Catholic denominations???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I've recently read this article about how the original number of 20,000+ protestant denominations came from some book written by some guy Barrett (I don't remember the title) and how his categorisation and definitions were ah... shall we say incongruous (sp?)... with what some Protestants and many Catholics would agree with.

However, his book also classifed Catholics into many denominations e.g. Christo-Pagan denominations and the such (which Catholics would naturally scoff at).

So my questions are : 1)How would one define Roman Catholic? 2)How would one describe the differences between the Traditional Catholics and Roman Catholics who are not anti-V2? (if you get my meaning... I'm not too good at phrasing my questions...) 3)How does one answer the claim that the 2 above-mentioned groups (for wont of a better word) are in fact 2 denominations within tyhe Catholic church?

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 14, 2003

Answers

the, not tyhe... sorry, my typo. =0)

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 14, 2003.

marie,

i could go out right now and start up a Christian faith system that denied all or some part of the truth of the One True Church (heresy) and/or all or some part of the authority of the One True Church (schism); but, even if i called it the "New Roman Catholic Church" or in some way alluded to its being the Catholic Church, as a heretic/schismatic, i would be excommunicated from the One True Church.

any Catholics who attended my church events, and myself also, would be committing a sin (quite possibly, a very grave one). such Catholics might also be regarded as heretics or schismatics.

in light of this, my answer to your questions are:-

1) a Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic 2) see 1) above 3) see 1) above

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2003.


Oh no Ian! Didn't catch your drift at all... It's like saying a football is a football, or a girl is a girl. There must be more to it than that, isn't there?

btw, are you what some folks would consider a traditionalist? If you are, I'm curious about your stand. Why do you subscribe to what you do?

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 14, 2003.


Here we go again...

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

marie, you are erroneously trying to impute the many failings of protestantism onto the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. so, one more time:-

heresy = obstinate denial by a baptised Catholic of all or some part of the truth of the One True Church

schism = obstinate denial by a baptised Catholic of all or some part of the authority of the One True Church

heresy/schism = excommunication

this recognises the need for the individual to submit to God. if only the protestants of this world had realised that, we would not have 35,000 separate denominations, each preaching their own bespoke religion. when a protestant recognises his errors and stops trying to outdo God, he is to be welcomed again to the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

PS did you know that there are red-haired Catholics, blue eyed Catholics, Black Catholics, Left-handed Catholics, .... does this make you feel better?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2003.



Let's try to put Barrett's numbers to rest once and for all in this forum, if we can.

Barrett's numbers have been quoted, misquoted and much maligned by the same individuals on this forum in the past depending on whether or not it served their purpose.

When I've quoted his estimates for the number of Charimatic/Pentecostal Christians, I've been jumped on as being totally out-of-touch with reality. Yet, those same individuals continue to repeat (and often incorrectly) Barrett's estimate for the number of Protestant denominations in an effort to prove the fundamental flaw of Sola Scriptura.

So here's the official source: Barrett, in the World Christian Encyclopedia, cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. I've read references to this number as being anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 on this forum alone - which is part 1 of the reason for referring to it as a misquote. The second reason being that Barrett only attributes 8,196 of those 20,780 denominations as Protestants. He also lists 223 different flavors of Roman Catholics.

The third reason for questioning Barrett's Protestant numbers comes from his misleading practice of defining a distinct denomination as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis or jurisdiction than another group (not sure exactly what that means).

Barrett actually categorizes the Protestant numbers as 21 major 'traditions' and 16 major Roman Catholic 'traditions' - which seems to be his bottom line. Protestants would likely agree with the 21 figure. Roman Catholics would understandably argue with the 16 figure. Never-the-less, that demonstrates the difficulties with using his figures at all.

So back to my initial comment . . . in order to intellectually fair, we should all basically ignore Barrett. Roman Catholics should stop repeating the 20,000 Protestant denominations, unless of course they're willing to accept the 223 Roman Catholic denominations assessment. Agreed?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.


Actually, I believe Barrett's figure includes "denominations and independent churches". Therefore any little street corner church that doesn't align itself with a previously existing denomination is counted by Barrett as a new denomination, which technically it is.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

1) roman catholics are those that ascribe to the holy mother church in rome.

2)there is no difference between true roman catholics and those who are in keeping with vatican two. V2 is an extension of catholic tradition, and those 'catholic' churches which are not in keeping with V2 are deviant churches that are not practicing catholisism.

3) easily answered: one, those that support the Vatican two are true catholics, and those that are dissenters are yet one more form a protestants who include 'catholic' in their name.

Dont be fooled, the article you read lists orthodox catholics, and various other forms of 'catholics' as a denomination of roman catholisism. this is not really the case, these churches are actually protestant churches that do not ascribe to the tenets of catholic faith.

further, the book lists different orders within the catholic church as being different denominations. this is also false. the orders of the church do not differ AT ALL from the beliefs of the church. the difference between orders is the path taken to reach those beliefs. for example: jesuits are very intellectual order, and study of their religion is their method, whereas Holy Cross order is a service based order, that uses this service as a means to finding God. Both have different means to the same beliefs, which makes them different aspects of the same church, not different denominations as many protestants seem to think

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.


and those 'catholic' churches which are not in keeping with V2 are deviant churches that are not practicing catholisism.

Is the converse also true; namely that congregations/parishes/individuals which espouse, at least nominally, to be in keeping w/ V2, and yet reject all that preceeded it, are heretical and therefore not Catholic?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.


the exact precision of the 20,000 is, in any event, academic. we all know that there is a great many, a significant number, a plethora indeed, of protetant denominations. we can chose to use words or we can shorthand by using 20,000, or 19,999, or 30,000; but the reality is that there are a great number of protestant denominations and, by a definition given by God Himself, but the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2003.


Ian,

But that's the point, there aren't 20,000+ Protestant denominations. There are approximately 21 traditional Protestant denominations - according to Barrett. Just check your local telephone book and tell me how many different flavors you find? Not churches - denominations. My guess it'll be along the lines of 20 or so.

You're continuing to perpetuate misinformation. Like I said, then on't object when someone states that Roman Catholics aren't 1 denomination, they're actually 223 separate denominations. Expect the same measure of judgment you use on others to be applied to you.

If we were to use Paul's theory, to assign every independent church as a separate denomination, then fine, perhaps that would at least line-up statistically. But independent's are treated as a separate category and aren't by definition a denomination - which is strictly speaking a group of churches. The independents should be grouped together since they are an anomaly.

Here's a parallel example: Today, there are approximately 200 different nation states on the planet. But if we examine a categorization of the citizenship of individuals and add up the number of nations based on the citizenship, we'd conclude that there are really millions of nations of the planet, afterall, there are millions of people with no official citizenship (they have relinquished or never acquired citizenship anywhere) - in effect they are independents. Does that make sense? Of course not. They exist, so you lump them together into a single bucket called (non- citizens). Same holds true for independent churches.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.


Dave

your desire to minimise the number of protestant denominations from 20,000 to 20 suggests that you may well believe that there is One Church, you just haven't figured it out yet! you also leave me wondering how you reconcile sola sciptura with a desire to have just the one Church. in principle, i would have thought that protestants would by definition be sole-practictioners, and the idea of organised church anathema; and this explains the "significant number" (!!) of protestant denmonations. to impose the ideas of any pastor on his congregation goes against the flow of protestantism. so even if there are some larger deniminations, at the end of it all, they can only ever be administrative.

not wanting to get away from the point, perhaps you should name your top 5 Catholic "denominations" (the biggest or the best known) and the good Catholic people on this site might help you understand.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2003.


Ian,

I'm not turning this into a Sola Scripture battle. And I'm not making up the figure of 21 traditional Protestant denominations - this is Barrett's own figures. I'm simply pointing out the duplicity of your position - wanting to calim 20,000 Protestant denominations yet not wanting to own up to 223. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept Barrett's numbers or reject them. And if you accept them, then at least state them accurately and with proper qualification. Thus far, you've only managed to demonstrate your own bias and lack of intellectual honesty.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.


