to remain as it were, then in that sense, I categorically deny that our goals and theirs are the same. Be patient with them as they struggle to understand? Sure, this would be a charitable requirement. Didn't I or others need that kind of love and patience accorded to us in the past? We did.

But those things do not equate to what I believe you are talking about when you suggest your brand of seeking and finding Ut Unum Sint unity. What you are alluding to is a unity whereby everyone makes mutual concessions in order to arrive at consensus. A unity founded in concesus and compromise. A democratic unity, or, a unity of least common denominators.

But Catholicism is not made up of such principles. It in fact is violently opposed to such principles such that it absolutely cannot coexist with them, because Catholicism is founded upon Divine Revelation and therefore it is theocratic, it is ultrareal and it is transcendant; it cannot be concensual or democratic or compromising or "why can't we just all get along".

My stance and attitude is pretty simple: I'm not going to lose the Faith. I won't budge an inch. An approach by someone in the name of compromise, concensus, and mutual understanding is actually an invite to go on the offensive. I make no apologies for being territorial, as it were. There's too much at stake in the things of the Faith... life and death. Heaven, Hell. We got one life to live, and our eternity rests upon decisions made here as to which place we end up. Mercy is in this life, so, we believe accordingly; we act accordingly.

"Afterall each one has the Only road that leads to the Town Square right? However you have read far more into my writings then what is actually there."

I don't think I have read too much into them. Perhaps it is summed up as simply as this: the popular perception is that there are many roads to Heaven. There isn't. There may be many roads to the Catholic Church, that much I will readily admit. But there is only one road to Heaven, and that is the Catholic Church. Many paths to Heaven? No. Many paths to the door of the Church? Yes. I'm of one mind, and you are of the other.

"The Issue of Dogmas being written in a manner that can never be changed is unrealistic, if this was so then Church documents would fit in a small 3 ring binder because the Holy Spirit would have established all that is to be revealed at the very start."

That's exactly what did happen. He established all that is to be revealed at the very start. It's called The deposit of Faith. That's exactly what the Church teaches... that all Divine Revelation ceased upon the death of St. John, writer of the book of the Apocalypse.

Forget the three ring binder. It's not even necessary; you can fit the Faith on a single sheet of paper. We recite the creed every Sunday at Mass.

"But judging from the number of documents accumulated over the past few thousand years I suspect more revelations will continue to unfold."

You've got to undestand that it is not new revelations which are the substrate of those accumulated documents. Those documents are dealing in an attempt to retain and preserve revelations, to preserve the Deposit of Faith which had been once given, which was to be safeguarded, and passed on fully pure and fully intact. To preserve that which is, not to create that which was not.

"Or are you convinced that the Holy Spirit stopped revealing things Prior to the start of Vatican 2?"

Even more than that! I'm convinced he didn't reveal new things before Vatican II either. Nor before or after the year 1500 or the year 700 for that matter, because the Catholic Church teaches that the Deposit of Faith was sealed and was to be preserved all the way to Christ's return, a time in which He "pondered" in advance, "will I find Faith left?". He said, don't believe anyone preaching a new Gospel. Don't, He said.

"you write: "Ian or Leslie or anyone else here has a choice right now. They can either hold fast to the doctrine and commands of Christ," I would hope that ALL followers of Christ will hold to his commands I don't believe simply having faith is the sure ticket into heaven..."

One of the most common, and quite frankly the least thought-through, assumption people make is that a traditional Catholic thinks he "has it made". Absolutely nothing can be further from the truth. The traditional Catholics know full well what I'm talking about. There is perhaps no group of people on the face of this earth that knows better than the traditional Catholics that there is no such thing as a sure ticket to heaven. In fact, it is a chief gripe of the traditional Catholic that most everyone else out there is under the falsely assumption that there can be such a vain golden ticket mentality.

So my response to this is simple: if anyone ever thought that because of anything I or the others have said, that we think we have it made, have a golden ticket, or have a back-stage pass? They're wrong.

"...and surely I have no intentions on trying to shake anyones faith, if that was this case I would point out that since the Trads Churches are not recognized by Rome as TC had mentioned in a different forum, that would mean to me at least that they are NOT in communion with the Catholic Church and as such have lost their salvation because they are "Outside of the Church-NO Salvation" Wouldn't this be a correct statement? I mean sure you can call a dog a cat but it is still a dog."

This can be answered by examining exactly what it means to be in Communion with the Catholic Church. If one posits that accepting a "new theology" and accepting revolutionary ideas are required in order to in Communion with the Catholic Church, then they are incorrect. It is certainly not the case that if a Catholic doesn't accept ideas which are foreign to the Catholicism of the saints that they are out of Communion with the Church. But it most certainly is the modernist strategy to make it appear that way: they get inside, feiging goodness and holiness, pretending orthodoxy, and then they get to work dismantling the principle of Faith. They undermine and denegrate those who oppose them, mischaracterize them as malicious people, and attempt to induct those of weaker faith and understanding into their revolutionary principles and ideas. They attempt to change what Catholicism means, and then portray those who really do hold and practice the Faith as foreign to their new definitions of the Catholic Faith. Based upon to disparity they have created, try to oust the truly faithful.

In short, they want to remake the Church in their own humanist image, and to force into a desert exile the true Israel, the traditional Catholic Faith.

"But since we are on the subject of the Faithful. I was wondering If someone says that Satan has taken over the Church, is it more faithful to Run and Start your own church because surely The Holy Spirit and the Guardian Angels are defenseless or Is it more Faithful to Stay in the One True Church Knowing that the Holy Spirit and the Guardian Angels will drive out the bad and Restore it to the Goodness that Jesus Expects?"

Of course, anyone who runs off and starts their own Church has done nothing but leave the Catholic Church. Without a doubt; end of story. It is impossible. Yes, the angels will ultimately assist in driving out the pestilence from among us. The job of the faithful Catholic ground forces is to slug it out until the air support shows, to draw an analogy.

"Hmmm I wonder if this could be one of those test in TRUE Faith?"

Of course it is. That's exactly what this whole nightmare is all about. It is the trial by fire and purification of the faithful. It is a death on the Cross. There's the third day to look forward to when it seems that all is lost.

"Eugene which do you believe is a sign of the True Faithful? Emerald?"

The willingness to die of a Cross, of course. "In hoc signo vinces".

"Now Emerald, Eugene-- What IF Jesus Walked up to each of you and said WHY do you want to continue to see me Church Split? Why do YOU Believe that Traditions are of greater importance then tying to bring my Sheep back into the fold? Do they believe in me any less then you do?"

Jesus knows I don't want to see it split. I know that it will remain split until people are unified in the truth. If people do not believe the same things, there cannot be unity. You can't have unity without truth. That's why I said earlier that peace is defined as the tranquility of right order. Theologically, that's what peace means. Our lady of Fatima was talking about the traquility of right order when she spoke of peace. When Catholics believe in unison again, when they know and understand and practice rightly their Faith again, and work towards their true and final end in Heaven, then there will be peace. When the truth of God is believed and practiced, then there will be peace and unity. It cannot exist otherwise. It cannot ever consist of the false and superficial unity of a loosely principled democratic affiliation, whereby unity is defined as people merely putting up with each other long enough for everyone to believe and do whatever the heck the feel like.

"Well afterall it is the "Universal" Church--code named "Catholic" Church, We use Catholic in public until we know if we want to include those "Other people" in Our Universal Church. you know the "P" people."

Of course I want the Protestants to come into the Church. But we can't possibly include them until we have unity in truth, and believe the same things. We Catholics can't possibly let go of our beliefs, and we cannot possibly believe their beliefs. So they're going to have to either accept or reject ours. That's the only offer on the table: Catholicism. No compromise.

Now look, this doesn't mean I'm not willing to talk to Protestants, or don't want to love them, or don't treat them nicely, or whatever. I spent four years in high school as the only Catholic among hundreds of Protestants. They come to my kitchen table and talk. When the Mormons come, I let them inside the house. I offer them coffee. Just kidding. This whole assumption of traditional Catholics as rebuffers of their fellow human beings is completely contrived.

But rebuff their false ideas? Absolutely. Nicely, charitably, yes. But rebuff their false ideas we must: it is the job of every Catholic to defend the faith. I'm willing to be more than ecumenical if ecumenical means to be patient with someone while they seek truth. If someone wants to lash out and falsely accuse traditional Catholics, then fine, let them. No biggie. If I have to put up with people's general disrepect for religion, their general incredulity towards the Faith, their mocking, fine... no problem.

But if someone, whether from the inside of the Church or from without, says that I must forgo my Catholic truth and my Catholic principles, well then, analogically speaking, the blade flashes out, the tip touches the throat and nobody moves until the threat is retracted. That's my stance: defense of the principles of the Catholic Faith. No compromise, and hold the Faith whole and undefiled.

I realize I'm posting what might be construed as over the top or pushing the envelope, but there's no fear here and certainly no apologies; just being upfront. Hope you can take it for what it is and not anything a personal.

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

Emerald;

Very beautifully said. Unfortunately they never, or maybe never will get it.

They have been offering Protestants "bargainn basement Catholicism for a long time now. The net result is Catholics becoming indifferent (if they wanted protestantism they would go to their church and get the real thing).

Too long has the Vatican and prelaates been kissing up to the Protestants,, Jews, Moslems, etc.

The result is while many of those hated the Caatholic church, they at least had a grudging respect.

Now we are jus nothing but the butt of jokes etc. I am going to get it from those who think they are defending the Church, but they are the worst enemies, by accepting the horrendous behavior of bishops, priests, yes, though difficult to say, even the pope.

Loyalty is great but blind loyalty is disaster.

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

Dear Emerald:
You aren't pushing any envelope today. But you're slashing and burning incoherently; as if someone were paying you by the word. Unless you really want our eyes to glaze over, keep posting 8,000 word Jeremiads.

For myself, I've passed over this last one. Don't take this as an affront to your dignity. I really want to discuss with you when our exchanges give glory to God.

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

"...keep posting 8,000 word Jeremiads."

Thanks for the encouragement, Gene. I will.

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

I know. You're an anthologist and need encouragement. Like Niagara Falls needs encouragement. Lol!

I'll have to pass your longer flights of fancy, I'm sorry.

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

MIchael:

I believe this may aid you in your quest.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

"The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church."

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 17, 2005.

Emerald,

You wrote: "I realize I'm posting what might be construed as over the top or pushing the envelope, but there's no fear here and certainly no apologies; just being upfront. Hope you can take it for what it is and not anything a personal."

NO I don't take such post as personal, As far as being over the top well you started off that way by reading Far Far more into one specific issue I was commenting to Ian on. As you did on the I-Robot thread. But your comments are typical and expected from people who focus on a single concern all the while the greater concerns are being built up around you.

Actually if you knew me personally aside from seeing that I am incredibly great looking, awesome personality, charming and intellegent! Oh and modest, you would also find out that I am very very far from a modernist or even a humanist and some would say human as well!

You see while I fully agree with you on the internal issues these are only a part of the Long Term problem if it is not dealt with on multiple fronts. And it is NOT just the Catholic Church but ALL of the Christian and non-Christian Churches, However many of these have already given way and believe it or not the Vatican and the Pope have been working to counter many of these issues for years, but as you know it is difficult to extract some the deceivers until the show they show their faces.

What you Have to look at with an objective mind is not only protecting the Church from the inside but also preparing to protect it from the external forces which will be coming in greater forces against all of the Churches. And if You or anyone else believes that the individual Churches will be able to over come these forces by themselves you are gravely mistaken. Because unless their is reasonable unity between these different branches with the Catholic Church. Each will stand back gloat and say nothing while those forces remove these Churchs and when it comes our turn who will stand with us to oppose it. Even if they attacked the CC first at this point how many denominations would stand by and Cheer. You saw a small example of it a few years ago. Remember the Catholic Church is the Crown Jewel and the Hardest to bring down. Please remember the each person has different gifts of the Spirit.

But just so you know I do fight hard on multiple fronts. example a few years ago I meet a priest and immediately my "instincts" opposed him greatly. I did not think much more on it until he came in to run our parish about 5 months ago. After a short period I told my wife that he does NOT have any Spirits reflective of Christ, in a meeting with this person my "minds eye" showed me his deception and before the meeting was over he slipped up and his deception Was revealed while I did not say anything he tried to cover it up which merely further confirmed what I had come to know. Now about a month ago in the bulletin he announced he was replacing the hymnals with the ones you referred to. He has been met with opposition on these and as of now we still have both but the real test will be once the misslette expires in a few weeks whether they are replaced but in the mean time efforts Are being made to get these pieces of crap out of the church for good. Oh and that goes for him as well.

So hopefully you can see I am not All that bad and I am far from ignorant of the truth about the different fronts some of these battles will be fought. So hopefully you will better be able to see the need for everyone to try and work together more so that we are not used to divide and conquer each other because the last one standing will be destroyed at a much easier level.

As far as the Holy Spirit not being in the Church or further revealing anything I totally and completely disagree with you on that point. As far as people getting all up in arms over terminology and interpetations or translations. Remember the Traditional Catholics can't call themselves Old Catholics, because the Old Catholics spilt from the Church after Vatican 1-- because of the papal infalliabilty clause. (just in case you forgot)

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 17, 2005.

The traditional minded people on this forum have been kicked around more than the footballs at yesterday’s games. I am particularly sorry for Emerald. He puts so much thought and sincere belief in his posts, (especially that last long one). It was beautifully written but wasted on closed minds. Lesley, Ian and others get the same sarcasm..

Here is my own experience; I tell How I see immodestly dressed people going to mass.

Instead of, “That is a shame” I get

“Keep your eyes off the babes, your nose out of the collection plate, and remember it’s still the mass, and get yourself a pair of dark glasses”

Next complaint; Rock music by a four piece band playing today’s arrangement of the Gregorian Chant.

I can anticipate the answer.

“Who made you a music expert. Get yourself some ear plugs, and remember it is still the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary”.

How can a poor shmoe compete with that modern day Summa? We are licked before we start.

As long as the current Augustine is around with those kind of answers it seems hopeless.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.

"1. EENS is but a specialise case of Mortal Sin. it is not enough that one commits the act of being outside the Mystical Body, but one must know that this act is sinful and consent to it.

2. Florence and VII are consistent. we just need to look at the history and the context. "

having given this some more thought and research, i am now at a loss to see any truth in either of these propositions.

look even at modern discourses, such as Dominus Iesus which, for thesis #1 purposes, does not connect EENS and sin. so Luther may have committed the sin of heresy, but that charge cannot be levelled at current heretics born into heretical traditions (as the CCC clealry implies). further, Luther "forfeited" his salvation outright for so long as he remained away from the Church. the same applies to every non-Catholic, just as it applied to everyone that was not on Noah's Ark.

notably, DI argues that there is no Salvation outside the Church (s.j. to exceptions), but it also foresees salvation for those who, without knowing it, are in the Church. it never mentions sin. how can sin be the underlying basis of EENS if it is not mention in Florence or any of the orthodox teachings, or in DI.

once #1 falls, so does #2.

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

Mr Chavez;

Your confidence in the future of the church is inded well founded. What do I mean?

When one writes to the Vatican with complaints from schmatics as we are labeled, we are assured that the pope is out working hard, very hard, shoring up the future of the Catholic Church.

How is that, we ask.

"Well right now he is in Toronto gathering up a quarter million of faithful Catholic youths for the future of the Church". A few more trips like that and we have a couple million solid catholics. Then its off to foreign lands assuring all peoples that they need not convert,. Secretly he knows that they ae "Somehow in the Catholic church". That kind of stealthy ecumanism has made more "Catholics' than you can possibly know.

So indeed you aare correct Mr. Chavez "Not to worry"

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.

I want to apologize for the cutting lampoon of my last two posts. I just wanted to give Mr. Chavez a taste of his responses to traditionals. I think that he realizes what he is doing but he just does not give a darn.

I would like to return to factual and serious discussions.

I wish Mr. Chavez would do the same.( I know that he will not as his style is established for a long time and not just two posts)

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.

Here is a sample right off the press of a cheap "Eugenism", parting shot. The man just can not help himself.

You bluebloods of the faith, elitists all, may not believe this truth; but Catholic bishops DO-- and they are the authority. So-- Go polish your sword with crumbs, John; you too Emerald. Eat your cakes and ale and forget your careers in theology

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.

Dear John,
I don't object to your silly tone. In fact it's preferrable to your all-knowing, indubitable attitude. Also, it's briefer than Emerald's usual farrago, and more intelligible than Ian's.

If only a word of what you're spouting here were true. Our Holy Father and ''quarter million of faithful Catholic youths for the future of the Church. A few more trips & we have a couple million solid Catholics. Then it's off to foreign lands assuring all peoples that they need not convert. Secretly he knows that they are somehow in the Catholic Church.''

This is not funny; it's not cute or flippant. It verges on schism; for which you show a decided taste. I'm sorry! You lied once more.

''That kind of stealthy ecumanism has made more "Catholics' than you can possibly know.'' But you don't trust in the Holy Spirit, obviously, or you wouldn't say that. I find your faith stealthier by the day here. It disappeared as soon as this discussion started.

But, what do you know! Mine is out in the open. I believe in the powers of the Holy Spirit. I support ecumenism, and the Pope and his own faith. Guess what? There is NOBODY in this forum whose FAITH is greater than mine.

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

--

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

John: ''right off the press a cheap Eugenism, parting shot.''.

I'm not cheap. I've quoted from Shakespeare. You think that's cheap? Surely, a parting shot. It's not a good idea to keep on humoring you. If you had some credibility, perhaps. But you lost that; I'm sorry.

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

Mr Chavez; Stuff this in your pipe. Of course it does not match up to Bishop Sheehan, but it is the best that I can do. They are only from the dead pope society.

the centuries have defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is small reference of their teachings on the matter:

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ... [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "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." (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

"He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes "in concrete," so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved..."

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.

No one here has claimed or even suggested there is salvation offered any soul, no matter how upright, how repentent, or how religious --outside the Catholic Church.

You keep setting up this straw dog, as if we had to defend it. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church!

