I think Scott Hahn is brillant. However, I ran across this article.

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

Scott Hahn and Pentecostalism (Catholic Family News, August 1997) by John Vennari

The most theological meat at the 30th Anniversary Conference was pro- vided by the convert, Scott Hahn. Unfortunately, this address, entitl- ed Scripture and Tradition, was a massive disappointment in many ways. Though Hahn uttered much of what is true, it was obvious trouble was coming when he asserted that the Church now has a NEW understanding of Tradition thanks to such "leading lights" as Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar. These "leading lights" are the current fashion enjoying tremendous popularity and influence in today's Church. Yet this vogue does not eclipse the substansial problems contained in their new thinking. The great anti-modernist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote to Maurice Blon- del in the 1940's asking him "to retract his false definition of truth before dying...if he didn't want to spend too long in Purgatory." 1 In the 1946 essay "Where is the "New Theology" taking us?", Fr. Garri- gou-Lagrange also warned of the dangers inherent in the "new theology" of Henri de Lubac. The eminent Thomistic scholaar concluded, "where is [this] 'new theology' taking us? it is taking us in a straight line right back to modernism by way of whims, errors and heresy." Henri de Lubac's theology blurs the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders. This novelty was condemned in paragraph 26 of Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical against modern errors, Humani Generis. Likewise, in 1980, the staunchly orthodox Cardinal Siri dev- oted 15 pages of his book Gethsemane to examine de Lubac's errors. Siri concluded that de Lubac's theology, taken to its logical conclus- ion, would mean that "either Jesus is only man, or that man is Div- ine." 2 Further, those whom de Lubac regarded as heroes and enemies is of great concern. Notonly did de Lubac nurse a sneering contempt for the anti-modernist Garrigou-Lagrange, but de Lubac was also a steadfast defender of of the arch-apostate, Teilhard de Chardin. 3 Of Yves Congar, the French writer Arnaud de Lassus commented that "having contributed to the conciliar rupture with Traditional Catholi- cism, Fr. Congar had the honesty to recognize the existence of this rupture." 4 Msgr. William B. Smith of Dunwoodie Seminary has lectured that Liberation Theology rests heavily on Karl Rahner and Yves Con- gar. 5 Hence, Dr. Hahn's unqualified praise of these modern theologians sends chills up the spine. The "living tradition" propagated by these new thinkers is the basis for the entire Vatican II revolution- a rev- olution that has turned the Church of today into something different from the Church of yesterday. As one progressive theologian wrote, "At Vatican II, the Church redefined herself." If in the name of this "living tradition," the Church of today can be different from the Church of yesterday, then it follows the Church of tomorrow will be different from the Church of today, and the Church of the distant future will be different from the Church of tomorrow. One is compelled to agree with Garrigou-Lagrange's keen foresight that the "new theology" favors the never-ending flux of modernism. Toward the end of the speech, Dr. Hahn shifted gears from a dicussion of Tradition to a full-throttle support of the Catholic-Pentecostals. This defense of Pentecostalism reminded me of Msgr. Knox's lament that the Montanist heresy of the 2nd Century "would have made but a small ripple on the surface of Christendom, if the wayward genius of Tert- ullian had not lent energy to its propoganda." 6 "You as Charismatic Catholics, Hahn sympathized, "seem to get it from both sides these days-from the non-Catholics and friends who are ex- catholics whose Charismatic experience may have lead them out of the Church-and from the traditionalist Catholics who bash you for emotion- alism." Presenting himself as the reasonable man in the middle, he then re- futed a caricature of traditionalist objections. "I hear certain Catholics" he stated, "who call themselves tradition- al say 'We have powerful sacraments, we don't have any need for emot- ions." Hahn's reply to this objection, "Hey look, if we've got sacra- ments as powerful as the Church teaches, then of all Christians in the world, we have just cause to get emotional." (loud applause) Any self-respecting Catholic will resent this flippant response. Due to his recent entry into the Church, perhaps Dr. Hahn has yet to wit- ness the splendor of genuine Catholic emotion that is always accomp- anied by profound reverence and sober piety. Even though the Catholic Faith does not rest on the emotions, Catholics have known for centur- ies that the "adventure of orthodoxy" can thrill the heart like noth- ing else. I have seen Ukrainian Uniate choirs booming their majestic Slavonic Chant, men and women singing full throat with tears streaming down their faces. I have been enchanted by the sight of teenage girls, modestly dressed with heads covered, quietly gasping to catch their breath, overcome with the majesty, beauty and power of a full pontifi- cal Tridentine High Mass. I know of traditional Catholic Ignatian re- treats producing genuine tears of compunction from sinners who have been away from Confession for decades. To suggest that an exhibition of high-voltage, Protestant giddiness is equal or superior to the in- timate religious emotions emanating from Catholic piety is a crowning insult to the Saints and to our Catholic heritage of two millenia. In further exaltation of Pentecostalism, Dr. Hahn proclaimed, "Remem- ber, our first Pope, Peter, was probably the first man to speak in tongues, and presumably the Blessed Virgin Mary too." This is a verbal dissembling worthy of Rembert Weakland. There is no record that Our Lady spoke in tongues or conducted any kind of external ministry (which is the PURPOSE of tongues). Even if Hahn made this declaration with a mental reservation, the audience that he is addressing will understand him to mean that Our Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven and Earth, practiced the indistinguishable gibberish of old-time Pentecostals. One would not want to be respons- ible before God for conjuring up such an image in people's minds. The miracle of tongues exercised by Peter and the Apostles, and as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, bears no resemblance to Charismatic practice. Furthermore, according to the Catholic Biblical Encyclo- pedia, the charism of tongues in ancient Corinth has little in common with the glossolalia of today's Pentecostals. 7 Scott Hahn's defense of this new movement defies understanding. Pent- ecostalism is a Protestant innovation that has never been tolerated in Church history. Dr. Hahn would do well to remember the counsel of Pope St. Pius X who assures us "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditio- nalists." 8