Hey guys; Not to butt in here, but I would imagine the 20,000 denominations includes "non-denominational" churches as well, i.e., independent churches that are not associated with "big ones."

Okay, that's my 2 cents worth.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 14, 2003.


First, a denomination is by definition an entity which separated from a pre-existing entity. That's what the word means. "Denomination" is from the Latin "de nomina", which means "away from the name", or "out of the name". Thus a denomination is a group which has rejected the name, and thereby the identity signified by the name, of a pre-existing group. The Catholic Church therefore does not qualify as a denomination, as it was initially founded by Jesus Christ, and did not come into existence by separation from any pre-existing church. Likewise, no subgroup of the Catholic Church qualifies as a denomination, since none of them has rejected the name and identity of the Church. There are of course groups which profess to be Catholic, yet blatantly reject Catholic doctrine. Such groups are not denominations within the Church either, but rather have in fact separated themselves from the Church, but lack either the acumen or the honesty to acknowledge the fact.

Secondly, a specific church, denominational or otherwise, is defined by its body of belief. A denomination differs from the church it separated from by its beliefs. It may differ in other ways too, but that doesn't make it a denomination. There are many different approaches to spirituality within the Catholic Church, but only one body of doctrinal truth. That, and that alone, is what makes it one united Church, in spite of its diversity of rites, non-doctrinal traditions, ethnic customs, etc. Denominations also differ from one another by their respective bodies of belief. If two groups have exactly the same beliefs, there is no reason for them to remain separate denominations. If a small independent church does not accept the beliefs of any mainline denomination, then they have separated themselves from those denominations, rejecting their names and identities, and have chosen instead their own body of belief, different from that of any other church. Thus, they are, by definition, new denominations. Some denominations are large, some small, but they all share the basic characteristics which define a denomination. Basing a religious tradition on the untenable concepts of sola scriptura and personal interpretation guarantees a never-ending series of doctrinal divisions and new denominations, the fruit of which is plainly evident to anyone who takes an honest look.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.



The standard that Barrett uses for differentiating denominations is explained at these two links. Yes, independent churches are treated as a separate denomination, but there are other factors as well. Again, Barrett considers that there are less than 9,000 Protestant denominations. The 20,000 includes the 223 Roman Catholic denominations and over 500 non-Roman Catholic denominations as well as thousands of non-Christian cults like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. So like I said, there's no basis for the 20,000+ figure. There is a basis for a 9,000 figure, but to use it means you also have to accept 223 Roman Catholic denominations. That's the only way to treat these numbers correctly.

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.


One thing is for sure, you can open up the yellow pages in any city and become thoroughly confused by looking in the "Church" section. That's a fact. I know, because I did just that, in looking for a new church last year. Then I had to study what each one believed. WHAT A MIGRAINE!

Personally, I don't find the 20,000 (worldwide) number to be out-of- the-realm of possibility at all. Of course, I haven't counted them, but I bet that's pretty on target, for WORLD-WIDE.

Lots of Love,

Gail

P.S. Hey, BTW, the Nazarene Church and Wesleyan Church are identical in doctrine. They almost merged, but didn't quite make it due to "hierarchal" differences.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 14, 2003.


Dave,

why don't you have a look at this!

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/mch-e.html

it somewhat undermines your complete reliance on Barrett. let me give you a very brief snapshot of some of the deniminations that you are missing:

Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church (?!?!) Swiss Protestant Church Federation (?!?!) Union of Welsh Independents (?!?!) United Free Church of Scotland (?!?!) United Protestant Church of Belgium (?!?!) United Reformed Church (?!?!) Waldensian Church (?!?! - this one is in Italy) THE LIST GOES ON....

anyways, i would repeat these points:-

1 -- if you follow sola scriptura, why are you so keen to minimise the numbers of protestant deniominations? and why do protestants form deniminations?

2 -- i would also ask you to consider the "denominations" of the Catholic Church that you believe to exist. you must be able to name a few that cause you problems.

God Bless you, Dave.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2003.


Marie, we don't know exactly how many Protestant denominations there are. I counted over 100. There are subdivisions which make them into new denominations. Ther term Baptist: Southern Baptists (16 mi), and so on. Presbyterians and its subdivisions, Reformed, methodists, Lutherans: evangelical, Missouri Synod..., these are some of the ones I consider Protestant. I don't consider the Church of England Protestant nor its sister the Episcopal Church. Nor does the Pope which wants to allow those Churches back into the Roman Catholic Church. I read that in the LA Times.

There are Churches whose founders came from Protestant denominations but I don't like to group them with them: Jehovah's witnesses ( 2 kinds), Mormons ( 4 kinds), Adventists, Pentecostals (over 1000), The Way international, Holy name groups, messianic Christians,and so on. The only thing Protestant is in the use of the Bible. ( This excludes Mormons who add their own book).

As to Catholic Churches: The Roman Catholic Church ( over 1 billion members) and so many Church groups: Franciscans, Jesuits, Charismatics, Opus Dei, and so on. Orthodox Catholics: Greek,Russian, ... 250 million, Polish Catholic, and many smaller catholic splinter groups.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 14, 2003.


Will someone please back up and re-read my responses? Please???? Or in Ian's case read them for the first time.

I'm not the one defending, relying on or rejecting Barrett. I didn't even start this thread. I'm simply explaining the source of the erroneous "20,000" and stating very clearly that the source itself says that there are less than 9,000 Protestant religions - not 20,000. So there IS NO 20,000 - IT'S A FALSE NUMBER THAT'S BEEN CONTINUALLY PASSED ALONG AS FACT. It's the exact same source that claims there are 223 Roman Catholic denominations. So if you want to believe there are 20,000 Protestant denominations, tell me where you get that number from???? It's not from Barrett's. Barrett says 9,000. So it must be from another source. Anyone??? No? That's because it's a ficticious number that has no basis in reality. AND THAT'S MY POINT.

Isn't this a self-evident statement? Please don't over complicate this. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Frankly I don't care if there are 100,000 Protestant churches. It doesn't make a difference to me at all. But I do care about passing around misinformation and that's the purpose of my posts - to educate you about the misinformation.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.


perhaps allow me to clarify something... barretts is wrong. the christian encyclopedia, a book put out by scholarly protestants states that as of two years ago there were approximately 27 thousand protestant churches... i think thats where the 20 and 30 thousand numbers are coming from... as to catholic denominations, there are none. there is only one catholic church.

Second, the church which does not support the validity of Vatican II is defying several major aspects of catholic faith, V-II was a valid council held to ensure unity in the one true church, therefore those churches that refuse to follow it are as protestant as anyone else who claims separation from the church.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.


the church which does not support the validity of Vatican II is defying several major aspects of catholic faith, V-II was a valid council held to ensure unity in the one true church, therefore those churches that refuse to follow it are as protestant as anyone else who claims separation from the church.

Catholics who refuse to be led in by the chacanery and devastation wrought in the wake of V2 are good, faithful, Roman Catholics. The fact that it was a valid Council does not excuse the glaringly obvious fact that it ushered in a tidal wave of destruction. Interesting how they're cast as "Protestants" when they only things being protested against are things that, until 1964, were considered abhorrent and contrary to the Faith! Sadly, those very things are the foundations of the new theology.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.


In this Holy Week, the similarity between Judas betraying Our Blessed Lord , and the "Judas bishops" of Vatican 2, betraying Our Church, is obvious. They tried to kill the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but it re-appeared with the small flock of the faithful.They cannot kill the faith, or the Mass.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Paul,

Is that the "World Christian Encyclopedia"? That's the only one I can locate and it's the one everyone refers to as the source of these numbers we've been discussing. That publication was headed by David Barrett. So if that's the one, then we are speaking of the same thing. On the other hand, maybe there's another. If you could point me to a reference, that might clarify whether or not we're talking about the same thing. I've pretty much concluded that Barrett is wrong, but obviously the point I'm trying to make here is that I keep hearing his numbers being quoted over and over (not just here on this forum). If they were accurate, then no problem. But since there's reason to believe they are not, I get frustrated when I hear them being referenced so often.

