Blueprint?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
John~Have you heard about this Blueprint? I'm fairly certain you know what I'm talking about. I read part of it and I gotta say EEK! If this is seriously what Catholics want...then this Church is in some kinda trouble. Renew, revamp, revise, etc. That's all I seem to be hearing about these days. In some ways, like the way this whole abuse thing was handled, yes. There needed to be something done about that, obviously. But this? From numerous Catholics polled worldwide~
6) They want the church to restructure itself, to alter the means, style and content of its governance coinciding with “a gospel transparency” in its actions, along with widely shared decision-making.
I would like to see a discipleship of equals. The issue goes to the heart of the patriarchal and hierarchical structure of the church and the false holding of one person above another. It means opening all church offices to women. It means shifting the weight of power away from Rome and church pulpits to the people of God. It means getting rid of all parent-child terminology like “Father” (Holy and otherwise), and attendant behaviors.
------
Say WHA?!
Or this one just knocked my socks off and I literally bust out laughing in disbelief~
A Nigerian lay leader, speaking of the church in general, said:
The Catholic church is not charismatic enough. We need to be free to sing, to dance, to clap our hands, to praise God. That is what God wants us to do. That is part of the Nigerian culture. People are not interested if the church is not exciting, and men are not interested in becoming priests. My older sister joined the Pentecostal church. Only three of my seven brothers are still going to the Catholic church. The Vatican does not believe in ecstasy, does not believe in the gift of prophecy. But everybody has a gift. I believe some people have the gift of prophecy. I believe we can make the Catholic church grow, make it incorporate all cultures. Let the people dance and shout and sing and be filled with the Holy Ghost!
(There's that Holy Ghost thing again)
Also~
There needs to be a serious questioning of imperial, patriarchal governance. There must be genuine dialog calling for the possibility of conversion at every level; advice-giving and consultative committees are not enough. 1,700 years of a Roman Empire-style governance is sufficient.
There is a need to eliminate all worldly titles from the church such as eminence, excellency, holiness, etc. The only proper New Testament title is brother or sister. Titles inhibit egalitarian dialogue; the church might be hierarchical in ministries but it is egalitarian in its basic existence, which comes through baptism. Why could we not address a bishop simply as “Brother Bishop”?
The elimination of all the triumphal folderol associated with prelates. Watered silk, lace blouses, billowing capes, little beanies, jeweled crosses and rings, etc., are counterproductive to the gospel values the gospel calls on us to try to live.
--------
And there is so, so much more. Basically, the bare bones of it is, do away with the entire Church and start from scratch. Does this sound like a return to the more traditional and orthodox to you? Not me. Someone asked "what do you think the church will look like in thirty years?". My answer? I don't think you'll even recognize it, sad to say.
-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 05, 2002
Alright, pardon my language but what the hell is True Catholic????? I was just looking for an Our Lady of Lasalette medal (which, I've yet to find, darnit!) and I come across THAT garbage?!?!These people can't seriously believe all the crap they're preaching, can they? Do people actually believe all of that?
-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 05, 2002.
Jackiea,
Though down deep, in their repressed memories, they know better, on the surface of their conscious minds they actually believe that stuff.I can see that you are just discovering the existence of the lunatic fringes of dissent. You have been a Catholic for several years now, but you were somehow mercifully spared the knowledge that this rubbish exists and that people (like Joan Storey) are really out their trying to subvert the Church through revolution, internal sabotage, etc., so that it can be remade in their preferred likeness. I hope that this helps you to understand why some of us regulars here have been fighting so hard to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.
You asked, "What the hell is True Catholic?" It's easy to know what is right and true. Read what the Holy Father writes and speaks, and follow it. Read the Catechism, which is reliable for teaching the truth and correct morality. Read the Bible, interpreting what it says according to the framework of the Catechism's teachings; one can be sure that an interpretation that contradicts something in the Catechism is a wrong interpretation. Watch EWTN to see how the Mass should be celebrated and to listen to in-depth conversations about doctrine and morality. All these things will help you to know what "True Catholic" means.
I have to admit that I have never heard of "Blueprint." However, some of the quotations you have posted are the kinds of things that the Catholic world started to hear after 1965. Prior to 1960, the world was a very different place. But during the '60s and early '70s, society underwent a series of events that shook the world and caused all kinds of unstable and chaotic behavior that has still not left us. There was the marketing of "the pill" around 1960, the assassinations of JFK/RFK/MLK, the greater availability of hallucinogenic drugs, the failures and atrocities associated with the Vietnam War, an explosion of pornography, the "hippie" movement, the Second Vatican Council, etc.. All of these things caused an emotional roller-coaster, upheavals and deep depressions, losses of confidence and sometimes tremendous rejection of authority (governmental and ecclesiastical), especially by young people. Among the rebels thus spawned were a certain group -- now an "Old Grey Gang" (such as Joan Storey) -- who wrongly expected massive revolution and radical structural and doctrinal change in the Catholic Church. They still try, in their feeble ways, to agitate for radical changes. But the younger, brighter generations (whether crade Catholics or converts) reject their message and want to be "True Catholics," as you do. The problem remaining is that our diocesan bureaucracies (and the priesthood and seminaries) need to purge themselves of every vestige of this lunatic fringe, which has penetrated to their cores. Much of the evil being exposed in the media these days has its roots in the sick mentality that arose in the 1960s and 1970s, when the dissenters began to convince a lot of people, including a lot of priests, that what was called sin for 1900 years (e.g., homosexual acts) is not really sin. See where that kind of thing got us?