-- Jeremy Claiborne (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002

Answers

Isn't Catholic Family News put out by the SSPX? I frankly wouldn't trust their judgment.

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

No, the Catholic Family News is not a SSPX paper, but it is a traditionalist paper. I subscribe to it and read it cover to cover every time I receive it. It is my most looked-forward-to piece of mail. Not only informative, but also inspiring, because it carries many articles on lives of saints, the First Saturdays, and the 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart. While I realize most here will dismiss it because it is a traditionalist paper and very controversial, never have I read an article that could not be properly backed. All articles have many footnotes, and the authenticity of all factual statements can be thoroughly researched by those footnotes. You could not read an article with those footnotes and then deny the truthfulness of what that statement claims, unless, of course, you choose not to research it on your own. But I use to research much of it at first, and always found it to be correct.

You ought to read the WYD articles. I would not let my children attend one of those while they are under my roof. You can find their website simply by going to Google and typing in Catholic Family News.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

Mmm, maybe. I just see another disgruntled publication taking potshots at anyone who doesn't toe the ultratraditionalist line. Just my opinion. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Then maybe you should consider reading just one full issue of it. Then maybe you would see a publication trying to uphold the true faith at all costs, not a watered down version of it. Just my opinion. :=)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

I subscribe to both the Catholic Family News, and the Remnant. Both very good traditional papers. I believe Father Gruner has something to do with the CFN. I would not put too much faith in Scott Hahn, or half the programs on EWTN. Some though, like Bishop Sheen are excellent.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

Amazingly, and 'God-incidentally', I received an article from a friend, an excerpt from 'Catholic Family' paper just a few days ago. The author was SHOOTING DOWN our Holy Father for 'changing the rosary', {the luminous mysteries}. We sensed immediately a hostile attitude and ignorance of what the pope has done in adding these elements of our Savior's life to the rosary.

This was a brilliant move on the Holy father's part. EWTN is a wonderful gift to us, and so is Scott Hahn. Let us not be afraid of what the Holy Spirit is doing. In Jesus, Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 04, 2002.

Theresa, Did you read the whole article. Because if it is the recent one that I am thinking of (I have read it), then I am thinking you maybe you didn't read it completely. Here's why.