This all started for me when I located some World Christian Encyclopedia stats online and read an article quoting the book as saying there are 500-600 million or so Charismatic/Penecostal Christians in the world from all denominations. John Gecik challenged those numbers, understandably. But then John would continue to repeat the 20,000-30,000 Protestant denominations number in an attempt to undermine Protestant doctrinal credibility. My motivation then was of course to point out the obvious that if you believe that the 500-600 million number was wildly exaggerated and then (on this thread) point out Barrett's conclusion that there are 223 Roman Catholic denominations (a number that folks on this forum would understandably dismiss as bogus), then how can you possibly endorse the 20,000-30,000 Protestant denomination figure as being valid? The source of the data has been impeached, so all of the data has to be rejected. And then there's the further irony that the 20,000-30,000 figure is even further distorted because it's misquoted as representing Protestant denominations when it doesn't (according to the source - Barrett). Those numbers include Orthodox, Catholic, cults, etc.

So in conclusion, I object to the continued use of misquoted, likely bogus data, as a means of discussing/debating matters of the Christian faith.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.


*screech* Talk about a deluge of answers. Thank you all for your replies! I'm a rather slow reader, so this is going to take a while to sift through. All the same, muchos gracias! In any case, is it right to say that (A) pre-V2 catholics consider post-V2 catholics to be protestant (or at least not true catholics) and that (B) post-V2 catholics consider pre-V2 catholics to be schismatic?

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 15, 2003.

"is it right to say that (A) pre-V2 catholics consider post-V2 catholics to be protestant (or at least not true catholics) and that (B) post-V2 catholics consider pre-V2 catholics to be schismatic?"

No. It is right to say that "traditionalist" extremists consider those who follow the Church's current teaching to be heretics, and modernist extremists consider those who follow the Church's current teaching to be obstructionist, all of which simply emphasizes the dangers of extremism. However, the vast majority of Catholics, thank God, simply abide by the teaching of the Church as they have always done, trusting in God's promise to guide the Church to all truth, and to be with it until the end of time.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 15, 2003.


Catholics who refuse to be led in by the chacanery and devastation wrought in the wake of V2 are good, faithful, Roman Catholics.

How is it in denying the infallability of the pope and denying the central authority of the church that a sect of 'catholics' claim that they are following Catholic Doctrine. in denying the infallability of the Pope (both then and every pope since then) they in fact deny a central tenet of the one true church. They are not good faithful roman catholics, they are dissenters who refuse to follow the supreme pontif in much the same way that the protestants refuse to accept rulings from his holyness.

The fact that it was a valid Council does not excuse the glaringly obvious fact that it ushered in a tidal wave of destruction.

Really? what destruction was that? a mass that was unified world wide so that priests no longer interpreted scripture and hence created dogmatic fallacy? or was it the destruction of translating the mass into english such that people could understand what was being said and know their faith? Or was it the idea that the church should be unified under one central authority that was so destructive? in terms of violating Catholic dogma, please, tell me where V-II went wrong...

Interesting how they're cast as "Protestants" when they only things being protested against are things that, until 1964, were considered abhorrent and contrary to the Faith!

not true, they are cast as protestants for reasons i've already stated. they deny central tenets of the church.

Sadly, those very things are the foundations of the new theology.

Actually, the foundations of the Catholic church are the same as they always have been. Dogmatic principle is the foundation, not the language of the mass... as you would have us believe. the truth of the matter is that V-II ushered in a period of unity among most churches and allowed people to grow farther in their faith by understanding what was being said at mass. you are so tied up with the procedure that your forgetting what is important to your faith: its central tenets.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.


How is it in denying the infallability of the pope

Where?

in denying the infallability of the Pope (both then and every pope since then)

Show me.

refuse to follow the supreme pontif

Wrong again.

please, tell me where V-II went wrong...

Well, just off the top of my head:

1. False ecumenism

2. Modernism (a heresy thoroughly condemned)

3. The utter devastation of religious orders and vocations

4. Moral relativism

5. Banal liturgies

6. Lack of clear teaching

7. Loss of chtechesis

8. Eco-Feminism

9. seminaries, Catholic schools, and convents being huurriedly emptied out & sold off for profane uses

10. the raising of anetire generation of self-hating Catholics.

Enough for now?

they deny central tenets of the church.

Name one.

the truth of the matter is that V-II ushered in a period of unity among most churches

Oh, yeah. MUCH more unity now. What was I thinking?

and allowed people to grow farther in their faith by understanding what was being said at mass.

Mass? That thing where you have to kneel down & stand up & stuff? What percentage of Catholics go to Mass since the Council? Show me the money.

Show me the money.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.


Here we go with Vatican II again.

I started to write a response but why?

Those who denounce Vatican II are, even though vocal, a very small splinter group.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 15, 2003.


I started to write a response but why?

Those who denounce Vatican II are, even though vocal, a very small splinter group.

You're right, John. Neither side, in all likelihood, is going to win over the other.

For the record, though, I don't denounce the Council itself, just the "improvements" that came about as a result. I also don't think the "splinter group" label will stick for much longer. I think a time is coming when everyone who thought themselves to be on the inside will find themselves on the outs - and if you think we're protesting now, just wait.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.


dear marie,

you "ask" -- is it right to say that (A) pre-V2 catholics consider post-V2 catholics to be protestant (or at least not true catholics) and that (B) post-V2 catholics consider pre-V2 catholics to be schismatic?

you may think that you have succeeded in your unsubtle efforts in dragging the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostlic Church down to the tragic depths associated with protestantism; but, in reality, it is your protestant brethren, clothed as Catholics, that have expressed the views that might lead you to your sad little premise that we are anything but the One Church; and such protestants-in-denial may be as responsible for your continued confusion as you are.

the Church regards excommunication as a last resort (as, inter alia, it may well consign the excommunicated to the life of a terminal protestant); but that does not mean that any dissonant "catholics" ostensibly within the Church, who deliberately and obstinately defy doctrine and/or authority, are any less protestant in nature. even before his expulsion from the Church, Luther was a heretic/schismatic and a grave sinner.

in short, the only dissonance in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church comes from protestants. ie you lot. and an whole new denomination, numbered 30,001, abeckons.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 15, 2003.


I'm very less a protestant than you think. I am a Roman Catholic more by choose, than by heritage and I love the Church.

Ecumenical, evangalistic, I am.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 15, 2003.


Ecumenical, evangalistic, I am.

John, would you please explain what that means? Thanks.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 15, 2003.


hmmm. So Ian, what do you mean by "you lot"? Begging your pardon, but really, you seem rather antagonistic. I thought to take offence at your last post, but then again, since there's enough animosity around here to last a lifetime, I figured that it's not worth it. once again, thank you all for your responses. btw, does anyone know where Anna's gone to? I haven't seen her around in ages...

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 16, 2003.

dear marie

countless homosexuals are offended by the Church, countless abortionists are offended by the Church, and the list goes on. i doubt, in any event, that you are genuinely offended. and just remember that it was your insincere line of questioning that has attracted the various responses given above.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 16, 2003.


Ian,

You seem to have difficulty with reading people's responses and infusing your own interpretation of their motives and implied meanings that are totally out-of-sync with the writer's intent. You did it to me repeated on this thread and now you're applying the same strange approach on Marie. Please re-read her posts with an objective view. She started this thread asking an honest and interesting question as a Catholic discussing an issue among Catholics. You're accusing her of instigating something that is just not in her post. If you have something to something to contribute, then do so, but please stop the unnecessary insinuendo, it ruins the discussion.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.


Regina, To answer your question:

I have had the opportunity to be exposed to several different denominations. We, as Christians, have a lot more in common, than we sometimes realize.

Of course, there are theological debates. As we see on this forum, there are theological debates between Catholics. Many of the perceived differences are just that: a matter of perception.