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.
John - Do you think all this new stuff??? - Read oh please read of the Medieval Church. Also the imprisonments of men/women who attempted to expose the power filled in the Church.
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 05, 2002.
Yes, John, I can see now why. Geez. No, I guess I hadn't really seen the various dissenting groups. That True Catholic thing is a group that doesn't believe John Paul II is the Pope. They say it's Pius. Can't remember which one and I guess it doesn't matter but yeah, you're right. It started about in the late 60's, I believe.You mentioned EWTN. My favorites are Mother Angelica and Father Groeschel. When I'm up really late, I like to watch Fr. Groeschel. They're both a hoot. I think I like them because they tell it like it is. Pretty blunt. I was watching Crisis in the Church the other night and he was on there. He makes alot of sense. And some of the stories he tells have me busting out laughing. :) And Mother Angelica....I'll never forget when she was talking about cloning and that sort of thing. She said that she felt really lucky that those people would take one look at her and wouldn't want any of her body parts. LOL
God Bless You~
-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 05, 2002.
Oops. Sorry bout that. Forgot to tell you, John, that the Blueprint that I mentioned was one for Vatican III. Yes, this would be from a dissenting organization. Like I said, just the little bit that I read was plenty enough for me to stomach.
-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 05, 2002.
Oh and John~what do you think of the Second Vatican Council, since you mentioned it?Thanks!
-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 05, 2002.
JackieaMy opion only: I believe the Vatican II process has been widely misunderstood by many for too lnog. The abuses by bothe priests and laypeople are just too much to write here. The abuses have done more harm than it has good.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 05, 2002.
My gosh, Jackiea, I had no idea that, when you mentioned "True Catholics," you were talking about a bunch of weirdos. Then, when I replied to you, I used "True Catholics" as a way of referring to "genuine, faithful Catholics."
So I see that "True Catholics" are a bunch of "sedvacantists" -- folks who think that the papal chair is vacant now. I think that there are a few such confused bunches.Glad to know that you are enjoying EWTN. I have been watching Fr. Groeschel there since 1993! He has made many series and specials, appeared as a live guest, celebrated many Masses in the chapel, etc.. And I saw that "Crisis" special too.
I believe Pope John Paul II when he tells us that Vatican II was a great gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. (He was there as the young archbishop of Krakow, Poland.) We were in need of a fresh explanation of the ancient truths of the Church, some redirecting of emphases, some shining of the spotlight on things that were always there but had been ignored. Vatican II taught nothing new and did not destroy any old truths. (No Council can.) I love the sixteen documents of the Council. (They were written by the world's bishops when I was in grade school and high school.) I recommend them highly to anyone who has not read them. Here is a list with links to the texts. Maybe you can find a subject of special interest to you. A few documents are pretty long, but others are very short.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.
Jackiea, i find it quite interesting, this whole discussion, for the simple reason that it appears you are just beginning to uncover the tip of the two extreme icebergs. That is to say, you are just beginning to see the tip of the extreme iceberg sedevacatnists side and the exteme tip of the iceberg of the modernists/liberal catholics. You said:Basically, the bare bones of it is, do away with the entire Church and start from scratch. Does this sound like a return to the more traditional and orthodox to you? Not me
Naturally, to any orthodox and traditionally minded person, such a thing would not sound...well, orthodox and traditional, and yet the Church has always claimed herself to be both. How can she claim to be both and yet also implement things which contradict orthodxy and tradition? It would appear that there is (how does that line go?) "something stinking in Denmark?" hmmmm...quite intriguing, I wonder if this has anything at all to do with Vat II, with protestant infiltrations which are revolutionary and a claim to "return to orthodoxy." How is it that both extremes can claim a return to orthodoxy? I suppose that the only thing one can do is stick to true orthodoxy and tradition and follow neither of the extremes. It would appear that Satan is covering two sides at once. In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 05, 2002.
Yeah I think Jackiea was talking about www.truecatholic.org; that's something waaaay different. lol! Amazing how people consider decapitation as a viable life-saving amputation.
-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), May 05, 2002.
Magdalene, welcome. I think that it would be good for me to inform you of a few things ...This forum has always been (since its inception in January, 1998), is now, and (I hope) will always be an orthodox Catholic forum.