In the article they praised the Holy Father very much for trying to encourage more devotion to the rosary, and announcing a "year of the rosary." And they only 'questioned' why the new mysteries were added. Here is a summed up version of why.

The Rosary was originally called Our Lady's Psalter, not only by the church and its members, but by Our Lady herself. It was called this because it was to imitate in form the prayer of David, the 150 psalms, or David's Psalter. Hence 150 Hail Mary's in the full Psalter of Our Lady. Many popes repeatedly referred to the rosary as Our Lady's Psalter. They even said they would never change it because it was perfect the way it was. Our Lady herself, upon appearing to St. Dominic, told him "If you want to increase devotion to me, teach people to pray my Psalter." She referred to it as Her Psalter many other times, as well. Upon apparition to the children of Fatima, she never told the children to pray it any differently than how it had been prayed for centuries.

Now, by adding 5 more mysteries, you deny Our Lady the right to call it "My Psalter." By adding 5 mysteries, 'Our Lady's Psalter' is no longer a correct name. What do we call it now?

That pretty much sums it up, though not nearly as eloquent or detailed as the original. I would almost call it progressivism.

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

I have never received the Catholic Family News, but I did go take a quick look at their site just now.

I wouldn't be afraid of what the Holy Spirit is doing Theresa, but more afraid of what people might think He is doing, and I hope they don't think He is doing this...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.

I have seen film of WYD, and if ever Sacrilege was committed, it was there, a thousand times over. One would think, that they were at a sporting event, or worse yet, a Rock Concert. These events ARE NOT, bringing the youths to Christ, at least not the majority. The way the Host is thrown around, you will never get these kids to believe in the Real Presence.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

Dear Isabel, Ed.
Your ideals are nothing but divisive. The Holy Rosary is every bit as holy now, with the Pope's additions as before. It remains Our Lady's Rosary; and her Son has granted His Vicar power to bind and loose everything ON EARTH! That includes our prayer life. In fact, had John Paul II prescribed FORTY more Hail Marys that would have pleased the Mother of God all the more! Because it would have served the Will of God Himself.

It never occurs to some Catholics they are doing much more harm than good with all the nit-picking. They are introducing friction between faithful believers.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.

Perhaps with the liberals on one side of the scale, and the traditionalists on the other, there will be balance! Amen!

I just pray that no monumental splits occur. Then 'you know who' wins!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 04, 2002.

Settle down Eugene. Ed said nothing at all about the Rosary, and I only gave an account of the article that Theresa referred to. Remember, it is OK to 'question' the appropriateness of certain actions, and if you think about it, why would Our Lady name it her Psalter if the name was not going to be appropriate one day. But I never said it was a bad thing.

As far as WYD, I will be bolder there and say that it doesn't seem to inspire any reverance.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

Hey Gail, lo and behold, that scale analogy, I was just thinking about that same thing this morning. It is tempting. If it is indeed the case, I need to stick around for a while and be useful as a big hunk of dead weight to keep things in balance.

As it is though, I think scales don't work for analogies I reckon, because they are a sort of compromise, huh? It doesn't give the mind a sense of clarity but rather more of a practical quick fix to move along with, like a big junk-drawer full of small items that are too dissimiliar to have their own place.

There has got to be one or a few simple unique principle(s) that causes unity, and unity in all the details should flow from it effortlessly. At least that's what should happen. You think?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.

Yes; and our unity is the Pope. My concern is how few Catholics realise that the Caholic Church has always been in ferment. It's nothing new, one group testing the other groups, dissenters, lost sheep and pseudo-religionists. From the first century on, there has been little peace within the Catholic Church. I can't recall which Pope was chased through the streets of Rome and would have been thrown into the Tigris but God preserved him.

It is faith in Jesus Christ and His divine promises that keeps the Church. Only, many lose faith when they see the world encroaching. O Ye of little faith! Like His apostles in the sea of Galilee, crying out to Christ in the hold, asleep: ''Master, doesn't this concern thee, that we are perishing?'' Then rising up, He rebuked the wind.

Off this topic, a few here are calling Theilard de Chardin an apostate. I wouldn't be so sure. No one is as conservative as I am. I still have no reason to call this priest an apostate; and there's a perfect example, to me-- of the classic over-reactions of so-called ''traditionalists''. I have to remind you all, Savonarola was a traditionalist. He was also a madman.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.