Others differences are, of course, insurmountable, ie. Jahovah's Witnesses and Mormon, cults.

I feel strongly that churches could unite if you could get the eliteism and posturing out of the way. Dialogue with the Lutheran Church, Charismatic Episcopal Church, and several others is an ongoing process and bearing fruit.

The Charismatic Episcopal Church, for example, is working hard toward a "formal recognition" by the Vatican.

I am ecumenical in the fact that I desire to see the common instead of the difference.

Evangalistic in that given the chance, I like to share the faith. I am currently helping in a Jail ministry where inmates come from all types of backgrounds. You can't argue rubrics to someone who may be at a prayer service for the very first time in their life.

I do believe 100% that the Catholic Church, at it's best, possesses, as close as is humanly possible, the fullness of truth.

There are theological arguments that I have with the INSTITUTIONAL Church, i.e. celibacy of priests, ordination of women to the diaconate, RCIA process, etc. that I'll probably always have.

Hope this clear up some things and answers your question.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 16, 2003.


John,

If the CEC does get formal recognition, does that mean I can stop using my forum moniker "Non-Catholic Christian"? :-)

I realized that the CEC had nearly identical doctrine as Roman Catholics [the CEC holds to all doctrines universally accepted during the first 1000 years of the united Catholic Church (prior to the Orthodox split)], but I didn't realize we were pursuing "formal recognition" with the Vatican. Would that result in a status similar to the National Catholic Church of Poland? Recognized priesthood and Eucharist?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.


Dave,

i am reading these posts objectively, but what you might be finding "strange" in them is that i try to do so as an objective Catholic.

the gist of your posts can be summarised as follows:-

1 Barrett does not state there are 20,000 protestant denominations 2 it states there are under 9,000 3 but it also states that there are 223 Catholic denominations 4 therefore Catholics ought to stop using the 20,000 number, or accept that there are 223 Roman Catholic deniminations 5 in a slightly different tack, you then mention the disputed figure of 500-600 million or so Charismatic/Penecostal Christians, and declare the whole Barrett analysis to be flawed and unreliable

throughout, you ignore the Catholic posts that make it manifestly clear that there is One Catholic Church and all other quasi-Catholic entities are heretical/schismatic bodies. the 223 number is wrong (and any number other than 1 is wrong) because, by its definition, there is (and will only ever be) the One Catholic Church. no Catholic needs Barrett to tell them that. any Catholic who deliberately and obstinately disavows Catholic teaching or authority is not in that One Church.

to a Catholic, therefore, there can be no analytic equivalence whatsover between the various figures quoted by Barrett- and there can be no horse trading.

where does that leave us? you don't know how many one-man-band protestant deniminations there are across the world. no man may ever know the exact figure. any study will only ever underestimate the population of independent protestant preachers unless it uses accurate statistical inference. that means that the 9,000, which you propose (and then reject??), is an underestimation. in fact, the 20,000 - 30,000 number really starts to seem fair, not least because it is a very big number. (about 40 - 60 new denominations per year since protestantism all kicked-off.) i see no harm in its use even if only as an approximation, as it provides a good picture of the failings of sola scriptura.

what is odd is that you might conceivably stop moaning if Catholics in future used a figure of, say, 9,000. but why would that make anything better? and you say you only care about the accuracy of the number (not the inferences that are drawn) -- but (1) you have no concrete figures to propose yourself, and (2) whether there are 9,000 or 25,000 hardly makes much difference in drawing the correct inference.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 16, 2003.


Ian,

Well, you got points 1-4 right. But you're still missing the main points.

I'm not ignoring the Catholic posts at all. They (or more percisely YOU) continue to repeat this fictious 20,000+ figure that has no basis in reality. You sit there and claim there's only one Roman Catholic church (which I agree with you about) and in so doing effectively dismiss ALL of Barrett's numbers. But amazingly you fail to carry your rejection of Barrett's number to the rest of his conclusions by continuing in the bogus 20,000+ line - you're lastest inference was 30,001 I believe.

To use an old Native saying - you speak with forked tongue. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, which apparently you fail to grasp.

Even in your prior post you say "in fact, the 20,000 - 30,000 number really starts to seem fair, not least because it is a very big number. (about 40 - 60 new denominations per year since protestantism all kicked-off.)" AGAIN, where are you getting these numbers from??? Your imagination?? No, you're still using and effectively validating Barrett's numbers. Then we have someone here check the yellow pages and supposedly counts 1,000 churches (yeah, right, in what city?) and then actually proclaims each to be a separate denomination (WRONG, try again!). Then one or two of you list a half dozen or so different flavors of Protestantism and someone then extrapolates that into 20,000. Well, you did say it "seems" right, so you really are using your own wild-ass guess to conclude that Barrett was right. But then we see the REAL reason when you explain, i see no harm in its use even if only as an approximation, as it provides a good picture of the failings of sola scriptura."

Ah yes, the motive de jour. You use the bogus numbers BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR AGENDA!!!!

See the hypocrisy yet?

You like Barrett's Protestant numbers because it proves your point, but you don't like Barrett's Catholic numbers because it disproves the very foundation of your beliefs. Hypocrisy - now do you see it???

If your point is sola scripture doesn't work, then fine, say that. If for some reason you find the existence of numerous Protestant denominations somehow validates your point, then say it that way. That's all I expect. Perhaps I expect too much.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.


Hi John. Thanks for taking time to answer my question...

Of course, there are theological debates. As we see on this forum, there are theological debates between Catholics.

The differences in religions is a great deal larger than theological differences, or differences of opinion. There are *doctrinal* differences - these other religions deny things which have been revealed by God Himself.

Many of the perceived differences are just that: a matter of perception.

But adhering to our doctrines and their dogmas isn't a matter of perception. We believe as we are instructed to with definitions which are provided for us.

I feel strongly that churches could unite if you could get the eliteism and posturing out of the way.

But what is meant by "unite"? The only way for there to be true unity is for non-Catholics to return Home. Christ wants His Church to stay as She is - not for Her (or her members) to bend in conformity to the demands of other faiths which deny God-revealed doctrine.

Dialogue with the Lutheran Church, Charismatic Episcopal Church, and several others is an ongoing process and bearing fruit.

What is there to "dialogue" about, though? Either these false faiths accept Holy Mother Church as She is - the way Christ wants Her and established Her to be - or they risk perishing outside of Her.

Could you provide evidence of the "fruit" of this "dialogue?" Are the leaders and followers of these false religions admitting their errors, accepting the truths of the Catholic Church and returning home to Her? Or is the Catholic Church - by poor example - betraying Our Lord and telling these people they don't need the Catholic Church for salvation?

The Charismatic Episcopal Church, for example, is working hard toward a "formal recognition" by the Vatican.

Very vague. Does "formal recognition" mean that the CEC is formally recognizing the Pope as the Visible Head of the Church? Are they "working hard toward" correcting their errors and becoming Catholics?

I am ecumenical in the fact that I desire to see the common instead of the difference.

True ecumenism is working hard for and praying for the conversion of those who exsist outside the Church. The differences in faiths should not be glossed over. In fact the differences are gravely more significant than that which we might have in common. It's those "differences" that define where we might spend our eternity. True ecumenism is wanting everyone inside the 'Ark of Salvation.' It's *not* about "I believe in God, so do you. That's all that matters."

Evangalistic in that given the chance, I like to share the faith. I am currently helping in a Jail ministry where inmates come from all types of backgrounds. You can't argue rubrics to someone who may be at a prayer service for the very first time in their life.

Agreed. One must start slowly. But one must also make sure the prayers said with the inmates are *Catholic* prayers. The lessons given are *Catholic* lessons. That it is the Catholic prayers God wants to hear. When asked "why?" you could begin explaining how God established the Catholic Church.

I do believe 100% that the Catholic Church, at it's best, possesses, as close as is humanly possible, the fullness of truth.

She's got it all, John. Every bit of it. She wants all of God's human creations with Her.

Hope this clear up some things and answers your question.