By this, I mean that the "regulars" here join Pope John Paul II (whom we love) in accepting the documents of Vatican II with great respect, with no suspicion, and with no concern that they teach error.
We give assent to the Magisterium of the past and the present, and we accept the new rite of the Mass as valid, licit, and beautiful when celebrated correctly. We have nothing bad to say about the Mass of the Missal of 1962 (sometimes called Tridentine rite) and we expect no Catholic to speak ill of the new rite (sometimes called "novus ordo"). We accept the new Catechism of the Catholic Church as a "reliable compendium" of Catholic doctrine (faith and morality), and we accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law as containing the disciplinary laws by which the successors of the Apostles bind us.I hope that you do agree with us on all these points, so that we can develop a pleasant and mutually beneficial relationship here.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.
John,Why is it that you make it sound that because I am new I have to earn the right to speak on this forum (or is that a condition which they don't post)? You also wished to inform me of certain things...information understood. But why did you write it? Was it perhaps to put me on my guard, to curb what I say, be sure not to offend anybody? I do not understand why it is that you are so tolerant of anybody who is tolerant of you and what you believe but are intolerant with those who profess to hold merely to (Catholic) tradition and the Pope (whom I love and pray for and ask to return to tradition - as you see I have never disputed that). Why does your tolerance only extend to those who accept your beliefs, though some of the beliefs which you profess go against tradition and are not under the rule of belief as imposed by the Catholic Church? You said:
By this, I mean that the "regulars" here join Pope John Paul II (whom we love) in accepting the documents of Vatican II with great respect, with no suspicion, and with no concern that they teach error.
Vat II was suspect by a certain amount of bishops from the outset and when it was over certain bishops would not sign certain documents precisely because they were suspect. How is it that bishops left the council being concerned that Vat II was teaching error? They wanted to make sure that error wasn't being officially taught and so Vat II was correctly said, by the Council itself, to be a pastoral council not defining anything of faith and morals which the faithful would HAVE to believe on pain of falling outside the Catholic Church. No, I don't blindly accept doctrines which contradict that which the Church has always held (faith and morals were never called into play here as VAt II made publicly known).
God Bless and I hope "that we can develop a pleasant and mutually beneficial relationship here," of course based upon a legitimate and valid search for truth.
In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 07, 2002.
Hello, Magdalene.I welcome sincere Protestants to this site, those who are not out to make a mockery of my Church. But I do not welcome anti-Catholics, and I do not welcome people who pretend to be Catholic when they are really not -- people like yourself who reject an ecumenical Council and are foolish enough to think that a pope can teach doctrinal error.
On another thread, you stated: "I'm a traditional catholic if that tells you anything. If you contest what I say than e-mail me and tell me why and I'll try to explain to you why I think the way do."
You don't have your self-description right, Magdalene. You are not a "traditional Catholic." (That's what I am.) Rather, you are a SLT-SSPX -- a "Schismatic Lefebvrite Traditionalist of the Society of St. Pius X." Very much like the Eastern Orthodox, you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. I know that you (Miss Kane? Mrs. Kane?) are associated (student/faculty/staff/alumna?) with St. Mary's Academy and College of Kansas, formerly Catholic institutions now being run by SSPX members. How sad. If you were once in full communion with the pope and Catholicism, your soul is now in grave danger for having gone into schism. I definitely won't be e-mailing you, because I have heard it all from your side, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
God bless you.
John
PS: You will have to take your references to "Vat II" elsewhere, perhaps to an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist forum where you will feel more at home. They mean nothing to me. This is a Catholic forum, and Catholicism has never had anything to do with an entity called "Vat II."
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.
JohnIn one of my other answers I wrote that you couldn't see the forest for the trees (maybe I should copy it here like you always do...)You just proved my point:
"I welcome sincere Protestants to this site," <---- according to TRUE CATHOLICISM (um, yeah, that would be what the Church has ALWAYS believed) a sincere Protestant would burn in hell if they died Protestant and had no desire to join the Church - therefore sincerity is just another "ecumenical" abstract word which can be interpreted any way you like. Just like all those little VAt. II people aren't you. (By the way, Mr. Know-everything-and-everybody-else-who-doesn't- agree-with-me-is-going-to-hell, "VAt. II" would be called an abbreviation, kind of like when you write "i.e." meaning "that is" or "Mr." when you mean "Mister" - since it appears that you just can't seem to figure that out.)
"Those who are not out to make a mockery of my Church." <----- Yes, indeed. It is YOUR Church. It is a Church which primarily belongs to the people, first and foremost. That's why you "get to be soooo involved!" (clap the hands) And you "get to do all these fun things" (which the priest used to do before, oh! But I forgot! You are sooooo much more ENLIGHTENED in this day and age than we were back before VAt II. For the life of me, I don't known why Jesus came 2000 years ago! I mean they were so completely intellectually unready for Him, unlike now...sigh) So much for it being God's Church, centered around God and for the glory of God first and the salvation of souls second. Yes, I agree. It is most definitely YOUR Church.