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

Ian-- So much for the moderation I mentioned at the start of this thread. Sorry!

There comes a time when practical application MUST be Applied. 1st you just saw an example of why people will not come into the Catholic Church- So with practical application you must go back to the basic truths. What did Jesus say through out his ministry.

"JN 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

JN 6:41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven'?"

JN 6:43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died."

So a Christian who rejects the Catholic Church is NOT rejecting God or Jesus or even the Holy Spirit they are simply rejecting the man made part of the institution. The Gospels are still preached in other Christian Churches so the truth is still there. Does a single statement about Peter nullify all of the Truths made. I can not see how this could be possible. Remember Jesus cames for the Jews but left with the Gentiles because they saw and they believed in what he had told them.

The Catholic Church knows this that is why you won't see firmly locked statements regarding outside of the Church, because what is the Church?

When people become too legalistic on Church laws and rules then they are not better then the Pharisees of days gone by. What is important is that people know and believe these truths That there is but one God the Creator (Father), Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to redeem each of us who believe, and that The Holy Spirit is and will continue to work through and with all of us to open our hearts and minds to the first 2 truths. These ARE the Eternal Truths!

I don't recall if this was a Muslim saying or part of their Quran But it struck me with such an incredible amount of truth to it. (approx.) "God said if you open the door and take even a small step to me I will take many to you, and if you take even another small step I will take many many more to you until we come together and I reveal all things to you".

If you wonder about how people who persue perfection though reincarnation can be justified let me know but be ready to see some serious rantings from others. But I hope this gives you or reaffirms some of your thoughts on this topic.

Thank You.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 17, 2005.

So a Christian who rejects the Catholic Church is NOT rejecting God or Jesus or even the Holy Spirit they are simply rejecting the man made part of the institution.

There is no ''man made'' part, Michael. It isn't just an institution. --It's a NEW COVENANT; to fulfill the Old Covenant in Christ. The seal of the New Covenant is Christ's blood; and His people keep the Covenant by partaking of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. ''The Gospels are still preached in other Christian Churches so the truth is still there;''-- Not so. Very clearly many errors are taught, some even teach Christ isn't God. Some teach we'll all BE gods. And ALL the diverse sects are ministered by fallible men; some of them charlatans. Not ONE comes succeeding the holy apostles. What bare truth survives in a few churches is a remnant of Catholic doctrine they have not renounced.

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

----

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

As always expected an opposing commentary from Eugene.

So Eugene please answer this question for me. Jesus came for the Jewish people and they Rejected him correct? Now If they had NOT rejected him.

What would the Name of his Church be?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 17, 2005.

So a Christian who rejects the Catholic Church is NOT rejecting God or Jesus or even the Holy Spirit they are simply rejecting the man made part of the institution.

Eugene, I was always under the impression that Catholics believed quite the opposite. I make reference to the NT when the Lord says ," If they reject you they reject me." Isn't this particular verse (can't remember the reference offhand sorry) which Catholics point to for weight in the doctrine of Papal (and magisterium) authority and infallibility?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 17, 2005.

Anything which isn't true must meet opposition from the faithful, Michael. It's nothing personal. I must caution you to meditate deeply about what you truly believe; allow yourself to declare only what you know is certain. All of us must act this way; myself too.

You pose a hypothetical question-- what if the Jews had accepted their Messiah?

The name of Christ's Church would be the same: Catholic Church. All that means is Universal. You should read chapters 10 and 11 of Romans as to reasons for Israel's delay in believing. In order for you and me, Gentiles to be sanctified in Christ, they are blinded for a time. Nevertheless, all Jews aren't going to be saved, nor all Gentiles. Christ is rejected every day by those who aren't Jewish, and the Church is still One Church and Universal and everlasting; in other words, Catholic.

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

Hello Ian!

I'm curious what you are thinking after reading Dominus Iesus. From what I've read of it, it just seems to be a re-iteration of Vatican II.

To me, if Florence and Vatican II are irreconcilable, there are a few choices:

1. Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church--not to mention virtually the entire current episcopate--are all in deadly heresy. Frankly, I think that's crazy. To accuse the authors of Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae with being outside the Catholic Fold would seem to me but a devil's lie to entrap the overly-intelligent. And to me that would smack of rejecting Christ's promise to Peter, that the gates of hades would never prevail: at least on traditional Catholic terms.

2. Or, perhaps all "ecumenical" councils since 787 A.D. are, well, *not* ecumenical. This is argued not only by Luis Bermejo, S.J. (with an "imprimi potest" from his superior provincial no less!), but also by the sober and learned Louis Bouyer in his magisterial work, "The Church of God", in which he argues that all the councils since the first seven have not been completely ecumenical because they lacked either East or West. (Mind you, Bouyer does accept the truths taught by all these "synods" of West and East, including Trent, etc. But he argues that each half of the Church should accept the synods of the other half, to make everything complete and whole. Bermejo, on the other hand, simply rejects the concept of infallibility.) Now, if this were true, part of me says, "Why not just become Orthodox, then?" They were addressed as "Church" by Rome even before Vatican II, and certainly are recognized as "Church" since then. But the constant infighting of the Orthodox--arguments over jurisdiction, etc.--make me think the Office of Peter really *is* necessary for the well-being of the Church! Yet I smile at Bouyer's suggestion. It would be nice to hear more from the Eastern part of God's Family.

3. Or, we could agree with Michael G. and just dump the whole EENS thing, maybe even become Protestant. I see the kind of attraction in that (having been a Lutheran most of my life). Believe me, Ian, there *are* holy and devout protestant Christians out there, no doubt about it. As holy and obedient (by their own lights) as any Catholic canonized saint. I mean, get real--someone like John Wesley was neither evil nor lacking in great heavenly graces. He invented no heresy and quickened the Christian faith of a nation as he preached without ceasing in the fields of 18th century England.

Yet (and maybe Michael G. would agree) I think we can see the need for a "core", a "center". In all honesty, I can think of no other center than Rome, or at least the Office of Peter, wherever that may be found (even in Avignon). Granted these *are* difficult and challenging days in the Catholic Church, modernism infiltrating certain seminaries and all. But at least the Catholic Church has a *firm magisterium* and *sound tradition* and knows what it stands for.

And if Catholic people need converting to the faith of their grandparents--well, so be it.

But for myself, I believe the Letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Cushing, and Vatican II, are a most helpful (magisterium) interpretation of EENS.

Cordially, Michael

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 17, 2005.

Michael G

the Church is more than a collection of individuals. it is the Mystical Body of Christ. read Mystici Corporis Christi or Satis Cognitum.

you need to be very careful with the Bible. remember Jesus said this: “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.” - Matthew 5:29-30.

seriouly, MCC and SC helped me understand what is meant by "Church". i might even say that Matthew 5:29-30 actually applies literally to the Mystical Body of Christ.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Michael

1,2 and 3 have occurred to me. it is one thing to become sceptical about the modern Church. it is another thing to know where that leads. i would add to your list:

4: it's all a big con. go and get drunk. 5: become an Ebionite. or a Jew. or a Moslem. or an Old Catholic. 6: even if it's just a form of spiritualism, it forms pretty good habits, so stick with it.

thing is, in all of these cases, don't you lose Mary - in most cases completely? what is life without Mary?

in many, you lose Jesus completely - and you'd also lose the Eucharist. again, the same conclusion applies.

i could give you my thoughts - no more than that - in terms of how i deal with the notion that the Church is moving away from its Sacred Tradition. that would take ages, i have to say, but if this thread keeps going, we might all get to exchange our ideas. i hope so.

imho, one BIG consoling factor, btw, is that the Church has rarely had an easy time. eg The Holy Ghost stuck around throughout the Arian crisis. whilst 90+% of the Bishops supported the heresy. the Divinity of Jesus was at stake then. i think that, if you look at #1 in that light, you might feel somewhat arrogant and/or incredulous, but you can also see that there is hope.

as for Dominus Iesus, i pulled it out just because it is considered "conservative", or so i have been told - but, having read it, i can't see why.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Hi again Ian!

So--where is the living voice? The locus of interpretation for our time? As Newman said, a Divine Revelation implies a trustworthy interpreter, otherwise who can tell what revelation has been given?

Vincent of Lerins only carries one so far, I think.

Or--and this is radical--perhaps God doesn't give a whit about doctrine? But that doesn't sound quite right to me either.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 18, 2005.

BTW, Ian, I am aware of the nearly 60 years in which Arianism vs. Nicea was hanging in the balance. But my impression is that the common people, at least, tended to be orthodox, even if the bishops were confused--that no longer seems quite as certain to me. Peter's chair; the episcopate; the sensus fidelium--what else is there? Unless it's just very loose and free, "The Spirit blows where it wills".

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 18, 2005.

"So--where is the living voice? The locus of interpretation for our time"

on the internet, for starters! and, remember there will be a Papal election soon. remember John XXIII - elected as a safe pair of hands! my goodness, strange things can happen.

".. a Divine Revelation implies a trustworthy interpreter, otherwise who can tell what revelation has been given.."

if you mean Dogma, all Divine Relevantion has been given - it was given 2 millenia ago. the DR on EENS has been written down - it's in Florence and elsewhere. it can be seen in the practice of the Church throughout time, until recently. to interpret this DR, one needs to be able to read and think. simplistic? i'm not sure. take a holistic approach - it becomes clear. then read some of the modern stuff. i have. Dominus Iesus - now you see it, now you don't. at least, that's how it strikes me.

"perhaps God doesn't give a whit about doctrine"

He doesn't? why the Commandments, why the Beatitudes, why the exhortation that we live like He did and give up everything for Him,..?

"But my impression is that the common people, at least, tended to be orthodox, even if the bishops were confused.."

can't deny or verify that. i'll look in my books to see what they say. i'd be slightly surprised though. the Bishops would, surely have told them what to believe? no internet in those days! no Bibles. just sermons.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Michael

the one thing that i realise is that, whilst we have teachings that seem to conflict, VII vs Florence for example, we have never seen the "official attempt" to reconcile the two. if it had nothing to fear, would the Vatican not strike down the SSPX and other dissident groups with a clear explanation - or would that play into the hands of the trads?

..and hwere's the ex cathedra definition on the various "exceptions" to EENS? conspicuous by its absence.

what do you think?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Ian,

we have never seen the "official attempt" to reconcile the two. if it had nothing to fear, would the Vatican not strike down the SSPX and other dissident groups with a clear explanation - or would that play into the hands of the trads?

The church isn't a math workbook. They have imparted to the faithful what to do, and it's our job to DO it. There have always been schismatics in the church, starting with the first apostasy in John 6. Think of it as a sifting process: True Catholics will obey the magesterium, protestants in eyeshades will find some reason to leave the church rather than obey -- following their own interpretations of what is correct rather than the church's. It doesn't matter if they are Lefebvrists or whomever, it's the matter of obedience vs. disobedience that is important. The next time the church issues a command we'll hear a similar falling off of some other group of dissidents. The result will be the same, the church will continue, the splinter groups will fade away.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.

I was surprised many years ago reading some Church history, to see that the Church under the Caesars came through many trials besides persecution; and remained altogether Holy.

Many Christians were martyred for their faith, of course; from the Popes themselves to the faithful rank and file. It's almost a cliche now; about lions in the Colosseum, etc.,

But less well-known are those many members of the Catholic Church (that's what we were) who sinned by obeying the Imperial command to burn incense before the Roman gods. They were not ready to die for the faith. Not every Catholic dared to defy Caesar under pain of torture and atrocities. Later the Church imposed a lot of penance on her own children.

The saints didn't close up shop, did they? By the grace of God the Church prevailed during that most evil time and managed to turn the tide of history. Christ had prophesied the hard times. He said to us all: ''Be not afraid.'' Only, even in today's agreeable civilization, Catholics give way to pessimism. We see some in this forum; deploring this and that; and consumed with fear. They don't only work out their personal salvation in fear and trembling; they want everybody to tremble. They don't trust very much in God, I guess. (And, unless you fear & tremble with them, you're ''in denial.'')

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Mr. Chavez,

You throw the word "schismatics "around very often. Of course you mean the traditionals who truly want to hold on to the faith as it was handed down throughout the ages. What is wrong with that?

Remember that Our Lady of La Salette warned that Rome would lose the faith. She did not say that SSPX or the traditionals would do so.

If Rome hasn't totally lost it yet, they are well on their way unless they change course.

When the Vatican keeps getting into bed with all those heretics under the name of ecumanism, some of that dirt is bound to rub off.

We are only small potatoes compared to Rome.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

You throw the word "schismatics "around very often. Of course you mean the traditionals who truly want to hold on to the faith as it was handed down throughout the ages. What is wrong with that?

No, he most certainly does NOT mean "traditionals". Tradition means *obeying* the church, while the pseudo-traditionalist movement has been EXCOMMUNICATED for *disobedience*. What is "wrong with that" is that according to your pre-vatII pope Eugene, being in schism is a ticket to Hell. Obey the living church, not lust for its history.

Remember that Our Lady of La Salette warned that Rome would lose the faith. She did not say that SSPX or the traditionals would do so

Please post a link to where you think she said that Rome would lose the faith. I don't see that. Also, you should recognize the difference between "Rome" (which is a city) and "the church" or "the Vatican", LOL. Also, she didn't mention the sspx because in 1846 they didn't exist, nor were they worthy of mention. If she wanted to mention a soon-to-be schismatic group she would have mentioned the "old catholics". I don't think she mentioned Hindus either, are you implying she meant Hindus are on the right path?

here IS a quote from the vision:

There are none who go to Mass except a few aged women. The rest work on Sunday all summer; then in the winter, when they know not what to do, they go to Mass only to mock at religion.

During Lent, they go to the meat-market like dogs.

Have you never seen wheat that is spoilt, my children?

Keep in mind this is in 1846, LONG before Vatican II, the novus ordo, etc. The church of the TRIDENTINE rite is what she was referring to! Just in case you didn't get that, let me repeat it for you:

The church of the TRIDENTINE rite is what she was referring to!

Return to the obedience of the True church, John. The church you are looking back at so wistfully was being roundly chastised by the Lady of Salette. That hasn't happened with the Catholic church of today, has it?

Oh, and finally, here is a Link to what she actually said, you might want to correct yourself before falsely claiming Our Lady said things she didn't, that sort of thing can come back to haunt you...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.

Excellent, Frank,
This gent says, ''You throw the word "schismatics "around very often.'' At me; but I've stayed out of that, since I know only what I see here about the schism Of LeFevere. You are better informed, Frank.

I just want to inform Smith, (AKA Ed Richards) that I'm a tradional Catholic. I love the Rosary, Our Blessed Mother, the Holy Faith. When did Smitty see me leave behind our Sacred Tradition?

He wants the Pope ridiculed. He calls the Church ''Rome'' like protestants do; but I call her the Church of the holy apostles. Why am I a modernist and He ''tradional''--? It makes me wonder why he even comes here, a Devil's Advocate; and shills for ''tradition'' of that sort. That isn't tradition, it's sedition.

SSPX has reneged; and Smitty thinks otherwise. He thinks he's for tradition, but he hates the apostolic Church; the one with Peter's keys. He wants those keys handed over to an ant-pope, apparently. Who do you have in mind, Mr. Smith/Edwards ? ? ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Who is Ed Richards? Anyway, here are a few more heretics you can chastise. Since the very early days of Christianity there have been many antichrists. Sacred Scripture contains four references to antichrist (s) as follows: Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. (1 John 2:18) Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. (1 John 2:22) and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. (1 John 4:3) Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Our Lady at La Salette said on September 19, 1846, "Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist . . . The Church will be in eclipse."

Our Lord asks that when he comes back will he find any Faith at all? (Luke 18:8)

Pope Felix III said: "Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."[1]

Pope Leo I said: "He that sees another in error, and endeavors not to correct it. testifies himself to he in error."[2] THIS ONE IS ESPECIALLY FOR MR. CHAVEZ

Pope St. Pius V said: "All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."[3]

Pope St. Pius X said: "All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics."[4]

St. Augustine said: "Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others . . . Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him."[5]

St. Catherine of Siena said: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence."[6]

False Prophets are Loved by the World "Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the False Prophets." (Luke 6:26)

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them." (Matthew 7:15,16)

"When they sin rebuke them in the presence of all, that the rest also may have fear." (1st Timothy 5:20)

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God." (Proverbs 17:15)

Hold fast to Tradition "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thes 2:14) St. Vincent of Lerins said: "When a foulness invades the whole Church . . . We must return to the Church of the past."[7] He also stated in 490 AD: "In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and properly Catholic."[8]

Forewarned by the Popes, Saints and Our Blessed Mother, Pope St. Pius X said in his first encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus on October 4, 1903: "Society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and a deep-rooted malady . . . apostasy from God." St. Pope Pius X went on to say, ". . . there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were, foretaste and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the 'Son of Perdition' (the Antichrist) of whom the Apostle speaks." (II Thess 2:3)

In his encyclical letter, Our Apostolic Mandate, on August 25, 1910, Pope St. Pius X already detected "a great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One World Church which will have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy . . . under the pretext of freedom and human dignity."

Part of the original St. Michael Prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII said the following: "In the holy place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered."[9] NOTE MR.CHAVEZ

In the beginning of this century, Pope St. Pius X said in Pascendi that the danger from the adversaries of the Church were, "not from without but from within; hence the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church."

St. John Bosco

sO IT IS MORE THAN LA sALETTE THAT SPEAKS OF THIS. tO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THE VATICAN IS SPECIOUS. WHEN DOES ANYONE SAY THAT "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND NOT MEAN THE VATICAN.

Do they mean the mayor and city council?

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

**Truisms** from Frank

“ They have imparted to the faithful what to do, and it's our job to DO it.”

“There have always been schismatics in the church, starting with the first apostasy in John 6.”

“Think of it as a sifting process: True Catholics will obey the magesterium, protestants in eyeshades will find some reason to leave the church rather than obey -- following their own interpretations of what is correct rather than the church's.”

The **Non-sequitur**

“It doesn't matter if they are Lefebvrists or whomever, it's the matter of obedience vs. disobedience that is important.”

Ie Obedience to what? the nub of the issue? The Deposit of Faith? Conscience? What?