Well, it confirms some of my suspicions about the post-Vatican II "ecumenical movement" and it helps me see where you're coming from. Thanks again for taking time to explain. :-)

-- Regina (Regina@lycos.com), April 16, 2003.


Dave... okay, so we say barretts numbers are wrong. the inference remains that protestantism is flawed because it involves mans interpretation of Gods word. Sola scriptura doesnt work if there are ten or ten thousand protestant denominations. let me toss you a real figure: in the city of portland there are 104 denominations, and that is a very conservative estimate that lumps all non denominational churches into one large church, and also merges the thirty or so forms of baptist faith into about five or six. truth of the matter is, thats hard fact, im not going to name them, i dont have the time to type all that... but theyre there. even 100 denominations is too many, so to argue the number is really a semantics game of hopscotch that removes the focus from the true point

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 16, 2003.

Paul,

Thanks. That's pretty much all I was looking for. I believe you're arguments for or against Protestantism aren't in the least bolstered by the number of denominations. They either live or die by the underlying principles. Case in point is the split between Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Numbers are 1 to 1. Doctrinal differences are very few, but key (obviously, or else they wouldn't still be separate). So any discussion about who's right and who's wrong must go deeper than numbers and age - since both are on equal basis (though the Orthodox churches have a slight edge in the age department).

Anyway, I appreciate your approach sir. You were indeed a wise choice to turn the moderator keys over to.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.


Dear Dave,

It is not numbers per se that matter, but rather the widespread departure from truth which such numbers necessarily indicate. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead HIS Church to ALL TRUTH. Therefore we must conclude that a tradition which does not have the fullness of truth cannot be His Church. Hundreds of conflicting and contradicting beliefs, as found in denominational religion, are a certain indicator of widespread untruth.

The split between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church is in no way comparable to the Protestant situation. First, this schism is not a split within the Catholic Church, but from the Catholic Church, just as Protestantism was. However, unlike the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, the Orthodox have retained virtually all true Christian beliefs (except of course the authority of the Vicar of Christ), and have not replaced true Christian doctrine with manmade traditions like sola scriptura and sola fide, which guarantee ongoing division and development of false doctrine.

The Church Christ founded has more than a slight edge in age over any other Christian church - about 1,400 years over Orthodox churches, and 1,500 years over Protestant churches. Again, age per se is not the issue. The issue is which church existed in Apostolic times. History clearly reveals that the Catholic church was the only Christian church for well over 1,000 years after Christ.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 17, 2003.


actually dave, im not the moderator, hes Paul, im paul with a little p. but thank you for the complement, I'll take it as it was meant. The problem of division does extend very far, and there are key doctrinal issues. as it has been stated before, there are talks with the episcopalians, and the lutherans to rejoin the church, granted that 99% of their beliefs are exactly the same as ours anyway, they dont have a big jump to come back. As for the Orthodox Church, thats still up in the air, both sides claim to be the older church, and to be the true church. Personally i think the roman catholics are the older church, but at this point who knows. The similarities, however, between the orthodox Catholics and the Roman Catholics are so close that the Orthodox are allowed to take communion at our masses and (I believe) vice versa as well. for a time there was talks of rejoining as one church, but i dont know that that will occur anytime soon...

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

paul,

check this by all means, but i think you will find that the Eastern schism object to a Catholic taking their Holy Communion -- whereas the Catholic Church will allow a Catholic to partake in the Eastern church's Eucharist only in limited circumstances (as a last resort, i think).

as for the position on them partaking of our Holy COmmunion, again I am working from memory; but the Catechism seems to fall short of OK'ing it.

finally -- for Dave's benefit -- the Eastern Orthodox Church is a schism. it is not a denomination.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.


...oh and the EOC is also heretical as it does not follow a number of the Church's teachings. i believe these include, inter alia, the Immaculate Conception.

as for the relative vintage, i am most likely missing the point (??) but i would have thought that the EOC was "founded" in 1054 when it formally left the Catholic Church.

but, yes indeed, they are i think very close to us in a great many wonderful ways, and we must pray that they come back to us in due course.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.


according to my sources, the 32 priests who work at the college i attend, Orthodox Catholics are allowed to partake of our communion if they are not able to attend their own service that Sunday... i dont know if the reverse is true, but i think that it is likely the same.

...oh and the EOC is also heretical as it does not follow a number of the Church's teachings. i believe these include, inter alia, the Immaculate Conception.

this part isnt true, actually. according to my theology professor (a doctorate in judeo christian cultures and a dominican sister) the only significant difference between the orthodox and traditional catholics is that the orthodox church does not recognize the validity of leadership in the form of a pope. that is, they recognize five bishops as their leadership. if you ever attend an orthodox service it is VERY similar to our mass. and their doctrine is very similar to ours too. right now what is holding any reunion back is a question of what God intended for the leadership of the church.

I dont argue the point of the age difference, what i meant by my statement was that they think they are the true line of the church and that it was us who split from them... of course i believe that our church is older, but that doesnt make a lick of difference to their beliefs...

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.


On the issue of Sola Scriptura:

Many protestants hold to sola scriptura, but others do not. It depends on the denomination.

It's hard to convince someone that does hold it, that the Bible should be viewed as a library rather than a book. Many will argue that it's God's word as if it were dictated to the authors. Inspired, yes, dictated no.

Of course, this view is wrong and needs to be corrected by true teaching.

Private STUDY of scripture is encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church.

After all, why reinvent the wheel on interpretation. There are many good historical books on why the Church teaches what it does based on Scripture. Very few of us could translate anything from the original texts anyway. Thank God, it's already been done.

And the apostles, disciples, etc were teaching about Christ before the Bible was compiled as a literary work. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 17, 2003.


paul

you've got some pretty impressive sources there!!

this is one of the sources that i have found: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ102.HTM. i cannot vouch for its accuracy save to say that it correlates very well with other sources.

i have copied across these sample quotes direct from the site - they are self-explanatory:-

“Orthodox Christianity possesses the seven sacraments, valid ordination, the Real Presence, a reverential understanding of Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession, a profound piety, a great history of contemplative and monastic spirituality, a robust veneration of Mary and the saints, and many other truly Christian attributes.”

“Orthodoxy accepts the doctrinal development which occurred in the first eight centuries of the Church, but then allows little of any noteworthiness (with some notable exceptions: see first link below) to take place thereafter. For instance, the filioque, i.e., the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than from the Father alone (which the West added to the Nicene Creed), was rejected by the East, and has been considered by the Orthodox a major reason for the enduring schism, yet Catholics would reply that it was a straightforward development of trinitarian theology (one of many accepted by both East and West). Aspects of doctrines such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and purgatory (not defined doctrine, although the Orthodox pray for the dead), which experienced a measure of development in the Middle Ages and after, are not recognized in Orthodoxy. For example, Orthodoxy doesn't define the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but it should be noted that Orthodox individuals are free to believe these without being deemed "heretical." Catholics feel that Orthodoxy is implicitly denying the notion of the Church (past the eighth century) as the living, developing Body of Christ, continuously led into deeper truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-15).”

“Orthodoxy, although praiseworthy in its generally traditional stand for Christian morality, differs from Catholicism over the question of the propriety and morality of contraception, which was universally condemned by all branches of Christianity until 1930. Thus, Catholics feel that they (almost alone today) are more in accord with apostolic Christian Tradition on this point, and that an acceptance of contraception is a giving in to humanistic sexual ethics. Catholics regard it as a mortal sin, whereas much of Orthodoxy does not even forbid it. To be fair, it is true that some of the more "conservative" or "traditional" branches of Orthodoxy have retained the traditional view, but the very fact of plurality in such a grave moral issue is highly troubling.”

“Catholics also believe that Jesus and the Apostles, and ancient Christian Tradition, considered a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians as absolutely indissoluble. An annulment is essentially different from a divorce in that it is the determination (based on a variety of possible reasons) that a valid sacramental marriage never existed. Orthodoxy accepts second and third marriages, with, however, a measure of penitential sadness commensurate with a falling short of the Christian ideal, and feels that this is a tragic pastoral necessity, in light of the fallen human condition.”