"But I do not welcome anti-Catholics" <------ Where is your evidence? It seems to me rather senseless that you, who are sooooo ecumenical, are nevertheless calling me anti-Catholic, while I, who am the last to believe in the Vat II ecumenism, would and have called you "unfaithful." The marks of the Catholic Church mention Apostolicity. Vat II and its fruits border on being UnApostolic. (gasp! Horrors! Did I say that?!!) Why? What do you think would have happened if St. Athanasius had said, as so many other bishops have concerning muslims and buddhists in our day and age, "it's okay to be Aryan. You want to be Aryan? That's wonderful! I'm so happy for you!" ? In truth, the whole "Catholic" world today would be Aryan and Satan's minions would be doing the dance they are doing now back in the early years of the Church. If you don't believe that bishops are admitting what the Church has never admitted than I do confess, you must be a hermit and don't read any CAtholic related news.
"I do not welcome people who pretend to be Catholic when they are really not -- people like yourself who reject an ecumenical Council and are foolish enough to think that a pope can teach doctrinal error." Let's see. How many times around the circle do we have to go? This would be the second time I believe. ECUMENICAL ONLY MEANS THAT ALL THE LIVNG BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH MEET. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT DOGMATIC. VAT.II PUBLICLY STATED THAT IT WAS NOT DOGMATIC (that means it doesn't define anything. It's not doctrinal, dearie). And OH DEAR ME!!!!!! If I reject the words of a council which did not define anything which I have to believe anyway and which contradict beliefs which previous popes defined AND MUST ALWAYS BE HELD BY THE FAITHFUL! So, I ask you, who is the one pretending?
"You will have to take your references to "Vat II" elsewhere" <----- I'm sorry that an abbreviation is too hard for you to make out. next time I write Mr. I will think of you and be sure to spell it out all the way so that poor unfortunate people as yourself will be able to understand me.
God Bless you.
In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 10, 2002.
Ah, Magdalene, poor Magdalene! Here we go again. I will put your words in quotation marks before replying to them."In one of my other answers I wrote that you couldn't see the forest for the trees (maybe I should copy it here like you always do...)"
A couple of days ago, I replied to one of your messages. Then I discovered that you had not confined your trouble-making to just one thread. I saw that what I had already written to you on the first thread was applicable on the second, so I copied it. There is certainly nothing wrong with that kind of copying, but the fact is that it is something that I have rarely done in more than two years on the forum. Therefore, it is simply a weird exagerration (and thus an untruth) for you to say that I "always" copy my posts. Your hyperbole is a sign of an undisciplined mind. That fits with your unwillingness to submit to the discipline of the pope. I'll tell you what! I just wrote a long reply to you on another thread. Maybe I'll have reason to copy part of it here, so that you don't feel so bad about exagerrating.
Magdalene, you criticized my statement that "I welcome sincere Protestants to this site," saying "sincerity is just another 'ecumenical' abstract word which can be interpreted any way you like." You also stated that "a sincere Protestant would burn in hell if they [sic] died Protestant and had no desire to join the Church."
First, instead of making unwarranted assumptions, you should ask what I meant by a "sincere Protestant" Actually, you ought to know the meaning, as it is so logical as to be obvious, especially since I contrasted a "sincere Protestant" with a person "pretend[ing] to be Catholic," such as yourself. The "sincere Protestant" is one that really thinks that he is right, being in a state of invincible ignorance, never having heard (or not yet having been convinced of) the Catholic truth, and who is trying to do God's will as he understands it. Contrary to what you claimed, "sincerity" is not an "ecumenical" word open to wide interpretation.
Second, let's now look at what you said about a Protestant burning in hell. It becomes obvious that a "sincere Protestant" can indeed be saved, even without an explicit "desire to join the Church." His very "sincerity" (as I explained it above) expresses an implicit desire to be a Catholic. If you would counter by saying that a dying Protestant must express an explicit desire to become Catholic, then you would be heading toward acceptance of the Feeneyite heresy."Just like all those little VAt. II people aren't you. (By the way, Mr. Know-everything-and-everybody-else-who-doesn't- agree-with-me-is-going-to-hell, "VAt. II" would be called an abbreviation, kind of like when you write "i.e." meaning "that is" or "Mr." when you mean "Mister" - since it appears that you just can't seem to figure that out.)
Wow! I really burned you up by exposing you as a member of a schismatic entity (a SLT-SSPX -- recall my abbreviation?]). Now all who accept Vatican II (i.e., true Catholics [note the "i.e."]) are "little ... people"? Tsk, tsk. By the way, "VAt. II" would not be called "an abbreviation," when spat out by someone like yourself, who rejects part of the Council. The fact is that Catholics never refer to the Council as "VAt. II," and your use of it appears to be a something just spat out with disdain. Shortening the word Vatican (because of your insufficient respect for the pope and his curia) is a symbolic way of belittling the pope and the Council. That's why I asked you to stop the insult. (By the way, bitchiness does not become you. Please pray to your repentant patron saint for the grace to be repentant yourself.)