More **Truisms** from Frank

“The next time the church issues a command we'll hear a similar falling off of some other group of dissidents. The result will be the same, the church will continue, the splinter groups will fade away. “

**Observations** from Eugene

“I was surprised many years ago reading some Church history, to see that the Church under the Caesars came through many trials besides persecution; and remained altogether Holy.”

“Many Christians were martyred for their faith, of course; from the Popes themselves to the faithful rank and file. It's almost a cliche now; about lions in the Colosseum, etc.,”

“But less well-known are those many members of the Catholic Church (that's what we were) who sinned by obeying the Imperial command to burn incense before the Roman gods. They were not ready to die for the faith. Not every Catholic dared to defy Caesar under pain of torture and atrocities. Later the Church imposed a lot of penance on her own children.”

“The saints didn't close up shop, did they?”

“By the grace of God the Church prevailed during that most evil time and managed to turn the tide of history.”

“Christ had prophesied the hard times. He said to us all: ''Be not afraid.''

The **Unrelated Insinuations**

“Only, even in today's agreeable civilization, Catholics give way to pessimism. We see some in this forum; deploring this and that; and consumed with fear.”

“They don't only work out their personal salvation in fear and trembling; they want everybody to tremble. They don't trust very much in God, I guess. (And, unless you fear & tremble with them, you're ''in denial.'')”.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

John,

Our Lady at La Salette said on September 19, 1846, "Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist . . . The Church will be in eclipse."

That's the second time you've said that, I've linked what Our Lady at La Salette reportedly said in the vision, and none of what YOU say is in there. Please post a complete quote of what Our Lady said that has that verse in it, and I will humbly apologize. If you can't find that in there QUIT SLANDERING THE MOTHER OF GOD!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.

You are Ed Richards. I think; but so maybe you're not. Maybe I'm just a four-legged typist here at this keyboard?

About this unreadable screed you impose on us (me.) It's making the point you have a duty to disrespect and denigrate prelates, clergy, faithful and all ''modern'' content in our Catholic religion? You could have stated it without bringing the whole Pantheon here today.

So, go ahead and pontificate. It doesn't mean you're correct about a thing. The La Salette prophesies are spurious, in my opinion. But you obviously believe them. The Church teaches we may or may NOT. The Church also ex-communicated the rebellious archbishop you follow. Who gave her that authority? Jesus Christ.

Nothing personal, Ed. Or John, or A. Just pray for your brethren. That's what we all do; we don't have any authority at all. Unless you think you're the new Catherine of Siena, or St John Bosco. I somehow don't see that, I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Dear Thread,

i would like to hear more from the 2 Michaels, Mr Smith, Leslie and Emerald.

especially the 2 Michaels. we should try to get back on topic.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Hello again Ian!

Just got back home. It is hard to keep up with this thread! Perhaps you could e-mail me directly (my e-mail address is correct and works).

You earlier said you doubted your earlier idea that schism and heresy could be classified as a specialized instance of mortal sin. Why? I believe St. Thomas Aquinas classifies heresy and schism as sins against truth and charity (at least I recall reading that).

I mean, take for instance, that Onanism is condemned by Pius XI as being "branded by the guilt of grave sin". Of course, Casti Conubii says nothing about full knowledge and free choice, but we take it for granted as a *theological pre-understanding* that, unless full knowledge and consent are involved, that such a sin would be venial, not mortal--like any other. Pius XI didn't *need* to explain that; he just lays down the law that this is serious or grave *matter*, the rest is taken for granted.

Why can't we likewise presume that stubbornness, rebellion and invincible ignorance are a pre-understanding taken for granted by Florence? Why do the holy fathers of Florence *have* to contradict the holy fathers of Vatican II--shouldn't we assume they don't contradict each other unless otherwise shown? For myself, I am glad to give the venerable bishops the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, didn't Paul VI issue a creed in the late 1960s, the "Credo of the People of God" or something like that? My memory is that he deals with the subject of EENS in that credo. Look it up.

And seriously, if this thread becomes too confusing for us both, I would be happy to e-mail privately.

Blessings, Ian. I admire your thoughtfulness and faith.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 18, 2005.

Gentlemen on this thread:

Where is your joy in Christ?

Perhaps it is just this sobering subject that dampens it, and if so I apologize for that. I didn't mean to begin a vitriolic argument.

Holy Church is *always* under attack, but "He that is in us is greater than he who is in the world". As our Lord Jesus said, "In the world you will have trouble. But rejoice! I have overcome the world!"

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 18, 2005.

Ian,

**Truisms** from Frank and **Observations** from Eugene--
Nice tributes, Thanks--! Ha!

Did you really disagree with Frank? I don't; and you seem to. My own observations were true to the points Frank made. Why would you then say they're **Unrelated Insinuations** --???

Haven't you in fact lost faith; become negative; run out of patience with the Church?

The words of Christ, ''Fear not; I am with you.'' must ring false to you, under these harder conditions. Much harder, you must think, than persecutions, than heresies and scandals. Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit. Is He powerless without you and the ''traditional'' clans?

I doubt it. We support the Church. It won't become a New World Order, Ian. Carry on faithfully, let God steer our Holy Church. He isn't dependent on luck. We don't need panic, we need faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Eugene

can't we converse without getting all mad at each other?

Michael's leading us that way.

"converse". NOT "surrender".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

When I'm mad, Ian, I stay away.
You can trust me to be charitable when nothing stupid is being discussed. Usually I'm just being humorous, and not what Michael thinks, --vitriolic. That'll be the day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Because I think that Rome may be losing the faith, that does not make me a sedevacantist. I do however have the right for the sake of my own soul and others to challenge a pope and prelates who are going in a different direction than the church has been going until the second vatican council.

You cannot seriously say that they are holding on to the faith of their forefathers.

They even say that they are Novus Ordo, a new order. That they are bringing the church into the modern world. That is a striking departure from the faith as we have already been taught.

Be in the world but not of it is what Our Lord said. They did not obey that command and now they are in big troouble. Pope John said just before his death, "stop the council". Did he see something on his death bed? We will never know on this side of the veil.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

fair do's Eugene. thanks for sticking with the thread.

willing to go back to Michael's last post?

the "Credo of the People of God" and EENS? do *you* [sense: qua loyal Catholic] have a view?

to infinity and beyond.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Dear John,

What part of the faith of our fathers do Pope John Paul II or the bishops not believe in? The Trinity? The Divinity of Christ? The Mass and Transubstantiation? The Sacraments? The Assumption of Our Lady?

I'm not sure which teachings you mean.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 18, 2005.

''They even say that they are Novus Ordo, a new order. That they are bringing the church into the modern world. That is a striking departure from the faith as we have already been taught.''

That's ridiculous, Smith. Nobody has departed from the faith as it has been taught. Imagine the idea? Who tells you these absurdities?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

To Ian:

''the "Credo of the People of God and EENS? do *you* [sense: qua loyal Catholic] have a view?''

I don't know anything about either. If I knew I could give my view.

Normally you don't have me posting in threads about something not important to me or to the Church. I like to stick to things I know something about. That way it will be the Holy Spirit who expresses them, not me. I mean that seriously; although I often make blunt or ironic statements of my own in the bargain. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

Michael;

Which teachings do I mean? Not the ones that you mention It is not quit that blatant.

The most damaging is the stopping of evangelization. Giving the people of other faiths the idea that they have nothing to worry about.

Before I go off on a tear about it I want to calm down. Matter of fact looking at the situation. I don't like to beat up on this pope but he is part of the problem... a big part. That won't make me very popular around here but that is what I see.

He has been pope for over 25 years and how many converts has he tried to make. If you know of any please let me know.

Worse yet he goes to every church, Lutheran, synagogue, animist, muslim, etc. Not one word about Jesus Christ, just silence.

Is he trying to win a popularty contest or to go forth teaching all nations?

Our Lord never said a word about ecunamism. He said "Go preach the gospel"

Now if I get a retort for this it will probably be Mr. Chavez with some platitude about loving everybody, stopping my pride and on and on. I don't need that ,what I want is a straight answer about why the pope is taking this tack.

In sales there is an axiom about make the pitch, close the deal and get the heck out of there with the down payment. I'm glad the pope does not have to do that for a living.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.

Ian and Michael:

Sorry to see more of the same here today, However I will try to make my points clear as a few things to give thought to so as not to stir things up any further. At the end of this post are some links, a few with similar dialog, and a few regarding the Mandatum regarding the teaching in Catholic Seminaries and Univ. Hopefully the maturity level here will improve if not enjoy the thoughts.

Michael the need for the "Core" is imperative never a question or doubt about that aspect. As Ian mentioned people within it do receive fuller benefits which often are not seen in other Churches.

Both: EENS is not 100% bad however consideration is and must be given to several facts. The Church operates first on the Spiritual side of life, But also MUST operate on the Political side as well, the 2 do not always go hand in hand as in the old days when Popes had as much if not more Power then Kings. On the 2nd link is a sub-link covering a conflict between a Pope and the King of France.

Living in the US we are afforded a huge amount of Religious Freedoms, Other countries the Catholic Church may not be allowed to operate under these scenarios along with others. The Church will see these other Churches as an Invisible Church of the Visible Church. Basically under the Umbrella of the Catholic Church.

Some groups had tried to get a few Popes to promote "Without the Church---No Grace" But for obvious reasons this crossed way over the line getting into Gods territory of who gets what, as opposed to we won't let you in if your not on our team, but fact is the Church does not judge that is not their function however what is their function is to make people stop and Really think twice and look at what they stand to lose vs gain. This is part of the political side which you will see throughout the History, BUT this under no condition demeans the Full Benefits, and to be assured of the Truth with greater knowledge and understanding of relationship of man and God.

Ian you referred me back to Matthew 5:29-30, In the early Churches they practiced and taught many things which although true were Not conducive to the Mission of Christ and Salvation through the resurrection even in our Bible we have references from the Book of Enoch, refer back to Origen highly regarded for his knowledge and 6000+ writings All of these things and People HAD to be cut-off so as Not to infect the body. This is classified as Formal Heresy, (i.e.) rejecting the Church AND it's teachings. Now compare to Luther he did NOT reject the teaching but just parts of the Church so in effect much like a skin infection the Church put a glove over him to remove him from being a visible part of the body. Because even with Luther as we can see with Michael he HAS the Catholic mind which carried down from Luther, which carried over from when he was within the Church. Even though he does not receive the full benefits of the Catholic Church he IS part of the Invisible church of the Visible Church. I believe Luther fell more into the catagory of "material heresy"

As with EENS in 35AD When Peter (Acts 10:1-11:18) baptized Cornelius of Ceasarea, his Household and Peter HAD to defend his actions of accepting a non-Jew to the Believers in Jerusalem. I suspect that he may never have gone had it not been for the Lord telling him "Do NOT call anything impure that God has made Clean" Point being when you remove the political parts you will see that the Church knows the Truth, Of course they don;t hang a big sign out front saying this because the weak minded will go to hear what they want, not what is true. Also consider this with why the Catholic Church Accepts the validity of baptism done outside of the Church by the "heretics" To show you how politics plays/played into religion , At first, Muhammad prayed towards Jerusalem, but when he was rejected by the Jews, started directing his prayers towards Mecca. Today, monotheistic Muslims pray 5 times a day towards Mecca-- Some things never change.

Michael Links 3 & 4 cover your comment about the Seminaries (these are the corrective measure taken) But just an FYI modernism and other Theologies are already in the protestant denominations.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S VIEW OF NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ106.HTM

Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions (Particularly in the Middle Ages: With Emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas's Views

http://web.archive.org/web/20040218182856/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23 2.HTM

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II ON CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/doc uments/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html

Mandatum http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/mandatumguidelines.htm

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS ON THE VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE AND THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/doc uments/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 19, 2005.

Thank you, John!

I agree wholeheartedly about the lack of evangelization.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 19, 2005.

"EENS is not 100% bad however consideration is and must be given to several facts. The Church operates first on the Spiritual side of life, But also MUST operate on the Political side as well, the 2 do not always go hand in hand as in the old days when Popes had as much if not more Power then Kings."

Nice to know that an infallible doctrine of the Church isn't... totally bad, huh? I suppose I should heave a sigh of relief. "Hey Catholic, you're doctrine ain't half bad, man!" lol.

The temporal and the spiritual must go hand in hand, and in fact, it is Catholic doctrine that the pontiff is both spiritual and temporal authority, though he delegates the the administration of the latter. But if they don't go hand in hand anymore in our age of enlightenment so-called, the truth of the need or necessity to go hand in hand is not abolished. It is still the truth that that's the way things are if they are to be as they ought, and unless the state and the Church work together in composite, then both will suffer the effects a divorce, as will the children of the Church.

An additional item has been added to the discussion table here: the Catholic doctrine of the inseparable unity of Church and State. Will we uphold this, or question it into a further oblivion?

"Living in the US we are afforded a huge amount of Religious Freedoms, Other countries the Catholic Church may not be allowed to operate under these scenarios along with others. The Church will see these other Churches as an Invisible Church of the Visible Church. Basically under the Umbrella of the Catholic Church."

But the Church has always taught that the Mystical Body of Christ is synonymous with, or equated with, the Catholic Church. This Catholic Church has always taught that She is visible, with a visible head, the supreme pontiff.

What you are talking about is that "draw a circle ever wider" from the "Sing a New Church" hymn. This is popular thought everywhere now: draw a big circle. Then, in the center of the center of the circle, draw a smaller one. Call the smaller one the Catholic Church. Call the bigger circle AllChurch. Then stand back and say it's all good. That's a basic visual on subsistence theory for you. Problem is, it flies in the face of Catholic doctrine.

An item has been added to the discussion table here: the Catholic doctrine that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 19, 2005.

"Living in the US we are afforded a huge amount of Religious Freedoms, Other countries the Catholic Church may not be allowed to operate under these scenarios along with others. The Church will see these other Churches as an Invisible Church of the Visible Church. Basically under the Umbrella of the Catholic Church."

For clarity's sake: Catholics in other countries who aren't allowed to practice their Faith openly... these are still part of the visible Church. The objection is to this proposition: that of an invisible church working under the umbrella of the visible Church.

Such a distinction is not necessary to describe the status or condition of those whose state disallows the open practice their Catholic Faith.

However, such a distinction is necessary for those who wish to promote a theory of the subsistence of other churches within the Catholic Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 19, 2005.

gents.

found this resource. it's a 130-pager. it's got lots of stuff that is clearly germane to this discussion. i'm actually very, very excited by this discovery, and wonder why i never found it before.

http://www.sspx.org/books/Is_Feeneyism_Catholic.pdf

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

Yeah, I have that book right on my shelf here, Ian.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 19, 2005.

i thought you might!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

In fact, Ian, I'll pick up the book again myself here, and you read that one online there. We can start a thread or whatever and discuss it.

Only if that's of interest to you of course. Gotta get to work for now; let me know.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 19, 2005.

I notice the book is from an SSPX website. What is the official status of SSPX in the eyes of the Vatican, right now? Are they reconciled fully with Rome?

And, does SSPX accept the documents of Vatican II? If not, I find them suspect.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 19, 2005.

What is the official status of SSPX in the eyes of the Vatican, right now? Are they reconciled fully with Rome?

The now deceased leader of the sspx as well as the "bishops" he consecrated were excommunicated by name by the pope. Anyone who is in formal adherence to their schism is ALSO excommunicated.

Their masses are still valid, just not licit. Some sacraments however are not even valid if the priest is excommunicated, such as confession and marriage. Not that someone who wants to participate in their organization would care what the Catholic church thinks, but there you go.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2005.

You fellows go on with your correspondence on the subject. I want a word with MR> SMITH--

''Our Lord never said a word about ecunamism. (sic) He said "Go preach the Gospel".''

Now if I get a retort for this it will probably be Mr. Chavez with some platitude about loving everybody, stopping my pride and on and on. I don't need that, what I want is a straight answer about why the pope is taking this tack.''

Smitty: A platitude borrows from Plato, a Greek philosopher. Not from Jesus Christ. My love for His holy words is not philosophy; it's HIS teaching. The words of Jesus Christ, and don't ever forget them.

What our Holy Father does is true to Christ's command, ''Go and preach to all nations.'' Do you find that strange? The Pope going all over; meeting the people of Africa; people of Russia; Mexico; and even Communist Cuba? To you this is all wasted time? He ought to be clashing with the Dalai Lama and with the muslims?

When did you discover your knowledge of evangelization? Now passing it on to the Pope? Are you ordained? Did you offer Holy Mass in the presence of the nations today, just as John Paul did a few months back? Before the TV cameras of the world? And before the nations he canonized saints of every nationality, with his pastoral blessings upon the people of all the world?

Not much use to the Catholic Church, you say? Just hangin out with the heathens for nothing?

Say another Mass for Schism, Mr. Smith. Break bread again, with the Dividers and the Elite. Thou art better than Peter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Michael

if the Devil told you that bears did their number 2's in the wood, that would not make it untrue? of course not, though you might wish to tread a little carefully - as well as in the woods!

imho, there's no harm in reading. audi alteram partem. i have already started and there's some stuff about the background to Florence (St Thomas), that i have not found in my books.

it's just another reference source Michael. i hope it will help on this thread.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

"When did you discover your knowledge of evangelization? Now passing it on to the Pope? Are you ordained? Did you offer Holy Mass in the presence of the nations today, just as John Paul did a few months back? Before the TV cameras of the world? And before the nations he canonized saints of every nationality, with his pastoral blessings upon the people of all the world "

There you go again Mr. Chavez, sidetracking the issue.

"Are you ordained". What the heck has that got to do with it. I don't have to be a chicken to know a rotten egg when I see one.

Yes the pope has made more saints in 25 years than the whole church combined in 2000 years. They should call him "The saint detective". How did all these saints get by all those other popes?

You still don't confront the question I asked and that is; When is he going to preach the Gospel"? Is that to hard to understand.

Don't go off on a tear about masses and such.

Meanwhile, let these other folks go on with their intellectual discussions.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.

Talk about side-tracking.