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.


Dear John,

If a Protestant doesn't accept sola scriptura, what, other than the Bible, does he accept as an authoritative source of doctrinal truth??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 17, 2003.


thank you Ian,

as you can see, there are very few points as to where the orthodox and catholic churches vary. so they dont define the immaculate conception right... but they dont deny it. also, the use of contraception varies from the belief of the catholic church, perhaps, but there are ALOT of catholics who believe in the use of contraception (that doesnt make it right though, im just saying). either way, the contraception thing is much more trivial than a matter of authority in the church. the difference over defined doctrine of purgatory and life after death is really small too. how many catholics recognize the truth of limbo's purpose? there, ours isnt incredibly clear either. But since no one has really died and come back, other than Jesus, whos death was nothing like ours, we dont really have a clear concept of it other than what God has revealed. it is my great hope that the orthodox church can see past these differences to reunite with the Holy Roman Church

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.


"it is my great hope that the orthodox church can see past these differences to reunite with the Holy Roman Church "

Amen, paul, Amen!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.


"If a Protestant doesn't accept sola scriptura, what, other than the Bible, does he accept as an authoritative source of doctrinal truth??"

x2

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.


Ref/ Sola Scriptura

It depends on the denomination.

Please do not lump all protestants together.

Anglican, Episcopal, Charismatic Episcopal, Liberal Catholic, Old Catholic and Lutheran accept tradition to a point.

Their parishes are more free standing and bishops have more authority. Councils are used more.

Please do not confuse evangelical fundamentalists with the other protestants. Sola Scriptura is their thing.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 18, 2003.


good answer john, but i dont think he was ever insinuating that all protestants look to only the bible... i think he was just asking what else you can ascribe to as a source of moral doctrine.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 18, 2003.

Here is the simple poop on the so-called Catholic denomination issue. And I only offer this information as a result of studies involving this topic.

There is no such being as a Catholic denomination. There are recognized and differing Rites within the umbrella of the Catholic Church. They, on the large part, are based on cultural influences, yet follow the Catholic doctrinal teachings and practices. This involves language and regional norms.

Within Rites recognized by the Vatican, there are the valid Catholic Rites, to name a few, and surely not all, the Coptic, the Ambrosian, the Ruthenian, the Byzantium, the Melankite, the Latin, and the Mozarambic. All of which are in union with the Pope, but have some slight and subtle difference to celebrate a valid Mass from our own in America. It could be seen as "denominational", but facts attest to the contrary. All Rites recognized by the One Church are valid.

Orthodox Catholic Churches are not the same as Eastern Rite Catholics. Most of the other Catholic Rite Churches are Eastern, and valid.

Simple litmus test...if the name includes "orthodox", chances are the church is not in communion with Rome, and Vatican recognition.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.


Melissa, Very good answer.

Here's a link that might help also.

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

What is confusing for people outside the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that there are so many other churches that call themselves catholic.

Here is a link (just for an example): http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Many of these churches have broken away from the Roman Catholic Church (schismatic) and are not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the Churches are attempting formal recognition, some could not care less.

It is sad that there are such divisions in Chritianity. But the church on earth is run by humans.

In my opinion, the only way to ever bring unity is to have full dialogue with the other Churches.

Satan will divide to conquer. But, it need not be. We, as Roman Catholics, should be at the forefront of ecumenical and unity efforts.

That said, when it comes right down to it, when we die, we, as individuals, not as institutions, will have to answer for our own personal actions.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 19, 2003.


[PM: It is here too. Mind-boggling how much widespread damage is being done. Pitiful, sickening. JG]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, folks.
Still in the process of getting caught up, I just read this entire thread for the first time, and my head is spinning. Although it was started on the 14th, folks have been responding so much and keeping it at the top of the "recent answers" list that I have not reached it until just now. [I always pick up where I left off on "recent answers" and try to work my way up to the top. Lately, I haven't even been coming close before I have to stop visiting for the day.]

As I said, my head is spinning. So many different things have been said, some good, some bad, some true, some false. There are too many things to which I'd like to respond. I could get to all of them if I were a robot working 24 hours per day, but I'm not, so I'll have to be very selective. I'll try to respond to two short things tonight and save the "biggie" (responding to Dave B's main thesis) for last (tomorrow?). [A preview about Dave B's comments, though, is easily expressed in three words: "He is wrong."]


QUOTE (from Jake-1): [He quotes "little paul":] "and those 'catholic' churches which are not in keeping with V2 are deviant churches that are not practicing catholisism." [Then he replies:] Is the converse also true; namely that congregations/parishes/individuals which espouse, at least nominally, to be in keeping w/ V2, and yet reject all that preceeded it, are heretical and therefore not Catholic?

COMMENT: I don't think that anyone responded to Jake-1, so I will ...
The answer is "Theoretically, yes" -- but almost surely no such animals exist, so it's not a helpful question. (Obviously, Jake-1, your question was just a little way for you to deflect attention from "little paul's" revelation that you are not Catholic, but rather schismatic, like the Eastern Orthodox.) I note that your question referred to entities that "reject all that preceded" Vatican II. I doubt that anyone or any parish calling itself "Catholic" "reject[s] all that preceded" Vatican II. Very few even reject a lot "that preceded" Vatican II.


QUOTE (from John Placette): "The Charismatic Episcopal Church [CEC], for example, is working hard toward a 'formal recognition' by the Vatican."

COMMENT: John P, I don't know if you realized it when you wrote those words, but Dave B joined the CEC, a pretty new denomination, a year or two ago. Before that, he was a "pentecostal" [deacon or elder?] in the Assemblies of God for about 15 years. And before that, he spent the first (roughly) 20 years of his life as a nominal Catholic.

Having been poorly catechized and susceptible to the emotional thrills of pentecostalism, he fell away from the true church and joined the denomination of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and others as a college student. He may object to some of these words of mine and say that I have not been accurate, but I think you'll find that I am substantially, if not wholly, correct.

I mention all this background so that you will know where Dave B is coming from in all his argumentation on this thread (and others in the future). As I said, he fairly recently joined the CEC, which he has been hinting lately should be recognized by us as a "church" (not a denomination) having seven valid sacraments, etc., because its bishop and priests can supposedly trace apostolic succession.

I recall his stating that, despite his high position within the Assemblies of God, he disagreed with some of the denomination's doctrines. Besides that, I know that I and others were praying for him to "revert" to the true Church of his childhood. So I was not shocked to hear that he had left the Assemblies. What did surprise me was that he joined the CEC, since it is tantamount to an admission that he was wrong to leave Catholicism.

It appears that Dave B wanted to be in a religious body that can try to claim to have apostolic succession and to be part of original Christianity ... but he didn't want to come all the way back home. (That will come later, of course.) Why not come all the way back to Catholicism? Swallowing one's pride in just one gulp doesn't come easily. It comes especially hard when it would entail (1) making a long and tough sacramental Confession and (2) discarding some seriously flawed beliefs. On this last point, I recall Dave B strenuously arguing in favor of (1) non-abortifacient contraception, (2) sterilization, and (3) divorce-plus-remarriage. [He may have other heterodoxies too.] I don't know if the CEC agrees with him on those three points, but if it does, that (1) explains why he could have felt at home there and (2) tells us that the CEC will not be reunited with the pope until it sheds these major errors.

See you tomorrow, God willing.
May he bless all on this Easter night.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.


Jmj

Yesterday, I said that I would come back to respond to Dave Bowerman's main thesis, because (as I stated), "He is wrong".
His first sentence on this thread was: "Let's try to put Barrett's numbers to rest once and for all in this forum, if we can." I am going to do that now. I will show that his second sentence on this thread was inaccurate and unjust: "Barrett's numbers have been quoted, misquoted, and much maligned by the same individuals on this forum in the past depending on whether or not it served their purpose."