You continued, quoting me: "'Those who are not out to make a mockery of my Church.' <----- Yes, indeed. It is YOUR Church. It is a Church which primarily belongs to the people, first and foremost. That's why you 'get to be soooo involved!' (clap the hands) And you 'get to do all these fun things' (which the priest used to do before, oh! But I forgot! You are sooooo much more ENLIGHTENED in this day and age than we were back before V[atican] II. For the life of me, I don't known why Jesus came 2000 years ago! I mean they were so completely intellectually unready for Him, unlike now...sigh) So much for it being God's Church, centered around God and for the glory of God first and the salvation of souls second. Yes, I agree. It is most definitely YOUR Church."
Nor does sarcasm become you, Magdalene, especially when it is misplaced. My reference to "my Church" simply meant "the Catholic Church." It is you who went berserk, attributing to me all kinds of stuff that is not applicable to me. This comes from the SSPX propaganda that you have swallowed. Devious people have led you to believe that orthodox Catholics are hooked on "involvement," "fun things," etc., that orthodox Catholics have tossed out past Church teachings, etc.. None of your sarcastic insults applied to me. When you see my reply to you on the other thread, you will see that my roots are in the Catholic Church of the 1950s (Baltimore Catechism, daily Latin Mass, etc.). Again, then, be repentant like your patron saint.
Again you quoted me and commented: "But I do not welcome anti-Catholics" <------ Where is your evidence? It seems to me rather senseless that you, who are sooooo ecumenical, are nevertheless calling me anti-Catholic, while I, who am the last to believe in the Vat[ican] II ecumenism, would and have called you 'unfaithful.'"
My, my, you do have trouble reading, don't you? Are you past eighth grade yet? Here is what I wrote: "But I do not welcome anti-Catholics, and I do not welcome people who pretend to be Catholic when they are really not -- people like yourself who reject an ecumenical Council and are foolish enough to think that a pope can teach doctrinal error."
Now do you see that I distinguished between anti-Catholics (such as the atheists, Fundamentalist Protestants, etc, who attack us on this forum) and schismatics like yourself? Please try to read more carefully."Vat[ican] II and its fruits border on being UnApostolic. ... Why? What do you think would have happened if St. Athanasius had said, as so many other bishops have concerning muslims and buddhists in our day and age, "it's okay to be Aryan. [sic (The actual word is "Arian." Aryan means something else.)] You want to be Aryan? That's wonderful! I'm so happy for you!"?
Magdalene, you are incredibly ignorant if you think that many bishops are saying such things. Moreover, if some bishops have become heretical and have said such things, that is utterly irrelevant in our evaluation of the Catholic Church, the authority of the papacy, the dependability of the Vatican II documents, the validity and liceity of the new rite of the Mass, etc.. You sound like many Protestants who come here stating that they reject Catholicism because of wrong things that some Catholics do or believe. You are behaving as ludicrously as those Protestants do.
I am not going to waste time replying to your shouted (upper-case) rant about Vatican II being pastoral rather than dogmatic. Chris Butler has already straighted you out on that subject (on another thread), so I suggest you find that and learn from him, because (as usual) you are wrong.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.
John,Therefore, it is simply a weird exagerration (and thus an untruth) for you to say that I "always" copy my posts. Your hyperbole is a sign of an undisciplined mind. <------ speaking of undisciplined minds, who is getting really flipped out about completely trivial matters?
Concerning the distinction between "sincere prot." and "pretending Catholic": if you meant them as contrasting arguments, than what you meant is an "in truth protestant" and a "not in truth but only pretending Catholic." That "in truth" part does not automatically assume invincible ignorance, now, if you had clarified yourself and said, "Protestants who come here looking for the truth," I would have bought that because that is LESS AMBIGUOUS.Also, invincible ignorance does not mean, "never having been convinced of Catholicism" - the Church has never understood it to be that way - it means that, for example, back before Columbus reached America, if the American indians were trying to follow natural law to the best of their abilities, having never heard of Catholicism, than they would implicitly wish to be Catholic and escape hell.