''Yes the pope has made more saints in 25 years than the whole Church combined in 2000 years. They should call him "The saint detective". How did all these saints get by all those other popes?''

It's apparent you don't like the saints. Is the Holy Spirit a saint detective to you?

John Paul II evangelizes by example. The world is drawn to the Holy Gospel as a result of his courage and devotion to Jesus Christ. (It's just that you're blind, Smith.)

Besides; he is a priest for half a century. He's spread the Gospel from a pulpit; and by his holy example as well. --He caught a bullet; he suffered pain and distress without a peep. He forgave the man who shot him and gave thanks publicly at the shrines of Our Blessed Mother. --All these glorious actions are a living beacon pointing to Our Holy Lord and Saviour. (And you want us to abandon him; denounce him? --GET A LIFE.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Get real, Eugene. read the Third Secret. read the Pope's interpretation. the Pope'sa live for Heaven's sake. so are all the Bishops.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

Dear Ian,
I HAVE; I've read more than anybody on this forum. Almost everything Catholic, conservative, and apostolicly orthodox. I've read many lives of the saints, including the events at Fatima. Why are you suggesting something evil, or supportive of dissent in our Church? The Catholic Church UNITES souls in Communion. The devil DIVIDES souls against each other and the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Ha! Thanks Ian for the information on the book. No doubt it will help the thread.

I am still unconvinced, though, Ian, by your earlier answer, basically, "Just find the documents of Divine Revelation and read!"

If it were that simple, since we have the Scriptures and can read, there would be no need for a teaching office or pope. I respect the current bishops as lawful successors of the apostles, and as my teachers and fathers in God: and I haven't seen evidence that they are heretical. (Other than maybe Weakland or Gumbleton, LOL)

I am not an unintelligent person (at least not entirely), but I know I can err in my interpretation, not only of Holy Scripture but also of pronouncements of Councils and Pontiffs. That is why I am most moved by the letter to Cardinal Cushing by the Holy Office concerning the Boston case, and why I am happy seeing Vatican II's documents as being the correct exposition and interpretation of the earlier dogmas.

And, John, I *do* have some problems with lack of evangelism under the present holy father, nor do I think Assisi was a good idea in that it seemed to put the pagan gods on the same tier as the True God. But, that does not remove my trust and respect for the documents of Vatican II, nor my belief in the holy Mass even as celebrated in Novus Ordo (although I could personally *wish* the language were more like Tridentine, just in English). And even with some flaws, John Paul II still shines like a beacon when compared with anything else out there. You maybe haven't been living, like me, in the desert wastes of mainline protestantism: now that is a true wasteland!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 19, 2005.

Eugene

i don't have any legitimate, or other for that matter, qualms about your erudition or bona fides. make no mistake.

my point is that -- if you read the 3rd Secret -- and then the Pope's interpretation -- my goodness!

recap: none of us is into Papolatry. ergo, on a matter such as this, when many Catholics gloat that this Apparition or that is "worthy of belief" so you can not believe it,......, it's all "fair game".

my sense [nothing more, just a sense] is that you have the same 100% belief as i that Fatima is, amongst all apparitions, more than just "worthy of belief". you don't have to agree publicly with me. and my sense is a sense. nothing more.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

Michael

you're a jewel. i am with you. these are the thoughts that pervade my mind. too much, maybe.

pls just stick with the thread. i will do, even though i may go missing for days.

i have started to read the SSPX book. it's 130 pages, but they're short pages, almost like it's really a pamphlett. but the density of thought/ content is unusual. it's really quite intense. imho.

i have also started working through Michael G's stuff. and i have read the Credo. i have read it before and do not see anything special. however, i should have another look at the books before being so dismissive.

Yours,

in complete and moribund ignorance,

Ian.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

It's apparent you don't like the saints. Is the Holy Spirit a saint detective to you? Your remark.

Still dancing Mr. Chavez?

The Holy Spirit has gotten more work from you the past few weeks than He did all during V2 and beyond.

In case you don't know it, this was the first of the 21 councils where He was mot invited.

The pope evangelizes by His example? He preaches from his pulpit? How do you know, do you attend his masses?

Again; GO FORTH AND PREACH THE GOSPEL.... Nothing is said about by example or preaching from the local church.

I'll give you that he is a very nice man, he kisses children and waves to people. I'm sure that he would have trounced George Bush.

But, Mr. Chavez, we don't need a politician, we need Peter (or his kind ) in that chair.

He is a nice man, but quite frankly, he is a lousy pope.

And no, I have nothing against the saints, but where does he find them? He wants to make John 23rd a saint. No proven miracles, no devils advocate. just thinks that he should be a saint. Remember the old days, 3 miracles, a battery of doctors etc.

A real short cut to sainthood is it not? This Escrevas candidate, what did he do? They are hardly cold in the ground before he wants to make them saints. Get real Mr Chavez.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.

Our Divine Saviour can't be to blame. The Holy Spirit can't be to blame. It must be John Paul II who's to blame; and who's he? Just a successor to Saint Peter.

Did you know the devil hates saints? Sure. I've read the biographies of several saints. Saint Jean- Marie Vianney; Cure of Ars. He is patron saint of parish priests, I think.

The devil would come tormenting the Cure at night. He'd raise cain, rain sharp blows on the old man, cursing; --The Cure called him ''Grappin'', or Pitchfork. He loved to hear him coming because it seems whenever he came, next day some hardened sinner would come to confession and REPENT! He called these penitents ''Big Fish''--Ha!

You wouldn't think a Catholic has anything against the Cure of Ars, would you? I wonder if you do.)

The devil inspires you to revile the Pope, John. And to mock him and dismiss his work as foolish. The devil hates our Holy Father. He'd love to see him dead; out of the way. Look out. You give him hope; the devil is becoming attached to you because he hates saints. He hates the Church, and very likely hates fellows like me; who tell the truth about him. The more we correspond with one another, Mr. Smith, the more you challenge the truth. It's Grappin; he's fooling you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

Domine Quo Vadis From the apocryphal Acts of Peter And he obeyed the brethren's voice and went forth alone, saying: "Let none of you come forth with me, but I will go forth alone, having changed the fashion of my apparel." And as he went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: "Lord, wither goest thou?" And the Lord said unto him: "I go into Rome to be crucified." And Peter said unto him. "Lord, art thou being crucified again?" He said unto him: "Yes, Peter, I am being crucified again." And Peter came to himself; and having beheld the Lord ascending up into Heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoycing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: "I am being crucified"; the which was about to befall Peter. Quoted from Morton 1957.

Apocryphal? Yes but thaat is what thepope shuold be doing.

Mr. Chaez you are blinded to your vitriol against people who do not agree with you.

I do not say the pope is of the devil, or youin your modernism either. But you have no problem with that. You sound like one of those fire and brimstone protestants rather than a Catholic. Why are you such an angry man? I only ask that, not really wanting an answer.

You love the church in your way and I will love it in mine.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.

Dear mr. Smith.
You mistake honesty for vitriol, My friend. I don't blame you for responding defensively, but state the facts. Anger? I told you before; when I get angry, I can't post. I leave it for another day. I hope what I'm saying can convince you; but it all depends on you-- There's only so much we humans can do. You believe Malachi Martin, esoteric peddlers of Marian apparitions who forecast our Church ''belly up''.

I'm trying to keep you from peddling this tripe to our faithful Catholics. But it's not personal.

You know; I had long disputes with Adventists, atheists, Plymouth Brethren, theosophists, and diverse Bible Christians. Why would anybody say I'm a protestant??? None can say it was for spite. I do it for the Holy Spirit. Call me crazy, but I do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

"The devil inspires you to revile the Pope, John. And to mock him and dismiss his work as foolish. The devil hates our Holy Father. He'd love to see him dead; out of the way. Look out. You give him hope; the devil is becoming attached to you because he hates saints. He hates the Church, and very likely hates fellows like me; who tell the truth about him."

The devil inspires him. The devil is becoming attached to him. The devil hates Gene, though, becomes Gene possesses the truth and always tells the truth.

This is getting pretty ridiculous.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 19, 2005.

Well; I admit there's a case for some delusions of grandeur. Would you say that my facing this says the chances are slimmer?

No. You think Gene's pretentious. Not because he might be insincere. Just that you've made up your mind there's no substance to what I've argued. ''He's sincere; only I'm the judge and jury,'' said Emerald.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

It would be good to hear the Pope say to the thousands of people who gather to hear him speak: "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church..it is my desire that ALL people come home to the true Church and be reconciled to her."

It would make it so much clearer to everyone on the face of the earth that THIS is truth.

Popes throughout the ages have done this very thing, so why not this Pope? To visit mosques and Protestant churches and KNOW that the very people that one is visiting are not within the fullness of truth, and say nothing, SEEMS to be not in their best interest.

Is it not the role of the Vicar of Christ to actively preach His WORD? How are these people to KNOW they are in danger of losing their immortal souls if the Pope himself does not tell them?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

Previous Popes may have made such pronouncements in writing from their office in the Vatican, but previous Popes have not traveled the world, directly addressing peoples of all faiths and cultures in their own countries. When you go to dinner or to a party at the home of Jewish or Protestant friends, or to the wedding of their son or daughter, do you take that opportunity to proclaim to them that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? Why not? Is it not the role of every Catholic to actively preach His WORD? The Pope brings Christ to people by his very presence. His words are those of Christ. And every visit he has made to the people of the world has drawn many to Christ. If we lived our faith as the Holy Father does, others would be drawn to Christ by our presence as well. That is the truest form of evangelism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 20, 2005.

Lesley may not realise how offensive the people he has visited would surely find such pronouncements by John Paul II. Naturally, to you and me, nothing seems outrageous about the truth. To the greatest extent, however, it can't be appealing. Christ wasn't ordering the Popes ''round up'' whoever was unattached to this new faith. He said, ''Go, make disciples of all nations.'' Teaching them to observe all that Christ has taught us. It's what our Holy Father is constantly doing; it is indoctrination cast in respectful address.

The reality that he comes representing the faith of the apostles isn't ignored; and it isn't over their heads.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

You're both saying that just by virtue of being Pope, John Paul's mere physical presence is sufficient to convert people to Catholicism? Where are all of those converts????

Billy Graham surely doesn't have any problem worrying that he might "offend" people with preaching the Word of God.

Would I risk offending people with the fullness of truth? Of course I would. Good grief.

Was John the Baptist afraid of offending people? How about any of the Apostles? Lets see, how about any of the hundreds of saints and martyrs..who may they have offended? Given the choice between dying and being a quiet example of Faith, perhaps they may have chosen to stay alive.

Whom do you "offend" when you keep silent? People? My goodness..people may not invite you back to their party again. How awful. Tsk, tsk. I would prefer time and again to offend people rather than Almighty God, for whom do YOU serve?????

No, one doesn't walk into a wedding and loudly announce to the guests, "You're all going to hell in a basket you heathens." That isn't very loving or Christian. Yet in conversation, one certainly CAN initiate discussion concerning fullness of truth, salvation and the Catholic Church.

And from a Pope, one could reasonably expect that a message from his balcony at the Vatican would contain the words, "Come home to the Church, for without Her, you are lost."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

You protest too much, Lesley.
Nobody on earth is more representative of Christ than the Pope. He DOES in fact, evangelize by charisma.

Don't come down on him to rebut my contribution to this thread. I have no better right than yours to express my ideals. Do it with my blessing.

You've chosen to focus on the mention of offending -- and forgotten what followed that. ''The reality that he comes representing the faith of the apostles isn't ignored; and it isn't over their heads.'' By which I mean, he is a great proselytizer without EVER making antagonists for the Catholic Church. The statement is true.

A Billy Graham has his own charisma. But those who can't warm up to him just boycott the ''Crusade.'' They wouldn't say Hello to him on the street, and he wouldn't convert them either. Whereas, the Pope in Africa or the Far East someplace draws millions of souls to him; and he blesses them for Christ. Graham can't really do that. He wishes he could, I suppose.

If you and I don't see any immediate effects, (conversion) that's our problem. But carping about his works is truly more than a problem. It's crass and vulgar. You might as well curse him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

"It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind." --Pope Leo XIII, Instruction of the Sacred Congr. of Extraord. Eccl. Affairs, January

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.

''a style inspired by unsound novelty--''

Unsound novelty isn't what inspires our Holy Father. He celebrates Masses wherever he goes. I'd say that's totally Catholic and sound; hardly a novelty anymore. And when has any gathering, Catholic, pagan or otherwise conformed, --seen His Holiness ''deride the piety of the faithful?''

Isn't it altogether a non sequitur to drop this papal judgment on us as we discuss the Catholic Church we live in today? Naturally, you don't love our Church anymore. I'm sorry to say, Smith; you're interested in changing the Church, not following her.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

I am interested in changing the church to what it was in the great heyday of the past, not the wreckover of the present. If you disagree that is fine but please no personal attacks, enough already.

Why?

Because, as the saying goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Orthodox in belief and morality, staunchly pro-life, personally pious, they either despise or strongly disapprove of Traditionalists, whom they characterize as "schismatic" and "integralist", a vague term that sounds officious but is meaningless, and yet fools a lot of otherwise orthodox people into shutting up and making sure they hobnob with the "right-thinking Catholics", meaning the non-liberal popular ones. Their position is this in a nutshell: The bishops are lax in their duty, some have apostatized even, but if the Pope "allows" any deviation from authentic Tradition, then we must be silent and accept things. The indefensible suddenly becomes defensible, intensely so. They are in error about the limits of infallibility and thus accord no blame to a Pope, even though as Church historians some of them know better. If a bishop allowed altar girls it was bad, very bad, but if the Pope does, it must be okay and they make any excuse they can, including making things up as they back track. It would be comical except it is so sad and pitiful. And when I say this I am not mocking them, I am just very disappointed, because most of them are so good in every other way. Because they are willing to forsake any criticism of the Holy See for the sake of an erroneous sense of loyalty, some neo-Catholics have uncritically fallen into error by rationalizing a Vatican prelate's statement that "the Jews no longer have to convert." Those who have done so accept this heresy as dogma, thereby abandoning the Jews they should have abundant charity for, that supernatural charity that yearns for their coming to Christ, their Redeemer.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.

John,

Are you going to apologize to Our Lady of Salette for slandering her, or not?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 20, 2005.

Please, Smith: No personal attacks; i.e., ''neo-Catholics. We're staunch Catholics here. In fact; just because you and a few others sequestered the title ''Traditionalist'' doesn't mean our faithful aren't tradionalist. We sure are. Your doctrines and/or tenets don't abrogate ours. Nor is anything indefensible defended in our Church. That's something you could never substantiate.

At least the neurotic Captain Ahab had really seen Moby Dick. Whereas, you all keep chasing a fictitious white whale, ''The Church that done you wrong.'' You're so proud of your delusion, too. Haha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

"if the Pope "allows" any deviation from authentic Tradition"

A: Do you know what constitutes authentic "Tradition"? It doesn't seem so because immediately after writing the above you launched into a condemnation of altar girls, a subject that is about as far removed from Tradition as anything could be. Issues like who will hand the water and wine to the priest at Mass are merely traditions, and traditions have changed in every century of Catholicism. The early Church didn't have altar boys OR altar girls. But Sacred Tradition (note the capital T), which is doctrinal truth given to the Apostles by Christ Himself, cannot change, and no Pope has ever changed any element of authentic Tradition. Or could he.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 20, 2005.

Oh good I see this forum has progressed to Billy Grahman gets more souls then your Pope, No he doesn't my Pope wins because he's more known. Too my Traditions are Holier than your Traditions, No they aren't!

Geez, And I thought some of the Pentecostals were bad.

Maybe some basic READING might help this along.

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION ECCLESIA IN AMERICA OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II

http://www.usccb.org/pope/exhortations/12299.htm

EVANGELII NUNTIANDI APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents /hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi_en.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 20, 2005.

"carping about his works is crass and vulgar. You may as well curse him."

CARPING??? I pondered aloud why His Holiness does not make a public statement that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. There were two nearly identical responses: It's not nice to offend people, and that since he is the first pope to leave the Vatican and visit other countries, non-Catholics are possibly converted by his overt example of extreme holiness. I was then asked if I would personally risk offending people at a social gathering by suggesting that they return to the Catholic Faith.

I posted a single reply to BOTH posts saying YES, I would rather offend people than God, and that the history of the Church is full of saints and martyrs who willingly offended people with things they didn't want to hear but needed to. ONCE again, I said that one might expect the POpe to make an announcement from the Vatican balcony.

THIS is "carping" and "crass and vulgar" and equal to cursing the Pope????????????????????????????????????

Can no one dare disagree with you Eugene without being branded an enemy of either the entire Church, the Magesterium, or His Holiness, Pope John Paul II ?????

Is there no room for anything but nodding "yes" here?

According to you, there is NOTHING WRONG..lets all hold hands and sing Kumbaya..preferably in English, while we have a firm belief that not a single thing is going on within the Church which has any odor of error to it. The Churches are full of happy Catholics, the seminaries are bursting with candidates for the priesthood, new churches are being built in every city, suburb and rural community, and those of other faiths are beating on the doors to join in the fullness of truth.

Throughout the ages, the Holy Spirit has worked through MEN to root out error and sin in the Church..The Holy Spirit enlightens MEN to see what is happening and to work from within the Church to bring Her back to where she should be. Each and EVERY TIME.

Do you ever consider that those whom you choose to revile just MIGHT be those whom the Holy Spirit has selected to do HIS WORK in the Church? WHOA..now that's a thought. We all could benfit from a tad less pride.

That the churchs need to be filled is not in dispute. That we need more vocations to the priesthood is not in dispute. That people NEED to return to the fullness of truth is not in dispute. That we have SOME bishops who are teaching falsely is a fact. That we have SOME cardinals who are teaching falsely is a fact. That we have MANY priests who are teaching falsely IS a fact. That we have many bishops who are silent of the truth is a fact. That we have MANY, MANY, MANY saintly men in our clergy who are praying for firm leadership is a FACT.

Pope John Paul II IS a saintly man.. I believe this to be true. Is he surrounded by men of his own caliber? I have serious doubts about that.