First, I want to restate Dave B's arguments. They go something like this:

1. For a long time, Catholic apologists (here at the forum and elsewhere), especially to show the unworkable quality of the Protestant theory of "sola scriptura," have been referring to the existence of an alleged 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant separate denominations.

2. Some of these apologists have said that their number of denominations comes from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" (D. A. Barrett, editor), published by Oxford University Press.

3. There are two Internet essays, by Eric Svendsen, that show how the claimed number of Protestant denominations (20,000 to 30,000+) is greatly overstated. Allegedly, the Barrett book says that there are "only" 21 "major 'traditions'" in Protestantism, with "only" about 8,200 total denominations. While there may be more than 20,000 Christian denominations (Barrett allegedly says), more than half of these are not Protestant.

4. Svendsen alleges that the Barrett book assigns 223 denominations to Roman [sic] Catholicism.

5. Therefore (says Dave B):
----- We Catholics need to stop referring to 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant denominations, and ...
----- We Catholics need to "own up" to our 223 Catholic denominations and stop pretending to be unified.
----- "You can't have it both ways [sez Dave]. Either you accept Barrett's numbers or reject them. And if you accept them, then at least state them accurately and with proper qualification. Thus far, you've only managed to demonstrate your own bias and lack of intellectual honesty."


Now I will analyze each of the above points of the thesis. I am confident that we will see that the "bias and lack of intellectual honesty" reside in Dave B and his source, Eric Svendsen, rather than in Catholic apologists. (If not guilty of "bias and lack of intellectual honest," then Dave and Eric have a serious lack of knowledge and don't read carefully enough.)


POINT 1. [For a long time, Catholic apologists (here at the forum and elsewhere), especially to show the unworkable quality of the Protestant theory of "sola scriptura," have been referring to the existence of an alleged 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant separate denominations.]
RESPONSE: This is correct (probably the only thing in the thesis that is correct and complete!).

POINT 2. [Some of these apologists have said that their number of denominations comes from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" (D. A. Barrett, editor), published by Oxford University Press.]

RESPONSE: This is correct, but incomplete. The escalating numbers, I have read, come from various editions of the Barrett book. The low number (20,000+) probably comes from the first edition, which apparently was published in 1982. I recall reading, a couple of years ago, that a new edition was about to be published -- with a number greater than 30,000. Moreover, it was said, more than one new denomination was coming into existence every week. Although I have not seen the publication, I have also read that these kinds of very high numbers of Protestant denominations are also given in "United Nations Information Center Statistics."

POINT 3. [There are two Internet essays, by Eric Svendsen, that show how the claimed number of Protestant denominations (20,000 to 30,000+) is greatly overstated. Allegedly, the Barrett book says that there are "only" 21 "major 'traditions'" in Protestantism, with "only" about 8,200 total denominations. While there may be more than 20,000 Christian denominations (Barrett allegedly says), more than half of these are not Protestant.]

RESPONSE: Eric Svendsen is not someone to whom I would turn for unbiased information. He is an anti-Catholic "Evengelical" Protestant -- in fact, a fallen-away Catholic, just like Dave B.
Here comes the interesting part, showing that it is acceptable to refer to over 20,000 Protestant denominations. To do this, I need to quote from Svendsen's recounting of the numbers in the Barrett book. The sum of his subdivided counts of denominations is 22,189, indicating that Svendsen was working with an early (possibly even the original 1982) edition of Barrett -- not a very good show, for starters.

Here is how Barrett (says Svendsen) breaks down the 22,189 denominations into "seven major ecclesiastical 'blocs'":
(1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations;
(2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations;
(3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations;
(4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations;
(5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations;
(6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults ... which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and
(7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

I'll save Blocs 1 and 7 for my response to "point 4," below.

Bloc 2 accounts for the 8,196 Protestant denominations mentioned (reluctantly) by Dave B.

Bloc 3 is labeled "Orthodox". However, the number of alleged denominations, 580, makes no sense. In the first place, one person can argue that there is no denominationalism within Eastern Orthodoxy, which has genuine local "churches" headed by actual successors of the Apostles. Another person can argue that Eastern Orthodoxy represents one and only one "denomination," since a unified group of local churches broke away from Catholicism. At most, a person can argue that Orthodoxy has about twenty "denominations," each being an autonomous national patriarchate. But any way you look at it, there are not 580 denominations within true Easern Orthodoxy. Therefore, Barrett (a Protestant himself) is misunderstanding what Orthodoxy is. I believe that at least 500 of the 580 listed in Group 3 are actually Protestant denominations that merely happen to have the word "Orthodox" in their titles.

Bloc 4 -- "Non-White Indigenous" -- is actually a massive group of almost 11,000 Protestant denominations, completely overlooked by Dave B!!! For some strange reason, editor Barrett listed these separately from Group 2. His book is about Christianity alone. Since these 10,956 denominations are not part of Catholicism nor part of Orthodoxy, they must be part of Protestantism. There is no fourth "wing" of Christianity (despite the vehemence with which some folks try to argue for the existence of something called "non-denominational" bodies).

Bloc 5 is labeled "Anglican," which has 240 denominations. Again, this is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but Protestant, so it should have been included in Group 2. The Church [sic] of England even calls itself "Protestant" in the royal oath.

Bloc 6 is labeled "Marginal Protestant," which has 1,490 denominations. Without being able to see the names of all the "groups" and "cults" included, it is not possible to know how many of these are truly Protestant. [Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not.] Rather than accept them all, I will accept just half -- i.e., 745.

POINT 4. [Svendsen alleges that the Barrett book assigns 223 denominations to Roman [sic] Catholicism.]

RESPONSE: While we're add it, lets make the number 727, by adding in the alleged "504 denominations" listed as "Catholic (Non-Roman)" in group 7. However, Melissa and John P have done a splendid job of explaining that Catholicism is not a denomination, that Catholicism is not subdivided into denominations, and that many schismatic and Protestant denominations illegitimately use the word "Catholic" in their title. This is exactly analogous to the misuse of "Orthodox" in the titles of 500 or more Protestant denominations [see response about Bloc 3, above]. If we allow Barrett (inaccurately) to call genuine Catholicism "1 denomination," that tells us that the remaining 726 so-called groups that label themselves "catholic" are actually schismatic or heretical (i.e., Protestant). I will estimate that half (363) are actually Protestant.

POINT 5. [Therefore (sez Dave B):
----- a We Catholics need to stop referring to 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant denominations, and ...
----- b. We Catholics need to "own up" to our 223 Catholic denominations.
----- c. "You can't have it both ways [sez Dave]. Either you accept Barrett's numbers or reject them. And if you accept them, then at least state them accurately and with proper qualification. Thus far, you've only managed to demonstrate your own bias and lack of intellectual honesty."]

RESPONSE:
a. Using the information given in the response to Points 3 and 4, we can compute ...
Total Protestant denominations = 21,000 ... (8,196 from Bloc 2 + estimated 500 from Bloc 3 + 10,956 from Bloc 4 + 240 from Bloc 5 + 745 from Bloc 6 + estimated 363 from Blocs 1 and 7).
The number, therefore, is over 20,000 even when using an early edition of Barrett -- and possibly 30,000 according to the latest edition. Thus, Point 5.a. is refuted.
b. Using the information given in the resonse to Point 4, we know that there is not even one denomination -- much less 223 or 726 denominations -- in Catholicism. Thus, Point 5.b is refuted.
c. We "accept [those of] Barrett's numbers" that are reasonable and accurate. We "reject" those that are inaccurate. We do (and always have) "state[d] them accurately." We have now "managed to demonstrate" our objectivity and "intellectual honesty."

St. James, pray for us. Please help David B to return to the true Church.
God bless you.
John
PS: Dave B gave the URL of a second site, wherein Eric Svendsen claims that a Catholic has admitted that apologists have misused Barrett's numbers of denominations. I judged the article not worth the trouble to read in its entirety because (1) Eric Svendsen had already proved himself incompetent in his first article and (2) the person he speaks about in the second article is Mario Derksen, who is not an orthodox Catholic himself, but a writer for a schismatic publication.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.


thank you John for this powerful and authoritative analysis. the 20,000 - 30,000 number certainly stacks up as this humble servant would expect.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 25, 2003.