I have never made mention or referred to any such sort of thing that only those who express an explicit desire to be Catholic upon death will avoid hell, so where you pulled that out of I don't know. If you think that you pulled it out of your pseudo-logical deductions, (but I have already shown you why they were pseudo-logical. I mean where is the logical proof of this?----->"His very "sincerity" (as I explained it above) expresses an implicit desire to be a Catholic." Since when does sincereity mean that he is invincibly ignorant? I know many "sincere protestants" who also are blatantly anti- Catholic. Sincere means "in truth" - according, as you say, to the contrasting of it against "pretending"). So, I would think that you who know SO much, or claim to know ALL ABOUT SSPX would also know that we hold to the TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! Namely, that there is baptism by desire (spoken of above), by water and by blood. who ever mentioned anything about Feeneyism? except you?
wow, I just finished reading some of the rest of your statement. Hot tamale! aren't we just a bit too excited now? "Bitchiness" <--- not exactly Catholic words to use now are they, especially when right afterwards you refer to my patron saint. hmmmm...I think that you better just, ummmm...breathe, yes, breathe, relax, drink some tea, maybe take a nap, and come back in a while...
Now that we are a bit calmer, let's see here.
"Wow! I really burned you up by exposing you as a member of a schismatic entity (a SLT-SSPX -- recall my abbreviation?])." <---- first: the fact that you point out that you used an sspx abbreviation shows the trivial nature with which you are defending your belefs. Second: If I called you schismatic and you weren't I am sure you would be upset too. You are misinformed (see below).
Now all who accept Vatican II (i.e., true Catholics [note the "i.e."]) are "little ... people"? Tsk, tsk. By the way, "VAt. II" would not be called "an abbreviation," when spat out by someone like yourself, who rejects part of the Council. <------ Spat out? My gosh! Grow up! Not only that, but how in the world does that sentence make any sense what so ever? Where is the logic, do tell?! Why wouldn't it be called an abbreviation? That's like me saying, since you reject the sspx, you wouldn't correctly be able to abbreviate it, but must instead spell out the whole thing: Society of St. Pius X. Come one, let's grow up a little bit.
The fact is that Catholics never refer to the Council as "VAt. II," and your use of it appears to be a something just spat out with disdain. <---- Since when are you Mr. omnipotent who knows what everybody says or doesn't say. Quit the snide, look down your nose stuff: "Oh, a true CAtholic doesn't refer to Vatican II as VAt. II, it's simply not done! Bad form! Bad form!" Spat out with disdain? And is it with disdain that I would speak of the sspx or any other socity? Do you say that when someone writes O.S.B. that they are being disdainful? (I suppose that you would rather it be "Order of Saint Benedict" though you must write the whole thing many times, wouldn't you.) If you had to write it enough times and defend your stance against it all the time, I assure that using an abbreviation in no way would detract from Vat. II but would only be just that, an abbreviation.
Shortening the word Vatican (because of your insufficient respect for the pope and his curia) is a symbolic way of belittling the pope and the Council. That's why I asked you to stop the insult. (By the way, bitchiness does not become you. Please pray to your repentant patron saint for the grace to be repentant yourself.)<------First: who should be repetant? "Take the log out your own eye, before you take the splinter out of another's." Second: You are reading way, way, too much into. an. abbreviation. that's right. ONLY an abbreviation. Symbolic? I don't even think we thought that up. You are getting really defensive, that must be what it is...calm down. I never said that you were going to hell or anything (but I do not deny that your soul, like mine, which you remind me so much about, is in danger)
I'm sorry that you had to see those changes and refused to stand up against them. You are mistaken in believing that I just swallow a bunch of sspx propaganda - I grew up in Novus Ordo, not traditional, and just in case you didn't know, every assertion that the sspx makes concerning the faith and why they are doing what they are doing, they prove it with evidence and the Magisterium (um, yes, they can do that validly, because they are not anti-CAtholic). And also, to inform you, they are not considered to be schismatic because one of the requirements of schism is that you have to want to be schismatic. You are pathetically ignorant of what the sspx holds to, or else you would know that we recognize the pope as pope and thus are not schismatic. Nor are we considered to be schismatic by the Church (the Vatican has said that we are not schismatic, but I guess you are ignorant of that too).
By the way, considering that you have admitted that you are a product of the fifties generation of Catholicism than I think that it is sad that you who are soooo mature have lowered yourself to belittling me as being "bitchy." I think it is also sad that you're wondering if I am past eighth grade considering that if it were true, you are letting yourself get awfully riled up over someone who is SOOOOO beneath your years and your MORE ENLIGHTENED intelligence. But, I will be sure to read more carefully, and you also. I am not so ready to make calls on such trivial matters as you are, otherwise there are things that I could have called you on.
"Magdalene, you are incredibly ignorant if you think that many bishops are saying such things."<---- If ignorance is bliss you must be terribly happy, how is that hole that you are hiding in? You must not care too much about the Church or you would make more of an effort to make sure you know what you are talking about. Too many bishops say things like this.
"Moreover, if some bishops have become heretical and have said such things, that is utterly irrelevant in our evaluation of the Catholic Church, the authority of the papacy, the dependability of the Vatican II documents, the validity and liceity of the new rite of the Mass, etc.. You sound like many Protestants who come here stating that they reject Catholicism because of wrong things that some Catholics do or believe. You are behaving as ludicrously as those Protestants do."