Well can we at least get people to stop lying about what the Pope thinks? Everyone says they have the implicit or explicit approval of the Pope, because he either said something, hinted at something or didn't say anything at all. Eveybody is right because they are a fan of the Pope, or because the Pope is a fan of everybody.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.

About Theilard de Chardin, I saw Ratzinger quoting him on something I read about the New Evangelism on the ewtn site. So either Theilard de Chardin is not a heretic, or both him and Ratzinger are questionable. Either that or we are being retro-ecumenical or intro- ecumenical in which case I wonder who is reaching out to the trads.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.

Hello, Emerald. You wrote:
"About Teilhard de Chardin, I saw Ratzinger quoting him on something ... So either Teilhard de Chardin is not a heretic, or both him and Ratzinger are questionable. Either that or we are being retro-ecumenical or intro-ecumenical ..."

I have no idea what you mean in that last sentence, so I have to bypass it. But referring back to the previous sentence ("either [this] ... or [that]"). Oh, my, no. That does not follow. It is not as simple as just two possibilities. There is at least a third one -- and I think that it is the correct one.
Cardinal Ratzinger and good Catholics may occasionally quote orthodox comments from Frs. Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, et al, but without approving of their behavior or their whole body of work. There is nothing unusual or shocking about this at all. For example, the Catechism -- and, I think, the Liturgy of the Hours -- quote from Tertullian, even though he died as a heretic.

Eugene, some months ago, I saw that you wrote something unqualifiedly positive about Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (as you have now done again). [I don't know if you may have been influenced in this by your Jesuit friends.] I have been meaning to let you know that most of the work of the late Fr. Teilhard is strongly frowned upon in orthodox Catholic circles. In those circles, though, he is not really called an "arch-apostate" as the schismatic author of the lead article very ignorantly called him. (Every apostate excommunicates himself, while Teilhard de Chardin never left the Church.)

One of EWTN's "experts" in the Q&A department, the late Dr. William Bilton, writes as follows:
"The French paleontologist and Jesuit theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in Orcines, France [in 1881]. Father de Chardin spent years in central and eastern China, where served as advisor to the National Geographic Society [between 1923 and 1946] ... Teilhard's aggressive, determined pursuit of knowledge concerning evolutionary processes and ultimate cosmological secrets is the principal subject of his deeply reflective writings. His unwavering determination to energetically follow these profound speculations -- even in the face of Jesuit opposition from the highest levels -- led to an official decision to forbid him to teach or publish his writings. He attempted to unify the spiritual realm with the phenomenon of evolution included the theory of "cosmic evolution" -- that evolution extended all through the cosmos, even into the realm of physical matter. However, these attempts often conflicted with the teachings of the Church which formed the basis for his official censure. Some of his works were published following his death [in 1955]."

An individual familiar with Fr. Teilhard -- who chooses to refer to himself simply as Karl J -- posted the following information at the EWTN experts' forum:
"... Here you can read the Vatican's "Monitum [Warning] on the Writings of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, SJ", issued on June 30, 1962. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. This file containts both the monitum and the 1981 statement. ...

"Another article at Peter's net (www. petersnet.net) is "Body of Christ in St. Paul and in Teilhard de Chardin " Here's the link.
"This article compares St. Pauls view of Christ with deChardin's view of Christ. It appeared in Faith and Reason in 1977. One quick read of these article clearly shows the problems with deChardin's view cannot be reconciled with sacred scripture.

"Here's a typical description that one finds on the internet about his writings. 'The Phenomenon of Man' (published posthumously, 1955), in which he outlined his concept of cosmic evolution and his conviction that belief in evolution does not entail a rejection of Christianity. Evolution he saw to be a process involving all matter, not just biological material, the cosmos undergoing successively more complex changes that would lead ultimately to 'Omega Point,' which has been variously interpreted as the integration of all personal consciousness and as the second coming of Christ. Teilhard's evolutionism earned him the distrust of his religious superiors, while his religious mysticism made scientific circles suspicious; but despite much opposition (or perhaps because of it?) there was an unusually broad popular response to his work after its posthumous publication. The interest may be explained by his boldly anthropocentric, and somewhat mystical, understanding of the cosmos: humanity for him is the axis of the cosmic flow, the key of the universe. Teilhard de Chardin's other works (all published posthumously) include 'Letters from a Traveller' ... 'The Divine Milieu' ... 'The Future of Man' ... 'Human Energy' ... 'Activation of Energy' ... and Hymn of the Universe ..."