It's my FIRM belief that the Church is poised for a great renewal..and that those who now are being reviled and name-called, are filled with the Holy Spirit..not to tear down the Church, but to heal it.

The Church is in need of healing..one only has to read THIS forum to see that. We are but a handful of people..multiply these conversations by thousands and do the math across just the USA. BEFORE others will come to the CHURCH, the CHURCH MUST BE WHOLE.

Wait and pray and watch. The Holy Spirit will bring this about, and it will be wonderful.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

"We're staunch Catholics here."

Actually, you're not. You're quite liberal.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 20, 2005.

Dear Lesley:
We don't curb your freedom of speech,

-- ''WELL; the history of the Church is full of saints and martyrs who willingly offended people,''

No it's NOT. (My freedom.) ''I was asked if I would personally risk offending people at a social gathering by suggesting that they return to the Catholic Faith;''

Look, nobody is affected in the least if you get on a soap box; nobody will stop you. Go on and offend whoever you please; we don't care. It has no bearing on the faith. You've picked a poor analogy; what you and (you think) so many saints would do. And you're blowing smoke at us here; claims that --''We have SOME bishops who are teaching falsely is a fact. That we have SOME cardinals who are teaching falsely is a fact. That we have MANY priests who are teaching falsely IS a fact. That we have many bishops who are silent of the truth is a fact.''

No-- those are lies; you're foolish for repeating them. You're simply unable to accept many things we hear in Church. That's your own fault. Blame yourself, Lesley. It IS crass and vulgar, to speak disrespectfully about, and defame the person of our Holy Father. You ARE vulgar and you're carping. Did you think you could deny it? This is a forum on which we speak freely. But you have to take the consequences for dropping your trousers and mooning somebody. And that's how you're acting here.

If you'd spoken prudently and out of love for God, I'd be the first to applaud you. But I don't, because you seem unworthy today. Maybe tomorrow you'll communicate something of value. Today you stunk out the place. Hate to tell you that; somebody had to say it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

///

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

Atta Boy Mr. Chavez. You are in top form with your inciteful logic.

Lesley, you don't have a chance against the brilliant rhetoric of Mr. Chavez, so please give up.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.

"No-- those are lies"

Actually, no he didn't lie.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 20, 2005.

I apologize for my poor vision this evening..it is impossible for me to read the correct scripture verse..

If I have faith that can move mountains, but do not have charity, I am like tinkling brass or clanging cymbal..

Is that how it goes?

Watchful waiting and prayer are necessary..as is being active in correction of error when it is brought to light. Being open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is paramount, especially when His message to us may not be what we want to hear.

And, above all, charity.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

Lesley made some things clear: When he she? (don't know) reviles it's fine. Like the various pokes she takes at me. ''Kumbaya'', [Eugene has] a firm belief that not a ''single thing'' is going on within the Church which has any odor of error to it.''

ODOR? ''The Churches are full of happy Catholics, seminaries are bursting with candidates for the priesthood, new churches are being built; etc.''

--Not so charitable an evaluation of my faith. Because, Lesley-- It's my faith you're belittling, not any single post I've made. Only because I say Leave the Pope alone. Don't presume to evaluate him; or dispute him. He's not your Whipping Boy. For this you reject my contribution. But I'm the Catholic who needs dressing down now? Why am I acting so uppity? Is that it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.

"We're staunch Catholics here." Actually, you're not. You're quite liberal. -- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 20, 2005. "No-- those are lies" Actually, no he didn't lie.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 20, 2005.

Emerald is wrong on both counts. If staunch Catholics are to be found, you have ME. I'm the one. Letting Emerald say it's not so is to allow the devil in here. (I'm serious.)

If Emerald agrees the Catholic Church teaches error today, he agrees with heretics. We believe the teachings of the holy apostles. Priests and bishops may say things which Emerald hates. Or Lesley or Smith. You hate something, and that makes it an error?

I don't hate the Mass of the Tridentine Rite. It's divine, and holy. But Emerald hates the vernacular, Novus Ordo Liturgy. To him it's rotten. Well, too bad; to Jesus Christ it is divine. To me and millions of faithful Catholics it's EQUAL to the Mass of Trent. Not above or below that, but exactly the same Mass. As for some controversial ''teaching'' by the bishop: Who knows? Let our Pope say it. It's Catholic until the Vicar of Christ denounces it; not when Lesley or Emerald fall out with the Catholic Church. They don't know what's true or false.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.

Amen

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 21, 2005.

"Emerald is wrong on both counts."

No I'm not. Neither is Lesley about anything she said in the posts above.

"If staunch Catholics are to be found, you have ME. I'm the one."

lol. How soon can we expect you to start posting under 200 different names?

"Letting Emerald say it's not so is to allow the devil in here. (I'm serious.)"

Spare me the theatrics.

"If Emerald agrees the Catholic Church teaches error today, he agrees with heretics."

One of your problems is your complete unwillingness to make the most elementary of distinctions between things. Imho it's mere dishonesty.

Of course it isn't the case that the Church teaches error. But you have is moronic idea that a bishop or a cardinal, or even a pope, by the mere act of stating something can be equated in all cases to an officail act of "the Church teaching something". Totally and completely devoid of any real knowledge of the nature and function of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church. Armed with this high brilliance, you pontificate with dingdong statements such as the above.

"We believe the teachings of the holy apostles."

I don't really believe you. I don't thing you do, based upon the numerous discussions we've had. I just think you're a common Catholic liberal, that's all.

"Priests and bishops may say things which Emerald hates. Or Lesley or Smith. You hate something, and that makes it an error?"

If you don't hate what they say, I suppose that makes it the truth. Duh.

"I don't hate the Mass of the Tridentine Rite. It's divine, and holy."

What you like and don't like is useless information.

"But Emerald hates the vernacular, Novus Ordo Liturgy. To him it's rotten. Well, too bad; to Jesus Christ it is divine. To me and millions of faithful Catholics it's EQUAL to the Mass of Trent."

Here's a handy example of your complete inability or willingness to make the most basic of distinctions: you oscillate back and forth between two things, in this case blurring a distinction between the confection of the Blessed Sacrament, and the liturgy itself. You attempt to predicate equality to both interchangably.

Should you ever have enough charity to make the distinction, the matter could be cleared up within seconds, and your whole self- righteous tirade would lose it's reason for being. But you don't want to take the time to... think. That's all it requires.

I used to think there was an element of honesty or sincerity in your posts. I no longer give that thought the time of day, because you emply classic modernist tactic. The more involved the conversation becomes, the more evident become the intentions.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 21, 2005.

I should not write tonight because I have looked at the calendar and know the truth of my honesty might bite me later, but at this time I could careless. Eugene, you remind me of a Macho Mexican Man raised by a woman who doted on her son a little too much. My own mother is guilty of this and she did not give me the same treatment (Mexican women dote on their sons not their daughters). From that I have grown far more because I was not spoiled. My brothers (except one) on the other hand will get into arguments with women, put them down, call them names and be rude. You have these same traits surprise, surprise. How many women have you insulted or called names on this forum? I count myself so BLESSED to not have a husband who would stoop to these levels in PERSON or on the INTERNET. Grow up Eugene and understand that only because one feels, sees, experiences the abuse first hand does not mean it doesn't exist or that they hate all that the Church holds. Also, learn to bite that wicked tongue/fingers that you have and quit with your labelling. It is quite digusting, repulsive and downright rude. You are NOT lead by the HOLY SPIRIT, but only by your self! The Holy Spirt does not EVER have to call names or insult a person. Go ahead and let it go as you can not help yourself as you proved myself right the other time.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

Dear Emerald:
The Catholic Church rests on the aposles and the promises of Christ. Not on me; nor my faith. If you love the Church, come to terms with her. Sticks and stones might break my bones, but I'm hardly worried about you hurting anybody. You need me much more than I need you, My Friend. God loves the two of us. I'm doing my honest best for His glory, not for the satisfaction of shutting you up. You are honest enough to your private sense of good and evil. But you're unfair to me and you're offending Him. Stop concentrating on me. Leave the subject of the Mass alone, because you aren't getting any better at understanding. You seem to be filled with spite. No Christian soul should be driven that way. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.

Dear jalapeno;
I appreciate your frankness. I'm only an old man and my life will come to an end pretty soon; therefore it's not painful for me to be spoken to hatefully. I love everybody. You qualify, Lady, because you're a good soul and a Christian. Let off the steam. Get your licks at me, I'm not offended.

Just this reminder. A priest is unable to defend himself from the world's accusations. He hasn't the luxury you have; he won't come back to verbally abuse you. He trusts in God. So do I, Jalapeno. God bless you, and may He keep all misfortune and harm away from you and those you love.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.

I'm only an old man and my life will come to an end pretty soon; therefore it's not painful for me to be spoken to hatefully.

***Oh, come on Eugene. You are that not that thin skinned or else you would not be on this forum attacking as you do. I have not spoken to you so hatefully. Can you not see your error? How do you know your life will come to an end? Are you hiding something from us? My mother is 77 years old and my aunt who was a nun for 10 years (didn't take her final vows) is 84 years old with cancer all over her body. She was given a few months a year ago..so.. I compared you to my brothers and I LOVE them more than anything no matter what they've done/do to me. One brother who was very hurtful to me just sent me a dozen roses the other day. Made me cry. He is 10 months older than myself and the most abusive brother I have, but I love him with all my heart. God moves all and in different times and to this day my whole family and I have not stopped praying for him.

Just this reminder. A priest is unable to defend himself from the world's accusations. He hasn't the luxury you have; he won't come back to verbally abuse you. He trusts in God. So do I, Jalapeno.

***What does the above have to do with anything? Who have I verbally abused? Show me the names and times Eugene. I do trust in God is why I am where I am. He lead me back to our Faith when I was doubting. He blessed me 1000 times more than I desereved. He lead me to wonderful priests who will help my children grow spiritually, families who hold the same values, and in general people who have the same love and passion for our faith. What more could I ask for? How much more can I be blessed? I thank God for all that I have daily Eugene. I don't forget one day to not do this and I pray that it will never be taken away. IN a way I feel selfish for wanting what I do. With what God has given me he has filled my heart with a love that I am not use to and I love having it daily and don't forget to thank Him.

God bless you, and may He keep all misfortune and harm away from you and those you love.

***Pray for that daily and when my kids leave for Sacramento as they did today (four boys that is), I make sure they bless themselves with holy water, then I give them a blessing, kiss and send them on their way. Then I pray that God keeps them safe. I know what I have and know it can be taken away. My life was not easy at all growing up and I am not use to the happiness I have so I am thankful every day. Hate is the furthest thing I feel for you Eugene. I thank God that he does not allow that in my heart. What he does allow me to feel is hurt that others can inflict. You have this and need to start rereading your post or if you can't see it, maybe give up the computer for Lent and pray about all you do. No hate for you my friend..only love and confusion. Not understanding where your insults are coming from.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

Please stop and reconsider. I never insulted anybody. You took everything I said personally.

When I question why you would say you ''know everybody's business,'' it's the logical reaction to ask if you know gossip is a sin. All anyone with the clear conscience needs to say is; ''I never gossip.'' Instead all you've done is peck away like a baby chick after the corn meal. So I'm an old man; don't shake your finger at me for saying so. And speak with respect about people's mothers. You didn't make any big hit laughing about my mother's love for me. You should be so lucky. Anyway, Tick-a-Lock; hear me?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.

"The Catholic Church rests on the aposles and the promises of Christ. Not on me; nor my faith."

I like how you always mention things like this when you're in a bind, as if there were any possible way in which we couldn't have known something like this. As if you knew it, and we didn't.

"If you love the Church, come to terms with her."

Foggy references to who knows what. What exactly do you mean by this... come to terms with Her? It means nothing. How would one begin to translate this into something meaningful? Once you've said something nebulous like this, who could even act on it, even if they wanted to? No one. It is an absolutely meaningless statement. Worthless. Explain exactly what it means; I dare you. You can't.

"You need me much more than I need you, My Friend. God loves the two of us. I'm doing my honest best for His glory, not for the satisfaction of shutting you up."

Ah, see who really thinks they're holier-than-thou, huh? Son of a gun if the truth doesn't get extracted in the long run. Heh, you're better than us. You're the ones who think you understand more, know more, are holier than us, and do better than us. In fact, you're even holier than the pope. You can judge who's a heretic, who's in schism, and even interpret dogma for us. You can interpret the Sacred Scriptures, decide who is in and who is out of the Church, and which direction is best for the Church.

Hey, you're everything you say we are that you think is bad about us, that isn't true of us. That's pretty cool Gene. And when you speak uncharitably, dog gonnit, you're going to say it's a corporal work of mercy you're performing. You've said that many times. But guess what: the use of that term to describe what you're doing is used very commonly against good people by many while they work to undermine the Church. It's the going thing, and anyone who's been around the block has heard that line a time or two already. Who you hanging with?

"You are honest enough to your private sense of good and evil. But you're unfair to me and you're offending Him. Stop concentrating on me. Leave the subject of the Mass alone, because you aren't getting any better at understanding."

And you're the measure of true understanding, right? You're starting to sound like the guy with 200 names and addys every day now. See how this liberalism plunges people eventually into an overinflated sense of self merit.

" You seem to be filled with spite. No Christian soul should be driven that way. --Ciao."

You believe classic modernist ideas, and in discourese, you operate using classic modernist tactics. This is the common charge of liberals against those who hold and profess the Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 22, 2005.

Please stop and reconsider. I never insulted anybody. You took everything I said personally.

***How can I take what you say to others personally? I haven't Eugene. What you need to remember on the internet is to speak to people exactly the same way you would in person.

Instead all you've done is peck away like a baby chick after the corn meal. So I'm an old man; don't shake your finger at me for saying so.

***So because you think I pecked away must mean I am a gossip? LOL I'm not shaking my finger at you either for saying you are an old man. Old is how you feel and God takes the young too so none of us know how much time we have left. I personally don't think 67 years of age is old.

And speak with respect about people's mothers. You didn't make any big hit laughing about my mother's love for me. You should be so lucky.

***So I was right? ;o) It's not disrespect, but a fact that many Mexican women do raise their boys this way. NO I wasn't lucky to have the same love my brothers did. My mother does love me too it's just a different type than my brothers.

Anyway, Tick-a-Lock; hear me?

***What?

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

given this this thread has been safely guided away from its subject- matter Emerald, if you don't mind, i'll take you up on that offer to discuss that publication/ book i mentioned above. i have read it once already. i will try to work through it a few times more. the Michael's and anyone else who is interested is more than welcome to participate.

the thread i have started is here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ci0T

hopefully, this might get us back on track.

thanks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

PS Michael, i am aware that the new thread isn't exactly the same as the one you posited but it is very closely connected. i hope it keeps yr interest.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

Sorry for getting it off track, and sorry for my many repeats above. One day I will get into the habit of rereading/proof reading what I write.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2005.

jalapeno, not accusing anyone of anything, so no worries please. carry on as you see fit. i'm actually just being a little selfish and impatient. i'd really, really like to thrash out Michael's original question and the SSPX booklet - if anyone's up for it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

I was called a devil by Mr. chavez on anoter thread. Well he did say it with love?

I think that he has lost touch with reality and he is living in his own little world as God's defender of the faith. Another Athanasius maybe.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.

I said what I said based on your schismatic messages.

Your name is too obviously a lame alias; therefore I stated you were the devil imposing yourself on this forum. You have not even denied it; and you certainly can't deny you foment schism and dissent. That's plain.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.

I do not have to deny anything to you. You are a pope in your own mind without ralizing it. Your pronouncements are more off reality than anyone on this forum.

I really don't understand why anyone ( myself included), even answers you.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.

Sir: It is I who am answering YOU. The reason is, I humbly represent our Church's real teachings, as opposed to some of your schismatic pretenses. If you're left alone to poison the minds of faithful Catholics, you'll gain so much momentum this forum will go to the dogs. But it won't come to pass. In addition to myself there are others here true to their Church; to throw cold water on your flames.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.

Dear Ian,

Your thread will certainly keep my interest, but I will be out of town a couple days. I hope to try to catch up with it when I get back. Christ our God bless you.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.

Dear Ian,

Please note my recent comments on the Sungenis-Matatics thread.

I'm sorry, I'm so tired of all the talking on this forum. But perhaps those comments will give your blessed mind something to think about.

Regards, friend in Christ!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 26, 2005.

"Another Athanasius maybe."

No, Athanasius was on the side of Truth, certainly not the error of the New Protestantism called Traditionalism (SSPX et al).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 11, 2005.

Fr Paul

the protestant rejects Dogma, the Catholic accepts it and fights for it. there is a **world** of difference. it's a shame you don't see that.

btw, are you a real priest?

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

Fr

just to be clear -- that definition i introduced came as a result of my wondering why the "traditional" people were the scourge of the Church, whereas the liberals were not. eg, extreme example, Kung.

i think that, as a liberal, you can hide in the Church. you stick - broadly - to the NO of the Mass. then, the killer blow in the sermon - i want women priests or whatever - that's just a matter of delivery. drop bits of the Mass here and there - it just looks clumsy. re-arrange the Church -- well that's just a question of taste.

however, the "traditionalist" cannot do this because he wants the Mass in the form of Pius V - to preserve orthodoxy - and the bishops won't let him do that, and the congregation would notice straight away. he stand out like a sore thumb. he gets vilified.

this definition cuts both ways, to be sure. the liberals are just harder to find.

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

Don't be a fool, Ian,
''i think that, YOU? No, you fail to think. as a liberal, you can hide in the Church. you stick - broadly - to the NO of the Mass. then, the killer blow in the sermon - i want women priests or whatever - that's just a matter of delivery. drop bits of the Mass here and there,'' --

You're speaking pure nonsense. That isn't any typical sermon. Not even close. you keep referring to imaginary abuses.

When I explained what REAL tradition embraces, the Creed, holy priesthood,, sacraments, etc., what did you reply?

Nothing. Just as usual SLINK away; intellectually dishonest. Here you come again attempting to draw sharp contrasts between ''your brand'' of Church and the Church we all love. How? With a lie. You're only exposing your hatred to others here, nurturing and feeding it in your heart.