First of all, if you say that what they say and do is irrelevant then you reject Christ's own words when He said: By their fruits you shall know them. Secondly, do not admonition me to be careful to read if you cannot be careful of what you write (content not grammar): the sspx has never REJECTED Catholicism (most especially because -since you don't know like you think you do - the sspx has made the point of admantly stating that they are sticking closer to Catholicism, precisely because Bishops are saying those things - do you even know the purpose of the sspx?) So it does not logically make sense to compare us to them. (the protestants) (By the way, the capitalized stuff is not shouted but emphasized, I cannot italisize my words)
I guess you have not read my answer where I replied to Chris, all the worse for you, perhaps if you had you would understand better. sorry to say, you are wrong.
God Bless.
In Christo, Magdalene
p.s. two words: Read. More.
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 11, 2002.
MagdaleneThis letter has proven the schismatic behavior of the SSPX and also shows the Vatican's decision on the excommunication of the Priests and others involved. This is only part of the evidence. I think it suffices that John is in fact correct. I believe you need to reconsider your thoughts too. It appears you are close to the same fate as these men and others are. ---excommunicated. I only showed here part of the letter written by Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary of the Vatican.
The rest is available on the EWTN WEBSITE Blessings.
______________________________________________________________________
STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X Msgr Camille Perl Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
N. 343/98 Rome, 27 October 1998
Dear ______,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.
First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.
You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.
We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.
a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that
Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.
b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.
Fred,Yes, I saw that letter a little while ago and sspx members are aware of it. But the sspx has already been acknowledged by Rome to be in communion with Rome. Just because the SSPX does not agree with every little thing he does (i.e., Assisi prayer meeting in January), does not make them schismatic. We are in communion with Rome and always have been. The Vatican has also admitted that the four bishops are not excommunicated because an excommunication is not legitimate if the grounds for excommunication do not exist, which was the case at the time. The Pope cannot consent to teach error, therefore the sspx has always adhered to WHAT THE POPE HAS TAUGHT. Whatever else he has said, so long as it be in accord with the ordinary magisterium we obviously also accept. We do hold that Vat II and the novus ordo mass undermines the faith - but that is another story and does not endanger our communion with Rome as is implied. Thank you for putting on the forum. God Bless.
In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 11, 2002.
You still cannot see the truth. The priests have been suspended. What part of that don't you understand. I can see it why can't you? Have they got you brainwashed?
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.
Fred,No, I would say they have you brain-washed. They were licit (VAt II officails misapplied the laws because of necessity) consecrations and they are not suspended from carrying out their orders. It is like, if you see a house burning and hear someone calling out for help, you aren't going to wait around for permission from somebody to go rescue the person and neither would you be"breaking and entering." The truth is that they have you all believing other than the truth about the sspx.
God Bless. In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 11, 2002.
MagdeMay GOD save your soul before you die. I can't help the one who cannot hear. You are in defiance to the Pope and his Bishops and you know it and I know it.. TOO bad. You have wasted my time totally.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.
-- (^@^.^), May 11, 2002.
I've started going to Tridentine masses at the local bascilica (supported by JP2), I find them more spiritual than the folk music concerts that go on at our church's masses.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 11, 2002.
Me too, but I'm not keen on fasting before holy communion from the midnight before until after receiving Our Lord. You may not take food or water, according to the Tridentine tradition; from the day before. The spirit is willing, Frank-- but the flesh is weak.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 12, 2002.
Hi, Gene and Frank.Gene, your memory played a little trick on you.
The old "nothing-after-midnight" fast was eased by Pope Pius XII (Christus Dominus, 1953) in certain respects, including the drinking of water at any time before Mass and the eating of solids up to three hours before an afternoon or evening Mass.
Then it was dropped altogether by Pope Pius XII (Sacram Communionem, 1957), to allow the eating of solids up to three hours before any Mass, even in the morning. [I knew that you were mistaken, because I made my First Communion in 1959, under the three-hour rule.]
The one-hour rule was put into effect by Pope Paul VI in 1964.
Magdalene,
Having read your reply to me above (and on another thread), I will now take leave of all attempts to communicate with you. I find that you are abysmally ignorant and unbearably obnoxious, and you thus have forfeited the privilege of conversing with Catholics.
We can try again some day when you get older, after life has knocked you off your high horse, after reading and other exposures to the facts reveal how little you currently know, and after you learn how to speak to people with respect.
Another person and I have shown you the actual text of papal and Vatican documents that explicitly reveal that the SSPX is a schism and that those attached to it have been excommunicated. You protestation that the "Vatican has also admitted that the four bishops are not excommunicated" will fall on deaf ears until you do as Catholics here have done -- copy-and-paste the actual text that supports your claim (or give us the URL to the "www.vatican.va" page that contains the text).God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.