"The key point in his argument is that through evolution the universe will eventually reach the omega point, i.e God. Which has severla problems. Our universe is made of matter and energy and God is pure spirit not confiined to matter and energy. This means that the god of de Chardin is not divine but is the ultimate end-product of nature. De Chardin forces the creator tobe the created. There is no supernatural in his works either which negates the possibility of miricles, sacraments. So despite his claim that his view does not contrdict Chritianity, it does nothing but contrdict Chritianity. Looking closely at his works one can identify the elements of pantheism in his works as well. After all if evolution ultimately culminates in the divine, then nature is the divine creator or something similar to this. I think his popularity stems from this 'wonders of nature' that his writings have.

"There is also some debate that he was involved with some of the evolution hoaxes earlier this century [e.g., Piltdown Man], whether he was directly involved or rushed to believe the fake findings without proper examination. His evolution ideas are non-scientific in the extreme involving a sort of cosmic consciousness that isn't a creator but comes about in as communities and eco-systems evolve. His writing are a precurser of the 'Gaia' [Mother Earth] ideas espoused by alot of new-age practices. I think the real source of his popularity is that he's sufficiently scientific to interest the science oriented although the biologists and palentologists I know consider him non-important scientifically. He's sufficiently 'religious' to appeal to those who seek to pick and choose their relgion. He's been censored so those with an open mind seek him out. He fails on two points. His science is even less rigourous that main stream evolutionary models and must be rejected as completely non-testable. His relgious views fail upon review of scripture unless you're a pantheist or new-ageer."

Gene, I am not going to say that "Karl J" is 100% correct (or overly negative) about Fr. Teilhard, but what he and Dr. Bilton have stated must at least raise our "antennae" of concern. I know that I will not be reading anything by Fr. Teilhard in the short time I have left on this Earth.

I mentioned earlier that the author of the opening (quoted) article wrongly calls Fr. Teilhard an "arch-apostate." It makes other errors too -- e.g., (1) bashing Dr. Hahn, who is an orthodox Catholic, (2) bashing a man whom he calls "Henri de Lubac," without telling anyone that Pope John Paul II named FATHER de Lubac a Cardinal, and (3) not mentioning that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's opinions of Cdl. de Lubac (et al.) are non-magisterial and could be erroneous.

My opinion is that an orthodox Catholic does well to avoid all ("left") dissenting and ("right") traditionalist writings and Internet sites (National nonCatholic Reporter, Catholic Family News, etc.). There is just too much good information out there from non-traditionalist, non-dissenting Catholics for us to waste our time on stuff that has led so many into schism or heresy, endangering their souls.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

"That does not follow. It is not as simple as just two possibilities. There is at least a third one -- and I think that it is the correct one."

Exactly my point. There is a third one consisting of either compromise or ambiguity. Ratzinger doesn't need to quote Tailspin Chagrin, uh, Telhard Chardin, at all. It isn't very strategic, and if it is assumed to be something ecumenically strategic to do so, it aint working. It never has worked! Why does he reference "the good parts" of a heretic's writings? Why not just anathemetize them and be done with it. They are useless and aren't worth quoting, for the exact same reason you just gave:

"There is just too much good information out there...for us to waste our time on stuff that has led so many into schism or heresy, endangering their souls."

I still perceive, and more clearly, that what you say is dissent is not dissent in all cases (yes in some), but that some (not all) cases are an upholding of the Deposit of the Faith, and what was once liberalism is now what is termed "orthodox". There is an attempt to push what used to be the orthodox Catholics into a renaming of "Traditionlist" in a fabricated and contrived effort to make them out to be heretics.