You forget everything about Christ's commandment: ''Love one another as I have loved you.''

You don't love the Church, or your brethren, or your neighbor. Scripture asks: If you don't love these, whom you see; how can you say you love God, whom you can't see ? ? ?

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

just what are you on, Eugene.

please.

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

There is no rite of Mass that "preserves orthodoxy". Every rite of Mass approved by the Church is totally "orthodox", by virtue of that very approval. The definition of "orthodoxy" is not "what I prefer" or "what I grew up with". It is the function of the Holy Spirit to preserve orthodoxy in the Church, a task He has handled most effectively for 2,000 years without the help of self-appointed tradition police.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2005.

YOU, Please, Sir:
Your unceasing stream of cursing and wailing about ''N''/''O'' (gratuitous defamation) in Christ's HOLY CHURCH deserves only scorn. You need tough love from a faithful Catholic, Ian. No spoonful of sugar for you tonight, with the hard medicine. Take your love and swallow. You've been a bad boy too long.

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

“the "traditionalist" … gets vilified.” ??? Seems to me the so-called “traditionalists” are the ones vilifying everybody else.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 12, 2005.

Tell you what, Steve. Click on this link.

Scroll down to the highlighted latin and its corresponding translation. As you know, these things are promulgated in latin.

What does the latin say, and what does the English say?

Perhaps you can explain how that happened.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 12, 2005.

Oh, Boy! Now we have the last piece of the puzzle. The missing link.

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

So let me get this straight, Emerald. You’re saying that any amount of vilification of the Church is justified, and indeed the Church itself has ceased to be the Church, because you personally happen to disagree with the Church’s official translation into English of ONE word of the text of the Mass? Is that it? You think you know better than the Popes and bishops and all their learned advisors? And even if you were the greatest linguist and the greatest theologian in the world, what is more important, you think you know better than the Holy Spirit who guides the Pope and bishops? Such an overweening display of arrogant egotism would have made even your predecessor Luther blush.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 13, 2005.

You mean you weren't yet acquainted with Emerald, Steve? This guy could FOUND a Church. Catholics have to be thankful he wasn't born a Turk or a Pakistani because by now Emerald would have destroyed all other religions.

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

"So let me get this straight, Emerald. You’re saying that any amount of vilification of the Church is justified, and indeed the Church itself has ceased to be the Church, because you personally happen to disagree with the Church’s official translation into English of ONE word of the text of the Mass?"

No. I'm asking you why somebody deliberately mistranslated the latin text of Novus Ordo, as promulgated.

"Is that it?"

No. See above.

"You think you know better than the Popes and bishops and all their learned advisors?"

Quit using foul language.

"And even if you were the greatest linguist and the greatest theologian in the world, what is more important, you think you know better than the Holy Spirit who guides the Pope and bishops?"

Answer the question.

"Such an overweening display of arrogant egotism would have made even your predecessor Luther blush."

You must not be able to answer a simple querry.

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

"You mean you weren't yet acquainted with Emerald, Steve? This guy could FOUND a Church. Catholics have to be thankful he wasn't born a Turk or a Pakistani because by now Emerald would have destroyed all other religions."

Stop stealing things.

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

Here's what you're up against, Steve, with this statement:

"...because you personally happen to disagree with the Church’s official translation into English of ONE word of the text of the Mass..."

Starting from last to first.

Of the 22 recognized rites in union with Rome, all the other non- latin rites use "for many" in this part of the Consecration. Of the particular rite, the Latin rite, in the recent promulgation of this rite, the official language promulaged in Latin still uses the term: for many.

That's the official promulgation.

Now I'm not a mathimatical genius. But according to my calculations, that's all of them. All official promulgations use the term for many in their official promulgations. Unless I'm invincibly ignorant, mentally deluded, or demonic possessed, that is.

That's the last. Now, for the first: Pro multis. That is what was promulgated, no?

You say you have a problem with me having a problem with what you call "the Church's official translation into English".

Well, yeah. Sure. Because pro multis means for many.

Did I err?

On other matters. I said "quit using foul language" because you weren't using foul language. Nor was I doing any of what you claimed I was doing. A mere illustration.

Same for the goofy response to Gene. Mere illustrations. You know how they say what comes around goes around, or something like that. If someone else does it, I thought, hey, I'll give it a whirl too. Run it up a flagpole; see who salutes.

It's not the only one though. Look a little below pro multis in the link provided. See where it says mysterium fidei. We can talk about the translation of that as well.

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

“I'm asking you why somebody deliberately mistranslated the latin text of Novus Ordo, as promulgated.” You're begging the question, three times over. Just stating what you set out to prove as if you had already proved it as fact, but without any evidence. You assume (a) that it IS a mistranslation (b) that somebody DELIBERATELY mistranslated it. (c) that the Pope has no power to authorize texts of the Mass which (appear to you to) differ in meaning from language to language.

“Quit using foul language.” Quit making false accusations.

“Answer the question.” Apart from the fact that your question has zero relevance to the point I commmented on, (that so-called traditionalists are the ones vilifying everyone else), I couldn’t give a fig about whatever you think is a correct translation. The Pope has authorized a text of the Mass, among many others. I’m certainly not going to tell him he has no right to do so. Whether not it corresponds word for word with other texts he has also authorized is irrelevant.

“Of the 22 recognized rites in union with Rome, all the other non- latin rites use "for many" in this part of the Consecration.” That’s extremely odd, since as far as I know not one of those rites uses the English language. You seem to suffer from the delusion common among those who know little of language, that every word in every language has one and only one exactly equivalent word in every other language, which is always the only possible translation regardless of context.

“Unless I'm invincibly ignorant, mentally deluded, or demonic possessed” I dunno. You choose.

“Nor was I doing any of what you claimed I was doing.” I never claimed you were doing anything. I merely asked you to clarify your point of view.

“See where it says mysterium fidei. We can talk about the translation of that as well.” No thanks, you can talk to yourself. It’s irrelevant – see above.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 13, 2005.

"Just stating what you set out to prove as if you had already proved it as fact, but without any evidence."

Here's the evidence: "for many" in latin is "pro multis". But they didn't translate it right. They said "pro omnibus", or "for all", instead. That's not what pro multis means. Simple.

"You assume (a) that it IS a mistranslation (b) that somebody DELIBERATELY mistranslated it."

I'm not assuming anything; I know it, because (a) I know what those latin words mean, and (b) the translation wasn't done by a forklift, tree, infant, or a pinata. It was done by a person. That person knew their latin, and deliberately chose to use that phrase "for all" for pro multis instead of the correct phrase which is "for many". Clearly.

...(c) that the Pope has no power to authorize texts of the Mass which (appear to you to) differ in meaning from language to language."

I never said the pope has no authority over these things. You are inferring this. Here's how the inferring-thing works. An example; it goes like this:

"Emerald, just because XYZ or ABC doesn't mean you have to use foul language."

Which is true. Because I don't have to use foul language. But I didn't use foul language though. But the sentence infers that I did, without directly stating that I did.

Responding then, to the inferring-thingy is easy: I can assure you that I believe that the Pope has the authority these things.

But let me ask you this: who was it that authorized these English texts? Do you know?

"Apart from the fact that your question has zero relevance to the point I commmented on, (that so-called traditionalists are the ones vilifying everyone else)..."

It related because the statement isn't the truth, really. It was useful to pick an example to put out there that was absolutely clear as can be, cut-and-dried doggone obvious as possible, to show one thing and one thing alone: the obvious. And that once you state what is the obvious, the traditional Catholic finds himself on the receiving end of the villification. But that's to be expected, since it's of the essence of the complete picture here. Who should seek to avoid it, really.

"That’s extremely odd, since as far as I know not one of those rites uses the English language. You seem to suffer from the delusion common among those who know little of language, that every word in every language has one and only one exactly equivalent word in every other language, which is always the only possible translation regardless of context."

Did I say that? No. What did I say? That all the other rites use words that mean "many" instead of "all". Go look and see. What did I say? I threw a link to the Novus Ordo as promulgated. Now the official language of the Church is latin. I gave you the latin. If you know latin, you know what pro multis means. You can see that it means "for many" Simple. The official language of the Church is latin, and pro multis means for many, and that's the meaning that the official promulgation of the Novus Orde used. In context to boot.

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

"You seem to suffer from the delusion common among those who know little of language, that every word in every language has one and only one exactly equivalent word in every other language, which is always the only possible translation regardless of context.""

Emerald,

i've seen this one before, and it's pure bunkum.

Latin has a word for ALL - Omnis.

it also has a word for many - Multi.

from my dictionary, some words:

multifariam - in MANY places

multifidus - divided into MANY parts

multiformis - of MANY forms

multiforus - MANY-holed multigeneris - of MANY kinds

multiloquium - talkative [of MANY words]

multiplex - of MANY sides, tortuous

multipotens - very powerful [NOT all-powerful - see below]

etc etc

omnifer - ALL sustaining

omnigenus - of ALL kinds

omniparens - mother of ALL

onmipotens - ALL powerful

omnisciens - ALL knowing

omnituens - ALL seeing

etc etc

these words were in existence since Cicero and well before that. their meanings have been known for millenia. this is a mistranslation, no question about it.

interestingly - and anyone can google and find this out for themselves - but when this mistranslation ws introduced into the Mass, a lot of people noticed and complained.

a letter was issued by a Jesuit, approved by the Vatican i think, that gave the other argument - a close cousin of Steve's argument.

the SJ argued that, whilst Latin could differentiate between many and all, Aramaic couldn't. somewhat embarassingly, this was shown to be untrue. Aramaic, and common Greek [the second most likley language used at the Last Supper], both distinguish between "many" and "all".

in fact, it is fair to say that it would take an extremely primitive language that could not. i cannot think of one.

whilst this is not where i envisaged the conversation going when i posted back to Fr Paul, it is true that the New Mass contains this translational error. it's an error.

falsus est. pro explorato habeo.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 13, 2005.

...but that was never my original point.

my original point was made to Fr Paul. the people who ignore or change dogma are protestants. the people who stand by them are the Catholics. for Fr Paul to lave the SSPX and other as protestants is quite wrong.

for example, if you are aware that Vatican I forbids - dogmatically - any new understanding or sense of Dogma, but you buy into new theologies, you aren't Catholic.

this is from Donimus Iesus:

"With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual **non- Christians**, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to **understand this question more fully**."

the answer has already been given at Florence. and Trent. it's called Orinal Sin. there's a cure called Baptism. for an adult, this also requires Faith, the Catholic Faith. if **understand this question more fully** means "note to self to read Florence and Trent again", fine. i doubt it does.

so just who's the protestant?

that's the point i wanted to make.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 13, 2005.

The question of how "pro multis" should be translated into English is frankly irrelevant to the whole matter. The real question is whether "pro multis" was ever the correct Latin phrase to express the traditional teaching of the Church. The answer to that question is apparent in the New Testament, where several passages clearly proclaim the infallible teaching of the early Church that Christ died for ALL men. A couple of examples: ...

English (Douay-Rheims):

"And Christ died FOR ALL; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again. (2 Cor 5:15)

"Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto ALL MEN to justification of life. (Rom 5;18)

Latin (Vulgate):

"et PRO OMNIBUS mortuus est Christus: ut, et qui vivunt, jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit." (2 Cor 5:15)

"Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem : sic et per unius justitiam in OMNES HOMINES in justificationem vitae. (Rom 5:18)

Thus, "for many" plainly conflicts with the clear sense of Scripture, which in turn reflects the original teaching of the Church. The Church has wisely corrected that apparent conflict of meaning. Since the words of Scripture are divinely inspired and immutable, while the words of a liturgical rite are not, the Church has wisely brought the liturgy into more perfect harmony with the Church's original teaching as recorded in the Scriptures.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2005.

so Jesus got it wrong at the Last Supper?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 13, 2005.

Does the council of Trent stand for anything anymore, or is that also obsolete?

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

-- Trying to learn (Question@answers.com), February 13, 2005.

Sorry for dragging ya'll off topic. That really wasn't the intent so much as to flush out in a more tangible way the tactics used against your average traditional Catholic in conversations.

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

Wow, steve:
We've opened the Ian and Emerald floodgates. It's fine; but they'll come back tomorrow if you get their goat today. Only God can silence a waterfall.

As we experience their Latin Vulgate Niagara, and their suggestion (hell, insistence) that the Mass we celebrate today is phony-- a farce, to Emerald--

It pays to remember that christ didn't speak latin. Sure, many Popes did. But what about it? The first Eucharist was in Aramaic; then written in Greek, later in Latin and now in the vernacular. What scholar wouldn't find some lost nuance someplace in that progression ?

But the Purists and Pharisees around us are NOT INTERESTED in Latin or Aramaic. They want to divide the Catholic faithful, no more, no less.

It's all a pretext. Emerald and Ian won't actually say it loud. They muffle their squeak; which is, ''None of you have received the Body and Blood of Christ; none are ever in a state of grace; not even John Paul II-- ''It's ludicrous. Emerald and Ian won't say what they really ''found out'' about us. We're without a Church, from the Pope on down! ''HEY, Everybody-- Come over to this side! We have the true Body and Blood of Christ for ya! You boys and girls are recieving only BREAD, only WINE! HAHAHA! The joke's on you!''

Divide and rule. A project going on in our own forum. Let alone in the world; as Satan desires.

But a miracle of true Transubstantiation takes place for certain; when the duly ordained priest is saying ''This is my body,'' --and "this is the cup of my blood.'' There is the form. Take it or leave it, that's what Jesus Christ instituted as His Mass. The trimmings that wreath around these words are for the record. These few words in themselves are for the Sacrament. No one has changed it. We have the Holy Mass of the Catholic faith alive forever.

Nothing Emerald or Ian or Isabel, Jake, John Smith or SATAN say will take it away from us. Unless they can choose the next Pope. Let them try.

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

Sister Lucia died today.

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

"As we experience their Latin Vulgate Niagara, and their suggestion (hell, insistence) that the Mass we celebrate today is phony-- a farce, to Emerald--"

Did I say that? No. You did. One of those infer-something thingamajiggers.

"It pays to remember that christ didn't speak latin. Sure, many Popes did. But what about it?"

What about it? The Church has deemed it appropriate to use Latin as the official language of the Church. It's a dead language. It's useful for the preservation of the clarity of doctrine, and therefore useful for liturgy as well: lex orandi, lex credendi. You got some kind of problem with that?

"the first Eucharist was in Aramaic; then written in Greek, later in Latin and now in the vernacular. What scholar wouldn't find some lost nuance someplace in that progression ?"

I've heard it in Aramaic; very nice. Lost nuance in a progression? That's one reason why Latin is the official language of the Church.

"But the Purists and Pharisees around us are NOT INTERESTED in Latin or Aramaic. They want to divide the Catholic faithful, no more, no less."

Someone points out that the pro multis is what the original promulgation of the Novus Ordo uses, and that it translates as "for many" and not "for all". The point in mentioning it is to illustrate exactly who is villifying who in these little exchanges. It work. Because someone states this obvious truth, and what does Gene conclude? If you state such an obvious thing, why, you're a secret agent of Satan sent to divide the Faithful. Oooo-ky doky.

Gene. The tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have got to go.

"It's all a pretext. Emerald and Ian won't actually say it loud. They muffle their squeak; which is, ''None of you have received the Body and Blood of Christ; none are ever in a state of grace; not even John Paul II-- ''It's ludicrous."

I have not once stated or even insinuated that any of you have not been receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, or that any of you are not in a state or grace and any such thing. In fact, that's a flat out lie. I would like you to retract it.

However, a friend talked to my wife recently, and said that last Sunday at the Mass this person attended, the priest just flat out didn't say the prayers of the Consecration at all. On that Sunday, and at that particular Mass, those people who received indeed did not receive the Body and Blood of Christ. And this friend isn't even really what you'd call a traditionalist; a good person, no doubt about it, though. He confronted the priest after Mass and the priest gets angry. Tell you what, I'll get more details on it. Chula Vista. In fact, I bet you even know this parish, Gene. Rose of Lima? I did a lot of improvements for them a while back. You need to wake up. That's some serious garbage going on, huh?

"Emerald and Ian won't say what they really ''found out'' about us. We're without a Church, from the Pope on down! ''HEY, Everybody-- Come over to this side! We have the true Body and Blood of Christ for ya! You boys and girls are recieving only BREAD, only WINE! HAHAHA! The joke's on you!''"

Whatever, Gene. Hey, would you do me a favor? Not for my sake, because I don't give a rip what anyone thinks of me one way or another, in case you haven't figured that out by now... but would you please step up to the plate and admit that we have a genuine problem, and that it isn't the trads? Hello? *whap* Gene, wake up. Divide and rule. A project going on in our own forum. Let alone in the world; as Satan desires. But a miracle of true Transubstantiation takes place for certain; when the duly ordained priest is saying ''This is my body,'' -- and "this is the cup of my blood.'' There is the form. Take it or leave it, that's what Jesus Christ instituted as His Mass. The trimmings that wreath around these words are for the record. These few words in themselves are for the Sacrament. No one has changed it. We have the Holy Mass of the Catholic faith alive forever. Nothing Emerald or Ian or Isabel, Jake, John Smith or SATAN say will take it away from us. Unless they can choose the next Pope. Let them try.

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

That last part of the last paragraph after I whapped you is a copy/paste of the rest of your own post, Gene. Forgot to delete it before posting. Sorry.

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

''--we have a genuine problem, and that it isn't the trads? Hello?''

TRADS. Funny!!!! Your over-riding interest is always ''the trads.'' Whatsis; are the Trads some kind of baseball team? Either we're Catholics or we're anti- Catholics, Emerald. Keep these childish ideas of yours out of our forum. This is the Catholic Forum.

Problem? Not in the Diocese of Sacramento, Chum. And-- be honest; you and the elitist camp are ALWAYS a blink away from declaring the vernacular liturgy cannot carry out a genuine Mass and real Transubstantiation; owing to your private displeasure about ''for all.'' Why are you just a blink away? Because you know you lack ALL authority to make any charge of the sort. But with or without the authority, you lay the innuendo on Catholics who faithfully assist at the Mass of Vatican II. With this ''trad'' claptrap borrowed from the Pharisees. To give souls cause for doubt, and to undermine our priests and bishops. That's the raging current, whether you plot it or not, because you don't know when to quit.