Fred,We all have to answer upon death for any purposefull blindness to truth. I know that you are blind to the truth and you think you know that I am blind. I didn't just blindly turn to a community which so many Catholics called schismatic, excommunicated, etc...Don't you think that I know if we were really schismatic we would be going to hell? You don't think that would bug me a bit? What would be the purpose? Just a big ego trip? No. It's a bit bigger and less trivial than that. If that's what you think, you have no idea how big the actual iceberg is.
Gene,
I personally use the three hour rule, from what I know, most traditional Catholics do - not that it is a sin to use the one hour rule or anything like that.
John,
You said that I was "abysmally ignorant and unbearably obnoxious." If I wanted to, if I was not who I am, I would call you both of those and more as well because I have been undeserving of the manner in which you have answered me (on more than one occasion). I am sorry to say it but you discredit yourself with your disdainfulness. No wonder the youth no longer listen to people your age - people like you don't give very good examples. You have no idea what you are talking about in reference to my beliefs - I don't say this in anger or disdain, only in pity. You think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. You try to prove why you would know what you think you know with your age and how you lived through it: you discredit yourself. It was your generation which fell for the changes, no wonder you are the way you are, and now we, the younger generation are paying for it. Thanks, so impressed.
You also said "you thus have forfeited the privilege of conversing with Catholics." No wonder the conversion factor isn't too high. since when are you the judge as to the forfeiting of rights? You are too old to indulge yourself in such low blows as the above along with:
"We can try again some day when you get older, after life has knocked you off your high horse, after reading and other exposures to the facts reveal how little you currently know, and after you learn how to speak to people with respect."
You have made a fool of yourself on a public forum because if anyone has treated anybody with disrespect it has been you with me, disrespect and altogether ungentlemanly language. The high-horse is your own. All your arguments mean nothing when they are compounded by this adolescent-style aloofness with which, it appears, you try to intimidate me.
God Bless.
In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 12, 2002.
MagdaleneYou are the the one who rejects thje truth as it hits your face. Your being brainwashed by the SSPX is quite clear to me as you refuse to acknowledge the very edicts of the Pope and the Vatican. I cannot stop you demise to the danker regions that you chosed. GOODBYE.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 12, 2002.
You have made a fool of yourself on a public forum because if anyone has treated anybody with disrespect it has been you with me, disrespect and altogether ungentlemanly language. The high-horse is your own. All your arguments mean nothing when they are compounded by this adolescent-style aloofness with which, it appears, you try to intimidate me.Magdalene,
You accuse others of behaving as an adolescent. You need to re-read your own posts here and see that you are truly reflective of your age group by showing your arrogance and know-it-all attitude in a manner that most adults would find offensive coming from someone your age.
Proper deference and respect to elders is something you should have picked up on by now, but obviously something was missing in your education. The Bible is loaded with references to respect for your elders. Try reading it again, dearie, and gain a little maturity as well before you lambaste others here for trying to educate you in areas in which you have little or incorrect knowledge.
God protect you -- you are an innocent child.
-- Carolyn (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 12, 2002.
Carolyn,That's just it. I have never supposed that I knew it all and would never do so, everything that I have ever received I have been given by others, and I submit to their better knowledge. However, those who have told me what I know are far more informed of the situation than John or you are - with no offense to him or you - so, you see I do not speak out of arrogance. That is just the way it is. It's like me thinking the sky is blue and you telling me that because you are older and know better, than if you think it is red, than I should think that it is red also. No, it's blue. That is just the way things are. If you think it arrogant for me to insist that I am right than what is the point of any Catholic insisting in the face of their elders (who are wrong) that they are right? The principal that you are applying is that just because you (plural) are older, I should automatically believe you. I can only suppose that in ancient years many pagans used the same technics on young martyrs - not that I would ever compare either you or myself to pagans or matryrs - but the principal is the same.
God Bless and may he bring you all back to tradition,
In Christo, Magdalene
-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 16, 2002.
MagdaleneWhen your group of Catholic disenters are outnumbered by the many thousands to one that should have rang bells in your head many years ago. It does not take a rocke scientist to know that your group is in schism with the rest of the Church. You are the lost soul that needs to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. The evidence is totally overwhelming that proves you are in the wrong. I don't need to tell you that at all. You are the one who ignores the truth. They have brainwashed you and your family for too many years with lies and mis guided information of herrendous proportions.
Your parents inability to accept change has cost them the social benefits the current day Church provides. TOO bad. You are just like the others who have bailed out to the Mormons and JW's by involuntary coercion without the real facts that have been the historical truths.
The Forumites here have tried to guide you and all you do is rebell like a spoiled little child who does not want to give up a toy that they have outgrown. You tirades on the forum has only brought on shame and proven ignorance to truths to light as we all here have witnessed for many years. I will pray that the real light of the light that is in Christ's real Church built by Peter is once again whole when you see the errors of your ways.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 16, 2002.