What we have now is a bunch of people claiming that it is an orthodox position, and loyal to the teachings of the Church, to say that all religions partake in the salvific plan. Not so. Never has been, never will be. This ecumenism is evil, it is heretical. That's your Cardinal Casper right there; that's the problem. He is wrong, whether speaking officially or unofficially, and there are tons of Caspers out there, in fact what appears to be a majority, and they are all of them wrong because they contradict the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2002.

Eugene-

I just this morning read you post of Dec 4 and I have to say I laughed outloud, not because it was funny (altho part of it WAS) but because it makes so much sense, and is so level-headed. I agree completely about the Church having always been in ferment. Well, of course it has! This is nothing new- and the over-reaction of so called "traditionalists"really makes ME nervous too.

I just don't know WHAT to call myself anymore. I used to use "conservative" until I realized what was normally meant by that, then I used "traditional" but then realized that THAT made me squeamish too. I JUST DON'T KNOW anymore- I'm gonna have to come up with something else.

I wonder WHAT???? Maybe I'm an "anti-madman" Catholic! :-)

Anyway thanks for the breath of fresh air.

J.

-- Jane (jane@don't like spam.either), December 08, 2002.

"I JUST DON'T KNOW anymore- I'm gonna have to come up with something else."

Why not try "Catholic". It isn't about solely about liturgy like the SSPXer's think, it is about doctrine.

It has always been about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine.

"the over-reaction of so called "traditionalists"

I'm not a traditionalist.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2002.

Thanks for such a fine input, friends.
Let me reassure you, John; as far as my trusting everything written by Theilhard, nothing I wrote on these subjects indicates that. I only stated he lived the saintly life even as a scientist. I said I once read the Phenomenon of Man. I told the forum he'd been commanded to cease publishing his theories (not convictions) as they stood.

I found it significant that this faithful Catholic abided by every restriction placed on him. He didn't defy the Church, but obeyed; unlike Hans Kung and archbishop Lefebre.

I realise the ''biosphere'' and many other departures from the present norm are open to large questions. But they made fine food for thought, at least for me.

His concept of Christ as the culmination of all evolution, the Omega Point, struck a chord with me. I believe Christ is God AND man; and in His manhood comes to us as all creation self- contained, the Alpha and Omega. Whether Theilhard has dead aim on the truth isn't the point here. It's whether he departed from the faith of the Apostles.

No he never did. I have also noted this admirable aspect of his Christianity: love for the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He adored the Sacred Heart, he immolated himself in the Sacred Heart.

It's well-known Theilhard made one final petition of God, when his work had been rejected by the Vatican. To allow him to die on the feast of Christ's glorious Resurrection. This prayer was granted him. I don't know if that lends his far-out writing any credibility at all. It doesn't matter. But I think he was an extraordinary Catholic, John.

No, no Jesuit gave me one word at any time about any reading program, Jesuit or otherwise. My Jesuit friends are holy priests. They minister to a very poor parish community in San Diego's Mexican barrio. Their work is purely parochial and self-sacrificing. Everybody who knows them loves them, in their undying devotion to Christ and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Especially myself! Their names: Pastor Richard Brown S.J., and Father Jaime Razura, S.J. They are true sons of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. May God bless them forever.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 08, 2002.

I thank Isabel for defending me. I cannot understand why all of youhave such inense dislike for we {excuse the language} traditionalists. It seems to be a dirty word around here. Someone mentions t

he Catholic Family news, and terror seems to strike the hearts. Are you folks really as secure, as you say you are?

It seems as though "your church" began in 1962. Look, I was a loyal part of it for 20 years, so I know whereof I speak. Daily communicant etc.When they started hootnany masses, and tore that beautiful church apart, our beautiful marble altar broken to bits, communion rail gone,our mmongignor, saying that the woman at the well story, was not true, but just made up, to make a point, Loaves and fishes, Nah! they all bought their lunch and shared t etc. Heresy abounding, bishop winking, I said,"It's time to get the hell out of here, or my faith will be entirely gone". Better hell should be an expression, than a reality.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 08, 2002.

Anybody read the little easy-to-read booklet called CHRIST DENIED? Published by TAN, it's a small chronology of the 'origin of the Present Day Problems in the Catholic Church', it was a real eye- opener for me.