I served up a list of characteristics for Ian, of what real Traditional Catholic faith is. Everything from the Creed to the Communion of saints. All of you KNOW it; and you don't pay attention. WE have just as much right to call ourselves traditional as ANY CATHOLIC SAINT of the old world Church.

You're arrogating your stupid ''Trad'' falsehood as if nobody else had a traditional leg to stand on. Well, sit on it! We're Catholics to the core, as much as you. Except you have some kind of complex, Emmie. You want to live and die a fanatic.

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

"TRADS. Funny!!!! Your over-riding interest is always ''the trads.''"

What other kind of Catholic is there than a traditional Catholic? If you're not what always was, then you're something other.

"Either we're Catholics or we're anti- Catholics, Emerald."

It's hard to tell sometimes.

"Keep these childish ideas of yours out of our forum. This is the Catholic Forum."

You're going to make it appear if I'm not a Catholic and don't belong around you? That's not you causing division? That's not the essence of schism right there? And who is doing the cutting away? You.

"Problem? Not in the Diocese of Sacramento, Chum. And-- be honest; you and the elitist camp are ALWAYS a blink away from declaring the vernacular liturgy cannot carry out a genuine Mass and real Transubstantiation; owing to your private displeasure about ''for all.''"

You're lying, Gene. I never once said the Novus Ordo is invalid. Not once.

"Why are you just a blink away? Because you know you lack ALL authority to make any charge of the sort."

This is completely moronic. As if I claimed I had authority in any of these matters. Dishonesty.

"But with or without the authority, you lay the innuendo on Catholics who faithfully assist at the Mass of Vatican II."

By pointing out that pro multis means "for many"? Sure, Gene.

"With this ''trad'' claptrap borrowed from the Pharisees. To give souls cause for doubt, and to undermine our priests and bishops."

Me. Undermining our priests and bishops. Unbelievable. ME. Not them, but me and the other traditional Catholics. This is a riot.

"That's the raging current, whether you plot it or not, because you don't know when to quit."

Never. I will never quit standing by Holy Mother Church.

"I served up a list of characteristics for Ian, of what real Traditional Catholic faith is. Everything from the Creed to the Communion of saints. All of you KNOW it; and you don't pay attention. WE have just as much right to call ourselves traditional as ANY CATHOLIC SAINT of the old world Church."

Every now and then you talk some good talk, but there's this whole other side that works another angle.

"You're arrogating your stupid ''Trad'' falsehood as if nobody else had a traditional leg to stand on."

It's been years. You haven't stated what that falsehood is. There isn't any.

"Well, sit on it!"

No. "We're Catholics to the core, as much as you. Except you have some kind of complex, Emmie. You want to live and die a fanatic."

I'll die a Catholic.

Sit down.

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

I think you understood what I said; you answer by stream of consciousness. Thank you, Fine Sir. What I see is denial; you seem unaware of anything to be sorry for. Only, what I told you is all true. Chew on it, Emerald. I said, [You flaunt] your stupid ''trad'' falsehood as if nobody else had a traditional leg to stand on.''

''It's been years. You haven't stated what that falsehood is. There isn't any.'' --Not so fast. It's false because you DIVIDE the faithful into two camps. The so-called ''trads'' of your deep, HONEST conviction, and ''the others''. The bad Catholics, who didn't stick to the Tridentine blueprint forever. As if you had a copyright on the faith; all others are just wannabees and plebeians. This is false and perverse. We are ONE people, Emerald. One faith to the end of the world. That's Jesus Christ's promise. If you find a Latin missal gets best results, we have no objection. But we feel moved to anger when you lambast our bishops and our Pope; over the distance you were required to drive today getting to Mass. --Then you turn your attention to MY liturgy, at the Catholic parish I worship in, and sneer at it. This causes division. Get over it, Man.

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

Ian,

Do you expect me to remember every thread I post in? Beside that, I have had my fill of debate with so called Traditionalists who claim to know better than the Holy See. I will say this much as regards the "many" and "all" debate:

THE HOLY SEE APPROVED THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Therefore, IT IS VALID whether you or 1,000,000 trads like it or not or agree with it or not.

Did Christ not die for all? This does not mean that all WILL be saved, but He certainly died for all.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

Ian,

"the protestant rejects Dogma"

No, protestants reject the legitimate authority of the Church and what they say.

Trads, the scourge of the Church? If you want to put it ion those terms, both Trads and liberal modernists who also reject the legitimate authority of the Church are the scourge.

-- (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

You said it, Father Paul.

These Catholics however, maybe not Ian, but a few--

Made the charge that a bevy of protestants and I think a Freemason; took part in the drafting of our liturgy. That makes it repulsive from the outset to a faction of anti-ecumenical pharisees in our Church.

It never occurs to them that God could love a heretic; not even if that Christian is a person of good will. Our own brethren have reversed the roles once so common in days of our Church's persecution. Nowadays we have Catholics for whom the protestant has no call to convert unless he learns his Latin take it or leave it.

That's why these folks protest against their own ordained priest who faces the people during Holy Mass, or the odd hymnal, and on and on ad infinitum. ''What are we, protestants ??!!?!??

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

All of you who argue have one thing in common. You are obsessed with God and religion. That is good because most people in this world couldn't care a pig's rump about what you are saying. God bless all.

-- Raoul Havenschleiger (Good things@last.com), February 14, 2005.

Raoul,

Not all of us are obsessed.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

Raoul got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I wonder why he picked of all places, ''Eugenius IV and Vatican II reconciled by Pius IX and XII?'' for his laptop home page?

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

Eugene

perhaps Raul was trying to compliment you? thought of that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.

OBSSESSED? A compliment? You can take it as such. I wouldn't wonder.

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

i was leaving it open, Eugene.

i consider that there is some possibility that, in this secular world, Raul was happy to see people that take the Faith seriously enough to spend great deals of time discussing it.

what's wrong in that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.

Gee, Ian. All I said was, ''I wonder why he picked of all places, ''Eugenius IV and Vatican II reconciled by Pius IX and XII?'' for his laptop home page?'' Would you like for me to take that back? Anyway-- I don't feel very obsessed. And I don't think it's good for you. (Take that as a warning.)

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

i'll tell you a story Eugene. for a change. it's true.

last Sunday, there was a drunken woman at Mass [N.O.]. she was sitting in one of those side rooms, singing into her can of beer, when i arrived.

i think she had been shepherded into some other room by the time Mass started. however, she re-appeared, right behind the choir, just as the first hymn struck up. she huddled up beside one of the singers - who looked quite scared - and "sang" along; and, every time the choir struck up, she would re-appear at her side and, yes, sing.

her singing was truly awful, a kind of scary scream. louder than everyone else too, so it was plainly audible

no-one said or did anything to restrain her. the poor soul was really badly gone, totally off her mind.

then, at the Eucharist, she joined the queue - as it happens, 2 places before me. then, up to the Special Eucharistic Minister.

what happened next?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.

To tell you the truth, Ian-- It doesn't matter.

My own conscience is clear. I should pray for that woman, and for that parish; if she was given Holy Communion.

Don't lay traps for me, Ian. Follow your own conscience.

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

Ian,

What were you doing at a N.O. mass?

-- Paula (Whoopee@do.com), February 16, 2005.

well Paula:

Eugene has me labelled here. he seems to like his boxes. he has a whole load of invective that he fires at the box called "trad". so he calls me a "trad".

truth is, though, i go to N.O. MAsses. i am an NO baby, having been born after VII and the N.O.. of course, that means that i am not, therefore, "nostalgic" for a particular form of liturgy.

other factor: i am not in any position to challenge the licitness or validity of a NO Mass or a Pius V Mass; nor do i. i expect that i receive the Blessed Sacrament at the NO Masses.

...but the truth is, i came here looking for answers.

and i also got my sorry butt down to an Indult Mass....and, goodness me, i have never, ever regretted that. i know why that Mass was held that way. a MAss that i had never ever seen before - i felt at home. wierd? it's true. words fails me when i try to describe it.

i now go Indult when i can get it. usually, about 2 per month, some more, some less. i go N.O. on other Sundays, Holy Days to meet the obligation - and also when i go to midweek Mass.

i do Adoration at NO, Confessions at NO.

there's an SSPX Mass centre that i have found - that might get me to the 4 per month Pius V Masses. it's a long way away; and i have reservations too. long story.

who knows what will come to pass. i expect in the end to go for as much Pius V as i can get.

truthfully, i'm pretty convinced that the wheel have come off the Church. i have little to offer save my prayers. this is work in progress. i find it quite depressing. however, it's work that needs to be done. then i will be free.

sorry for the stream of consciousness. i am adressing Eugene too, so he knows that i respond to TLC and informed debate far better than to tirades of this and that.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.

Oh, Boy!
''got my sorry butt down to an Indult Mass....and, goodness me, i have never, ever regretted that. i know why that Mass was held that way. a MAss that i had never ever seen before - i felt at home. wierd? it's true. words fails me when i try to describe it.'' Yeah. You do seem wierd, Ian.

''Words fail me, I felt at home.''

I think you were already ''at home'' on that day when you watched the old lady singing into the ''beer can.'' You didn't like her singing! Oh, no! That's why you judge her trip to communion; a terrible thing.

You should've kept your eyes on your own sins; and stopped spying on another soul, Ian.

It may well be she was in a state of grace and you weren't. You have no cause to call her drunk. Then come here to ''share'' the hearsay. You were acting like the Pharisee. Trying to come between God and another soul. Because, if God saw the sin, (really) He didn't need YOU to make note of it.

OK, if you felt Oh so good ! at an indult Mass; so what? Catholics want you to go anywhere you please. Suit yourself. And keep your opinions about Novus Ordo Masses to yourself.

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

Thank you Ian for your response. Perhaps I should not hav asked you.

It would seem that people here are in enough trouble from that horrid man.

-- Paula (Whoopee@Do.com), February 16, 2005.

Ian, truly, aren't you a ZEALOUS trad STILL lingering in the Novus Ordo? Your body might be in the Novus Ordo but doesn't your heart have "pre-V2 trad" written all over it? Isn't a change of heart the answer rather than a change of church?

-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.

tx Paula!

he's not horrid. just entrenched.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.

Thanks Ian. I'd hate to think you call me horrid.

I am entrenched in this conviction that we can depend on the Holy Spirit through hard times. Our Lord promised He was to guide his Church all days.

In the 1500's a so called reformation took place, in which men lost faith in the Holy Spirit. They abandoned Him. Here you maintain none of their descendants can come to salvation. But you risk going the same way the protestants did. Why aren't YOU entrenched in the faith?

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

Eugene

these kinds of arguments get us noweher.

let me re-cast it slightly.

"... and in the 19600's a further reformation took place, in which men lost faith in the Holy Spirit. They abandoned Him."

we go round and round and round.

...or we get into the history and the teaching and the substantive points that are germane to this discussion.

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

You make nothing but self-serving remarks. Not about truth; just your opinion.

"... and in the 1960's a further reformation took place, in which men lost faith in the Holy Spirit. They abandoned Him."

The protestant putative reformation is an accomplished fact. Your assessment of Vatican II is not a fact, it's a smear. Not meaning any offense, but again. Place it up in there where the sun never shines. Because for sure, you lost your faith in the Holy Spirit, Ian.

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

you're becoming ever more personal, Eugene.

why not just address the issues?

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

Ian; just a day or two back you had to mention my ''knickers'' to this forum. I already said turn- about is fair play. Be fair, Pilgrim!

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

Lol!!!!!

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

Message from Our Lady of La Salette; I could be now, as it certainly shows evidence of being just that.

Melanie, what I am about to tell you now will not always be a secret. You may make it public in 1858."

"The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again The sins of those dedicated to God cry out towards Heaven and call for vengeance, and now vengeance is at their door, for there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering a stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world.

-- 4 (33333@55555555.com), February 17, 2005.

There's nothing in such a ''message'' that disqualifies the Pope or his bishops. It's vague and without substance.

In fact, this last sentence is an affront to the Holy Eucharist and our priests who offer it up daily: ''There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering a stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world.'' The Mother of God would never have made such a stupid statement.

If you place your faith in spurious apparitions instead of the Holy Catholic Church herself, God will punish you.

And, please; for His sake: don't be a coward, signing off ''4'' 3333333333333333333 and 555555555555555555555. An alias for somebody totally dishonest. You have a name, don't you? What are you afraid of?

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

Hey, Emerald.

Can't remember if I've ever asked you. Do you ever go to the San Juan Capistrano mission for Mass? Do they still have the indult Mass there every Sunday? [In fact, when I was living out there, it was an older priest, and I believe that's all they used to say at that church.] When I lived in Oceanside, that's where I would go to Mass most of the time. What a beautiful mission. Ever heard of the Flight of the Swallows?

Gene, you're grasping at straws again. Saying things, [inferring things, if you like] that have absolutely no semblance of the truth. Emerald have never said, and I know he doesn't think, that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. Nor do I. Never once even implied it.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 18, 2005.

Isabel, do you believe and obey ALL the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II? Or do you also have OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL of V2 & post-V2 teachings of the Infallible Magisterium like Emerald, Ian Jake, Pete, Paula, and TC?

-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.

Isabel, do you believe and obey ALL the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II?

I hereby solemny swear that I believe and uphold all the infallible teachings and declarations of Holy Mother Church.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 18, 2005.

I have faith in the papacy and in the one, Holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Yes, in the Church which can never err. Not in any one man at a given time. He may not be working for Our Lord.

Oh yes, he may by some legal term be a valid pope, but he may not be a worthy or trustful pope.

“No Jurisdiction” Advocates

Recently, many among the Sedevacantists (i.e., those who don’t accept John Paul II as the Pope) are being convinced by certain tracts that none of the traditional priests have jurisdiction to hear Confessions or faculties to say Mass. This is a false claim, which is based on a failure of these authors to recognize the distinction between ecclesiastical laws and divine revelation, and how the former apply in a state of necessity. This error causes them to conclude falsely that no priest can lawfully say Mass; that no Bishop can lawfully consecrate another Bishop, etc. in this situation. It is not my to go into detail addressing this false claim, but merely to illustrate what I believe to be another clear parallel to the Machabees. In the Machabees, the resisting Israelites were attacked on the Sabbath because the allies of evil King Antiochus didn’t believe that they would fight back on the Sabbath. And, at first, the resisters did not fight back on the Sabbath because they believed it would be unlawful [read: they did not say Mass; they did not hear Confessions; they did not Consecrate Bishops, etc. because they believed it was unlawful], but after their people were all being slain, they changed their course and did fight back on the Sabbath.

-- prospector (Tellitlikeitis@somewhere.com), February 18, 2005.

Dear -- prospector Tellitlikeitis@somewhere:

You don't make sense. You say, I have faith in the

PAPACY ------------Followed by: ''he [our Pope] may by some legal term be a valid pope, but he may not be a worthy or trustful pope.'' You want to ride the center line, Hmmm? He's either the Pope or just another man, prospector. You can't have it both ways. And-- it seems you don't care what the Holy Spirit has done for our Church. Can it be you think He might not '' be a worthy or trustful [trustworthy] Holy Spirit?'' What kind of faithful Catholic thinks these disturbing thoughts?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.

Isabel, do you believe and obey ALL the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II? Answer YES or NO.

Isabel, do you also have OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL of V2 & post-V2 teachings of the Infallible Magisterium like Emerald, Ian Jake, Pete, Paula, and TC? Answer YES or NO.

-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.

Which teaching, @?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.

San Juan Capistrano is a little too far away, but if they do have a latin Mass up there, I'd like to know, because we'd go sometime. The kids have been asking to see it anyways. It's been a long, long time since I've been there myself. We've been to some of the others which are closer to home recently, including the Mission San Luis Rey, which you've probably been to since its in Oceanside.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 18, 2005.

"Isabel, do you believe and obey ALL the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II? Answer YES or NO. Isabel, do you also have OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL of V2 & post-V2 teachings of the Infallible Magisterium like Emerald, Ian Jake, Pete, Paula, and TC? Answer YES or NO."

The very questions you ask indicate that you don't have a grasp on some of these things.

I'll answer any question with a yes or a no. But first, I'd like to you tighten up your questions so that it is absolutely clear what you are asking.

Do you want to do that, or just let it go right now? I'm game. Let's see if you can hold it together.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.

As much as it pains me to say this I can no longer, as a faithful Catholic to all of the teachings of the Church, acknowledge that JPII is the pope. To do so would be to deny Christ. Know that my struggle with this issue has been going on for some 3 years. I used all of the standard arguments such as material heresy, non public heresy, indefectibility to support the idea that there is a pope in today's time.. To be honest with you, after seeing The Passion of The Christ I was moved to meditate on a lot of things. To know that Christ suffered so cruelly and to know that an imposter in the papacy is crucifying Him day in and day out is a complete and utter devastation to the Catholic Faith. The man claiming to be pope is leading millions of souls to Hell.

-- Upset (Annon@somewhere.com), February 18, 2005.

Very well, Upset.
We understand. You're a sensitive little soul; unable to take bright lights and the truth. No one asks you to suffer any longer in that pretend church with the pretend Pope.

You just start your own sparkling new fine church. Just don't call yours Catholic.

You have no Pope. We can't spare ours. Please pray for us and we'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Emerald: Why are you so eager? You're leaping to answer questons that were asked Isabel! Nobody asked YOU.

And, then you attack! ''I'd like to tighten up your questions so that it is absolutely clear what you are asking.

Who needs YOU to tighten up other folk's questions?

''Do you want to do that, or just let it go right now? I'm game. Let's see, etc.'' -----------I'M GAME!!!!! --Hahaha! What a competitor! He's so courageous!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

"Who needs YOU to tighten up other folk's questions?"

Why, you do, of course.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.

I see. THAT took courage. NOT.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Eugene is all heart. Sommeone comes in with a poignant story and gets the shaft. He would make the perfect talk show host. He could cut you off in the middle of a word. And he would.