Written by Rev. Paul A. Wickens, here's what it says on the back cover, "If you have ever wondered how formerly orthodox Catholic priests can now teach utterly un-Catholic doctrines; if you have ever been treated like a fool for not understanding 'contemporary theology', if you have ever suspected the disrespect for the Eucharist, approval of contraception and "meaningful" fornication, rejection of sacrifice and penance, and the circus atmosphere in many parish churches were not really ordered by Vatican 11, then you need to read this book. Since these problems were not authorized by Vatican 11, where did they come from?

This booklet names names, focusing especially on George Tyrrell, Teilhard de Chardin, and Karl Rahner. Today's confusion is traced directly to their ideas and shows what we must do to combat them.

Look for it in your local bookstore. T

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 08, 2002.

Someday I'll read this ''booklet'', Theresa. Will you read Theilhard de Chardin's book, The Phenomenon of Man? In it you'll look hard, but never find him ''denying'' Christ. You'll keep looking, and never see a word about rejecting sacrifice and penance, much less of disrespect for the Holy Eucharist.

A booklet which ''names names'' is only as good as the truth it contains. I'm doubtful there's any substance in it, if it blames Theilhard for any of these sins against the faith. What his book DOES contain is a profound respect for the Incarnation. The Omega Point he meditated on was the Parousia, Christ's return in glory; for which all creation GROANS; as the apostle Saint Paul stated.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 08, 2002.

Hey Emerald - sorry..I wasn't calling you anything - honestly don't know enough about you to make a judgement. But "Catholic" sounds good..:-)

Really wasn't accusing anyone one anything, specifically, just liked Eugene's post.

Well you all have a good Advent.

XOXO Jane

-- Jane (jane@ don't like spam.either), December 08, 2002.

lol Jane; don't mind me... I go around half-cocked all the time, wary of doctrinal errors creeping in the shadows.

No apologies necessary. I should change my name to Quixote, huh? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), December 10, 2002.

Looks like Ed saw an opening; and he thinks: ''I cannot understand why all of you have such intense dislike for we traditionalists. It seems to be a dirty word around here.''

Very simple, Ed-- We ourselves know what tradition is. Folks like Regina and you give tradition a black eye.

I am a lover of Sacred Tradition. I'll defend it till I die. But you think tradition ended in 1960, and I maintain it is ongoing, even until today. Pope John Paul II will have his glorious place in the Church's tradition. Your sectarian Catholicism is bound for the sticks; like so many other lost sects. Not that we'll have reason to hate you. You'll just have strayed from the house of God, our Holy Catholic Church. You'll carry with you all the fetishes you came to love as a boy: marble altars, rosaries with exactly so many Aves, and only books written prior to the reign of Pio Nono. How happy you will be!

Our Church will stay the course; rebounding after every new crisis, faithful to Peter. We'll still have the sacraments and the apostle's Creed. We'll wear scapulars, pray novenas, pray for sinners and keep Lenten regulations. Our Church will have Advent, and Nativity, Easter, the feasts & solemnities. No sin will go unpunished for our faithful; but we won't have deep scruples about the ''irreverence'' of our neighbor in Mass. We'll have love and respect for one another and for our holy priests. We'll pray for more vocations, and God will provide us.

We'll continue as faithful traditional Catholics. Not unfaithful. --Our Blessed Mother will guard her children in the world. She always has.

We'll need her protection; and so will Ed and Regina and Isabel. And hopeful as ever, we'll pray for their return to the house of God. It won't be far away. When the hour of Ed's death arrives, (or my own--) and a Catholic priest from a hundred miles away couldn't make it, he may confess his sins to a Novus Ordo Father; and be given absolution and the last rites. --Just as good as the Tridentine variety, Ed. --Count on it! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 10, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Eugene.
I want to begin by congratulating you for a fine reply to Ed. He needed to read those words about "tradition."

But I must quickly stop the praise to turn toward discussing Fr. Teilhard again. I was pleased to see Theresa's post about that booklet, because it warns us against Teilhard, just as the Church warned us in the 1960s and 1980s. In fact the Church did not want you to be reading Teilhard's works, which could have badly misled you.

I have to tease you now, though, Gene. You have plenty of trouble understanding my simple layman's English, often misunderstanding me. I'd say, therefore, that the chances that you actually understood Teilhard's extremely complex prose are slim and none -- and that is probably why you didn't go bad! Had you actually understood him and been influenced by him, you might be another dissenter today!

Getting serious again, though ...
I was shocked that, even after all the negative things I referenced (above) about Teilhard, you still posted a totally pro-Teilhard message. I can agree with you that he did an admirable thing in accepting his silencing like a true Catholic religious, but that does not let him off the hook. Simply put, his works have bad stuff in them, and very few people should be looking at them (an exception being someone very learned and "un-sway-able" like Cdl. Ratzinger).

It really seems, Gene, that you are ignoring how the Vatican warned everyone against Teilhard in 1962. Their message included these phrases:
His "works abound in ambiguities and ... serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine."
We "exhort all [bishops] as well as the superiors of religious institutes, rectors of seminaries, and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers."

Yet you, Gene, would offer praise -- and only praise -- of this writer of "errors?" You would read his "danger[ous]" works? Not me, buddy!

You stated, above: "I said I once read the 'Phenomenon of Man.' I told the forum he'd been commanded to cease publishing his theories (not convictions) as they stood." I believe that you sincerely believe that, but a search of this forum site (possible via www.google.com) shows that you didn't really write those things -- at least not here.
Instead, back in May, you only stated: "I read Tillich, and Theilhard de Chardin; and found them fascinating to a great degree." The scary part is that you wrote those words shortly after Chris Butler had quoted the same words I just quoted from the 1962 Vatican warning. It is as though you were saying, both then and now: "I, Gene Chavez, know better than the Vatican, whether or not Teilhard was a great man and writer, and I will read him and praise him, if it pleases me."
Please, "Say it ain't so, Gi[n]o!" Please tell us that you acknowledge that Teilhard wrote bad stuff that people should avoid, just as the Vatican says.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Thanks for your sincere concerns, John.

It might seem unduly high-flown to you, but I am equal-- able in the extreme to discerning what Theilhard was talking about. It wasn't over my head at all. I could write you a cogent review of The Phenomenon Of Man (You underestimate me, but I can't blame you.)

Remember only one thing; his book never swayed my orthodoxy. I remained a happy Catholic after reading it. (Coincidentally in those days I'd been fascinated reading the Pauline excerpts on Creation's eventual ''relief'' from the penalty of Adam's fall. It dove-tailed very well with the concept Theilhard called the Omega Point.)

But I wasn't swept off my feet. It remained just conjecture of a spiritual sort to me. I don't truly know all that took place in Vatican circles; why Theilhard fell from grace. He is discredited for simply wondering; just as we all wonder sometimes. I know one thing; he was a saintly man, and a Catholic thinker. He didn't leave the Catholic Church.

I'm not afraid of reading. I've read saints and I've read sinners. I can tell the difference. If I could explain why, I would. You ought to pray for me; it can't hurt.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

Just a note, you guys totally left the real discussion behind a long time ago. And another thing in that artical, the assumption that Mother Mary could have spoken in toungues is not that far fetched. She was there at his death, was she not? And after that Acts 2:1 says, "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place." The assumtion tha tMary, *could* have been there is not far fetched at all, and the argument that there is no proof she did any ministry is true. But there is no proof she did not either. There is no biblical proof Philip and Bartholomew, two disiples, did any ministry either, or that they were present at Acts 2, yet we all hypothesis that they were. So how is it so far fetched. Pentecostalism seems to be a bad word to all you, but do you not remember that the Pope met with Pentecostal Leader David Du Plesis to learn more about the Pentecostal Doctrine, and what the Pentecostals believe. If the Pope gave it a hearing, and did not condemn it how can you. Does not the Pope lead the Catholic church?

-- Stephen Ward (steve@klasney.com), October 17, 2003.

Anybody read the little easy-to-read booklet called CHRIST DENIED? Published by TAN, it's a small chronology of the 'origin of the Present Day Problems in the Catholic Church', it was a real eye- opener for me.

Has anyone else read it? I'm curious to know some reactions.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 17, 2003.