I know people who have the same story to tell. It is not unusual.

John Paul is a disaster as a pope. I don't apologize for saying it. One more like him and you will have to find the Church with a microscope.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 19, 2005.

Thank you Paul. I wonder when I last cut you off? Or shafted you?

My words to all you so called trads are never shafts; just return volleys in the tennis court of apologetics. When your defense is weak or missing, you curse the referee. And for how long is it now, you've all been on the defensive? All you can muster is that old canard, ''John Paul is a disaster as a Pope.'' --Great volley.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Oh, my! PETE. I didn't mean Paul, our other great apostle. I was calling on PETE. --Fault! Just a slip.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

This is a very disturbing thread. I'm not equipped to argue against the "Trad" position. I only have vague memories of pre V-2. I'm a product of V-2 and the education that resulted. If you wanted to get snide, you could probably use me as a "perfect example" of whats wrong with the Church today. But I view my lapses as being my own making and fault, not the Church's.

But I can't for the life of me see how one can say John Paul II is a disaster, or there is no Pope on the thrown etc. We as Catholics are supposed to accept the Popes authority. How can "we" decide that the Pope isn't the Pope? Can't "we" be wrong about standing against our Pope---and if we are, isn't it a pretty grave error? Why go out on that limb?

You (Trads) write with great passion and knowlege. I'm not here to debate you, --- I'd come out with too many wounds. I just can't understand why you think Christ would allow his Church to fall into error with wrong Popes and incorrect teaching and revelation. I thought we were protected from that ever happening. Are we coming to a point where we might end up with two Popes and two Catholic Churchs,---one Trad and one Novus Ordu?

Luther didn't think the Popes or the Church was right and look what followed.

The "split" thats developing doesn't seem good to me. I'm hoping its just a fringe thing. I don't run into it anywhere but here, but then again I really never ask people what their position on the Popes authority is either.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 19, 2005.

Let us see how long it takes for this "disaster" to join the ranks of other great Pontiffs who have been canonized. But even then the trads will reject the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in favor of their own personal views.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2005.

Eugene says that there is no salvation outside the church. Correct. Cantate Domino and countless other dogmatic pronouncements say so.

John Paul understands it in the enlightment of this generation. The Holy Spirit ws half asleep before V2. Sure He was!

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979:

“We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”(9)

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990:

“The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”(10)

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (# 53):

“We are not dealing here with man in the ‘abstract,’ but with the real, ‘concrete,’ ‘historical’ man. We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and through this mystery Christ has united himself with each one forever.”(11)

Notice the word “forever” in all three of these quotations. Yes, in three different encyclicals, John Paul II bluntly asserts that every man is united with Christ forever. This means that all men are saved, because hell is eternal separation from God, and no one is ever separated from God according to John Paul II. Everyone is united with God forever. There is not a more succinct way of teaching universal salvation.

There are many other quotations that one could bring forward to prove that John Paul II holds that all men are saved. For example, in 1985, John Paul II explained how the Redemptive blo

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 19, 2005.

Christ is surely united to all men. But all men aren't going to be saved by the bond God effected between his Holy Son and all mankind. That union is called the mystery of the Incarnation. Jesus is True Man as well as True God. Do you dispute this?

This is the mystery John Paul II our Holy Father is describing. All men are Christ's human brothers. ALL men have a share in Redemption; their salvation is assured unless they reject Jesus Christ. This has just gone over your head, Pete. You lack the grace to connect all the dots. And pride becomes your actual motivation. Not faith in Jesus Christ. If you intend to remain in our forum, drop your insulting reference to the Pope as ''anti-Pope,'' Pete. We're NOT going to tolerate that calumny here. Take it where it gets applause; to the Syndicate of Satan's Devil's Advocates. Leave this site before you're banned outright.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

Jim, we Catholics are 1.1 BILLION strong worldwide and growing -- all one with Pope John Paul II -- and TRILLIONS of Catholics already ahead of us, in glory, in heaven. Schismatic trads are most likely only in the thousands (23,000 trads attended their excommunicated founder's celebration in 1989) and concentrated mainly in Europe and USA. Heretical trads are just a drop out of the Catholic ocean.

-- (@.@.@.@), February 19, 2005.

I pretty much suspected as such @@@@, but they certainly seem to be a vocal and passionate minority.

---And that "Anti-Pope" business has a nasty ring to it.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 19, 2005.

Posted elsewhere:

Pete,

"[T]he apostles baptized 3000 Jews on the day of Pentecost. Did they waste their time, when they were already saved through their own religion? First baptism of water went. In came baptism of desire. Now that went, and there is no need for even that. What will they do next? Don't worry Eugene, the Vatican now has a greater understanding."

Actually the understanding has been there for years, unless you want to deny the validity of the papacy of Pius IX also:

"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." (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX, AUGUST 10, 1863)

Speaking of "invincible ignorance" Pius IX had this to say:

"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." (Singulari Quadem, 1856)

and

"it must likewise be held certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, WHO COULD PRESUME IN HIMSELF AN ABILITY TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH IGNORANCE, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice." (Singulari Quadam, 1854 [EMPHASIS ADDED])

He especially calls to mind this as regards God's plan of Salvation according to His Divine Mercy on the same subject:

"Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to dare set limits to the divine mercy, which is infinite. Far be it from Us to want to penetrate the secret plans and judgements of God, which are a great abyss (see Ps. 35:7), impenetrable to human thought." (Ibid.)

Here's one you better take to heart:

"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. ETERNAL SALVATION CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE AUTHORITY AND STATEMENTS OF THE SAME CHURCH AND ARE STUBBORNLY SEPARATED FROM THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND ALSO FROM THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER, THE ROMAN PONTIFF, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Saviour." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (Ibid.)

Lucky for you, we cannot set a limit on invincible ignorance, except to say that you as a 'Catholic' are bound to obedience which would make your ignorance vincible, but then again as your finite mind is unable to comprehend your own error, maybe your ignorance is invincible. There's hope for you and your fellow seds and anti- Vatican II lot yet.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

Father Paul.

Are the Jews of the world, and especially of the United States invincibally ignorant about Christ? They surely knew about Him when they tried so hard to ban The Passion.

You cannot deny that. John Paul says that they are saved. He said it loud and clear.

He has visited synagogues, mosques, shintos, budhists and whatever.

Did he ever, ever, mention the Holy Name of Our Lord? He did not.

He is denying Jesus Christ by omission. Remember the warning of the Lord. Denying Him before men will the pope being denied in Heaven. That is a fact and no round about talk is going to refute it.

St Paul preached the Lord crucified all over the known world. He was not ashamed to say it anywhere and everywhere. Is John Paul another apostle like St. Paul? Legal mumbo jumbo will not change facts.

God bless you Father. Please open your heart to the truth. There is all sorts of talk here about my salvation. I do not deny my Lord to anyone.

-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 19, 2005.

You presume to teach priests here, Pete? Your credentials stem from the University of Mars, I believe?

Let's see if you can PROVE our Holy Father never ''mentioned the Holy Name of Our Lord, around synagogues, mosques, shintos, buddhists or whatever.'' Can you prove that stinging accusation?

You won't. You'll side-step the question, since you're only a lightweight. A lightweight who feels he can challenge the holy priesthood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II, current Vicar of Christ:

"The Redemption event brings salvation TO ALL,‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."

His Holiness Saint Peter, first Vicar of Christ:

"For Christ also died for sins once FOR ALL, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18)

Saint Paul:

"For the death that He died, He died to sin once FOR ALL; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)

"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died FOR ALL, therefore all died; and He died FOR ALL, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

Isn't it beautiful how consistent is God's Word, spoken through holy leaders of the Church who are fully in tune with His voice! To them He said "he who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me". Sedevacantists and other schismatics beware!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2005.

Isabel, do you believe and obey ALL the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II? Answer YES or NO.

What, solemny swearing wasn't enough YES for you? Alright, then.....yes. [Notice bold above.]

Isabel, do you also have OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL of V2 & post- V2 teachings of the Infallible Magisterium like Emerald, Ian Jake, Pete, Paula, and TC? Answer YES or NO.

I believe that's a trick question. I won't fall for it. You need to separate it.

Do you want to ask me about Vatican II? or do you want to ask me about the Infallible Magisterium? or do you want to ask me about when the magisterium at Vatican II restating infallible church teaching?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 19, 2005.

"Are the Jews of the world, and especially of the United States invincibally ignorant about Christ?"

---Some are, maybe all, who knows? When you define "invincible ignorance" as the Church does, there are more than you think.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

This group will just parse your words, Father.

Just as they've impugned your honesty, belittled your testimony and played dirty pool against you. --Scribes and Pharisees; or better yet--

--Crows who are trying to peck out your eyes. What a nasty bunch pseudo- traditionists are.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Isabel cannot give a straight answer so I will ask it in a way she cannot skirt:

Do you believe the Teachings of the Catholic Church as they have been expressed by the Documents of the Second Vatican Council and the post- conciliar documents, especially by His Holiness John Paul II? Yes or No.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

The real issue is that the Trads forget that there is only one unforgiveable sin, that against the Holy Spirit. We can preach and teach until we are blue in the face, but if the holy Spirit does not reveal it to be true to the person, then they are not responsible, they are invincibly ignorant. Does this mean we should clam up? Of course not. Be reasonable.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

"We can preach and teach until we are blue in the face, ***but if the holy Spirit does not reveal it to be true to the person, then they are not responsible***, they are invincibly ignorant."

Fr. Paul 1st I believe Isabel DID answer your question, However in the above listed section of your 2nd post indicates the real issue at hand. The Holy Spirit has NOT Revealed V-II as being true to them. So on this basis they are not responsible and are merely fighting for what the Truth is to them at this time. Which is fair and reasonable.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

The Holy Spirit has NOT Revealed V-II as being true to them. So on this basis they are not responsible and are merely fighting for what the Truth is to them at this time. Which is fair and reasonable.

How are you so sure they are not refusing God's Graces of this issue because of self pride? Only God knows if they are truly invincibly and you my friend are not He.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 20, 2005.

"Fr. Paul 1st I believe Isabel DID answer your question"

How could she, since I hadn't asked it yet. She skirted the question of another poster, that is clear; in one breath she implies a difference between the Second Vatican Council and the infallible Magisterium. She suggests she will only give assent to those teachings of Vatican II that agree with her interpretation of everything before Vatican II.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

"Only God knows if they are truly invincibly and you my friend are not He."

-- DJ, You are 100% correct I am NOT God that is why I do NOT Judge them on this issue. And yourself?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

I belive in the Catholic Church of Today.

I will not however judge the traditionalists souls invincibly ignorant or not.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 20, 2005.

Good a legalist, Please allow me to correct my statement

"Fr. Paul 1st I believe Isabel DID answer THE question"

"She suggests she will only give assent to those teachings of Vatican II that agree with her interpretation of everything before Vatican II."

I believe that you have understood her correctly. Think about this, decide on something that you have been taught since day one and that you live, teach and would die for as being 100% truthful.

In rolls V-III now all of a sudden this is no longer valid as far as the Church is concerned. And it really runs counter to what you know and have been taught as the Absolute Truth. What is your first reaction?

Then you research how it could suddenly be true when everything that was absolute truth still says otherwise. And in your research you find statements of Popes indicating that the Smoke of satan has entered the Church and has 75-100 years to try to do his damage. You look at your dates and find that V-III is near the end of that time frame. (as an example)

What is your Next Reaction?

Are you not here to defend the truth of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and to protect the Church as much as possible from such damage?

This is rightfully called the Church Militant (in the Positive manner)-- How many governments have been overthrown by radicals only to have it taken back by the dedicated, die hard and well trained former military?

Are they wrong? No! this is what they have been trained for protecting the truth as they have been taught to believe in 100%.

Just something to keep in the back of your mind--didn't mean to butt in. (yes I did)

Thank You!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

"we Catholics are 1.1 BILLION strong worldwide and growing -- all one with Pope John Paul II -- and TRILLIONS of Catholics already ahead of us, in glory, in heaven. Schismatic trads are most likely only in the thousands (23,000 trads attended their excommunicated founder's celebration in 1989) and concentrated mainly in Europe and USA. Heretical trads are just a drop out of the Catholic ocean."

Muslims are 1-BILLION + as well and Growing Faster, does that make them equally correct as well?---Just a drop in the Catholic ocean?-- Didn't Christianity start with ONE? sounds like the Trads have a head start.

Just a few thoughts for you to ponder.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

"This group will just parse your words, Father. Just as they've impugned your honesty, belittled your testimony and played dirty pool against you. --Scribes and Pharisees; or better yet --Crows who are trying to peck out your eyes. What a nasty bunch pseudo- traditionists are."

Do you mean to refer to the scene out of The Passion?

The Crow was pecking out the bad thief's eye.

Man that was a dumb one.

Look, I'd like to continue to watch him try to trip up Isabel. It ain't going to work. She's innocent.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

"The real issue is that the Trads forget that there is only one unforgiveable sin, that against the Holy Spirit."

That particular sin against the Holy Ghost is very specifically the sin of despair. Nothing more, nothing less. It is unforgivable by definition; the one who despairs goes to the grave with seeking forgiveness.

What in the world did you think it meant?

"We can preach and teach until we are blue in the face, but if the holy Spirit does not reveal it to be true to the person, then they are not responsible, they are invincibly ignorant."

Wrong. Some people simply reject the truth.

What you say sounds, at first glance, a little like Jansenism. Can you elaborate a bit?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

I should have written "...without seeking forgiveness..."

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

"we Catholics are 1.1 BILLION strong worldwide and growing -- all one with Pope John Paul II -- and TRILLIONS of Catholics already ahead of us, in glory, in heaven. Schismatic trads are most likely only in the thousands (23,000 trads attended their excommunicated founder's celebration in 1989) and concentrated mainly in Europe and USA. Heretical trads are just a drop out of the Catholic ocean

Here is an example of yur one billion loyal and true Catholics.

Belgium; 3 in 100 attend Mass.

USA 23in 100 attend Mass.

Majority believe in birth control. 48 percent voted for Kerry, divorce rae 50 percent.

If there are one billion loyal and true catholics, why are seminaries and churches closing ?

Father or anyone else please answer. It is sheer fantasy to talk about one bilion. Maybe ten percent of that number?

As for your 23,000 trads. I will bet that over 90 percent go to mass on Sunday morning, voted against Kerry, and don't practice abortion or birth control. Not too shabby for schismatics.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.

Huge numbers of Protestants go to church on Sunday morning, voted against Kerry, and don't practice abortion or birth control. But they are not Catholic because they are not in submission to the Pope and the Magisterium.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2005.

But the are practicing Catholic virtues more than those loyal catholics. Just accepting the pope and doing what you want does not make you a catholic. Don't just talk the talk, you must walk the walk.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.

Pete, why do you presume to know who is Catholic in good standing (a tiny minority) and who is a Catholic who lost his faith? Those baptised, though definitely lukewarm.)

In our lives, we're on pilgrimage; some Catholics arrive quickly, while many struggle on the journey. Catholics, unlike so many non-catholic Christians, are NEVER finished with the Church. Faith re- awakens with greater vigor. Often in our last living breath. God never abandons those He loves.

There's the insight you've never shown. Faith in the Holy Spirit, Who keeps His Church strong. You've given in to despair for the Church and lack of faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Eugene;

I have read many of your messages and did not care to answer you directly.

I do not despair for Catholics or the Church which will always be here. I am greatly disapointed with the leadership. How can the church be handed over to V2 and in a few decades go into such a decline? I know that the standard answer is that the church was in trouble before V2. Of course it was but the modernists were held in check to some degree. V2 was their opportunity to start ripping it apart.

The conciliar popes changed everything that had been sacred for many centuries. What have they left untouched? Which of the 7 sacraments have they left alone? Why was such an overhaul needed?

Can you give me a concrete answer without throwing the Holy Spirit at me? Give me a few facts to think about. Why, why. why ?

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.

Yes, very concrete; and sincere, because I practice what I preach.

''I am greatly disapointed with the leadership.'' I should say you are, yesterday calling John Paul II antipope!

But the use of the phrase ''the leadership'' is excellent. You acknowledge the true leaders. You haven't spun off a new church, like martin Luther did. That's encouraging. OK, if you're disappointed, and you have faith in the holy Spirit, PRAY with a simple heart, and without judging others, PRAY to the sacred Heart of Jesus, and to all the saints; for the Catholic Church. You're fully entitled to make petition before Almighty God, if you want Him to reform His Church spiritually. Don't fire off stupid posts at faithful Catholics. Act like one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

I take it that you mean that these popes need some correction, and we should pray for them. That sounds reasonable.

-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.

"because I practice what I preach."

"and without judging others" ?????????????????????????????????????

I Hope that his lightning rod is properly grounded!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

Pete: Say it properly; you mean that ***IF**** a pope needs some correction, we should pray for him. You must allow that GOD will decide whether there's correction required. It's not for you to say.

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

Michael;
I don't judge your soul. That is God's place; judging you.

I judge the things you're saying here; as if you were an authority. They would be judged in ERROR by all faithful Catholics. You made up a doctrine that was never taught in the Church. It's false, and that's what I judged.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

Of course Eugene,

Now put the Chalice down and go play outside with the rest of the Children and let the adults speaks amongst themselves. go now...

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 20, 2005.

I'm not sensitive to insults, Michael. Indulge yourself saying whatever pleases you. Since you don't worry about keeping any sanctifying grace that was granted you in your last Communion, you can sin to your heart's content. Shovel horse manure over me. Take pleasure in your scorn; show your true colors. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Michael G.,

"Think about this, decide on something that you have been taught since day one and that you live, teach and would die for as being 100% truthful.

In rolls V-III now all of a sudden this is no longer valid as far as the Church is concerned. And it really runs counter to what you know and have been taught as the Absolute Truth." (Emphasis added.)

The emphasised part is why your analogy is so fatally flawed. Vatican II did not invalidate any of the former Teachings of the Church. As it says under the bottle caps, "Sorry, please try again." But only do so if you are really desperate to show your ignorance of the Church.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.