Luther brought only half the Catholic world over to Protestantism. John Paul II has brought virtually all of it over, from the inside, to the Protestant New Order -- except for the growing millions of traditional Catholics who stand staunchly by their Roman Catholic Faith, whatever aberrations New Rome comes up with -- and it comes up with more every day, it seems.

The barbarians have conquered Rome again, just as Attila the Barbarian once did. Isn't this the pope that publicly praises gutter rock music over the sacred music of the Church? Isn't this the pope that actively sponsors Catholic Woodstocks (otherwise known as "Youth Conferences"), at which sacrilege, blasphemy, and irreverence are rampant, not to speak of drugs, liquor, and licentiousness? We traditional Catholics, the King's honor guard, must stand by His side to defend Him in His own castle. For sure, his "vicar" and "prelates" have abandoned him for a "new order," since Our Lord's own order wasn't good enough for them. A new Protesant denomination was stablished.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.


Dear Ed,

It seems like you are the one guilty of abandonment. Risky business since the one you have abandoned holds the keys to the kingdom.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.


Ed--

You must cease and desist trying to poison the minds of Catholics against his Holiness John Paul II.

You are becoming truly flagrant in the pursuit of your vendetta. We all see you for what you are. Stop this obsession, because you're risking complete expulsion from this site. I am ready this afternoon to begin the action against you, with others who object. The Moderator has a license to react if we take votes. You'll have no voice here anymore, if you don't cap the devilish words. You see rightly: devilish; the devil has corrupted you, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.


John,

Do you have any clue what you wrote? As usual, the double standard is still in operation. Oh, let's anaylze a source I cite purely because I located on the web (not because I'm trying to endorse his entire belief system) and then condemn the conclusions of that source because you disagree with his positions and therefore nothing he says his valid . . . but let's not condemn Barrett for his Protestant numbers even though we condemn his Catholic denominations conclusions . . . no, in that case, it's OK to selectively choose to belief what we will because, well, because it supports our beliefs - more hypocrisy. But then we have this supposed other source of data that we can cite, and I'm sure it's there's and that it corroborates Barrett's numbers, really I believe you (not), even though you haven't a clue as to how to locate it or cite it.

But in the end, you're STILL missing the point. I don't care if there's 100,000 denominations, the hyprocrisy remains and you only proved your blindness to it. That plus mischaraterizing my beliefs which you have a strange habit of doing as if trying to undermine my statements by supposedly revealing my flawed theology or character. . . but far be it from me to point out your own rather strange characters problems revealed by your behavior on this forum a year or so ago, no I won't step down to your level - it would undermine your credibility too much. You don't even see how childish you are. You put on this air of intellectual defender of the orthodox faith who's analysis and judegments are always definitive and unimpeachable because . . . well, because you say so - LOL! Imagine, your analysis of Barrett's numbers are definitive because they line up with your perceptions and beliefs . . . still don't see the hypocrisy.

Oh well, nice try John. Perhaps one day, the Lord will help you to see. And no, I don't intend to rejoin Catholicism. I'm attending a church that is attempting to join in fellowship with the Vatican. It would never join it or submit to it, if it did I would leave it. Again, I recognize Catholicism as a very valid and ancient form of Christianity, just as Orthodox. But despite what you believe, there's more to the Body of Christ universal than Catholicism. Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.


Dear Dave,
I'll leave John to settle the Bartlett's objections with you; he's capable. You have nothing hypocritical to complain about.

The last part of your post is open to much doubt.

'' --attempting to join in fellowship with the Vatican? A sect of Christians?

Now, this smacks of hypocrisy, David:''I recognize Catholicism as a very valid and ancient form of Christianity, just as Orthodox. But despite what you believe, there's more to the Body of Christ universal than Catholicism.''

''I recognize Catholicism as a very valid and ancient form of Christianity, just as Orthodox,'' is no answer to your dilemma. You don't have to ''concede'' the Catholic Church is the original, and the orthodox church. You have to show YOURS is valid.

There Is NOT more to the Body of Christ universal than Catholicism.'' Dave. Christ didn't found us a Church invisible, as the Body of Christ is. He left a true, visible (Where Peter is, is the Universal Church) incontrivertible & everlasting Church, with countless visible disciples and faithful, her saints & martyrs, her rites and sacraments. We are aware of NO other fellowship for whom Christ sent His Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. --Even the New Testament Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church; not FROM any latent ''fellowship'' separated from her.

You'd do well to get all your ducks in a row, before making broad statements like, ''--despite what you believe, there's more to the Body of Christ universal than Catholicism.'' Unless you appreciate being laughed at.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.


Well, since we have Christ in us, then we ARE in the Body of Christ - PERIOD. Whether or not that suits your palate Eugene - it's a fact! Jesus, despite your objections, has chosen to indwell millions of non- Catholic Christians all over the world. That makes us part of His Body. Sorry, but Jesus makes the rules and that settles that.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 26, 2003.


I could not make it through the entire thread so I will just make a few perhaps unrelated comments.

I am a man born and raised a Roman Catholic but who now does not actively participate as the Church says I should. This does weigh heavily upon me as I emphasize I was born and raised a ROMAN Catholic. For some reasons I choose to no longer be actively involved in the Church but I would not consider joining another denomination. To me that would only make matters more complicated and more of a scandal to others who have long relationships with me and who know how much the Church has meant to me.

I believe the Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ would have all belong to if we were all able to follow his will and were able to overcome the things that we ourselves often create to obstruct our view of Christ, while we make excuses otherwise.

The divisions in the Body of Christ to me are the results of both Church wrongs and personal sin and the inability to forgive and repent on both sides. This has resulted in "adulterous" behavior on the part of those who feel they have the "right" to form their own churches. These churches do try to follow what they believe is the authentic message of Christ but, like those who have wrongly divorced and remarried another spouse and created another "adulterous" family they are starting from a sinful basis, which they continue to build upon further fracturing the Body of Christ and giving incentive to others to do the same.

It is a long, sad, painful undertaking which continues to tear apart souls who long for Christ but who have a confusing morass of "equal" denominations to choose from.

For me, I can not justify my adding to that confusion by joining another "communion" when I will be doing more harm than good, simply to seek a place that makes me "comfortable" or reflects "my view" of Christ's teachings. So I remain a man without a "home".

Without trying to hurt anyone I do believe all christian churches need to journey towards the Catholic Church which is where we all belong, one way or the other.

To those who have read my posts I realize this sound strange but it is sincerely written. Sometimes life is very, very difficult.

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 26, 2003.


Dear David:
This paste-up

Well, since we have Christ in us, then we ARE in the Body of Christ - PERIOD. Whether or not that suits your palate Eugene - it's a fact! Jesus, despite your objections, has chosen to indwell millions of non- Catholic Christians all over the world. That makes us part of His Body.''

I doubt you have a handle on the true meaning of the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is His Church. There is no other church opposed to His. Read the Acts of the Apostles, Dave. In chapter 7, Saint Stephen is martyred while Saul watched over the garments of the murderers. At the moment, STEPHEN was in the Body of Christ, His Church; or, the Mystical Body, the Church Militant. Dying, He saw the vision of the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. His soul went directly there, and joined the Mystical Body, the Church, as the Church Triumphant, --in glory.

Saul went on to persecute the Church. --He was converted later on, on the road to Damascus. By Jesus Himself, in a revelation. Here Saul is no longer the Pharisee, but Paul, a convert. In Acts 9, Paul received holy baptism; and at that moment, NOT before, --Paul was incorporated into the Church, becoming a member of the Mystical Body. The Church Militant.

When a soul is taken to purgatory it's because the soul HAS reached salvation. In Purgatory, he/she is also in the Mystical Body and the Church. --The Church Suffering.

This is the theology of Our membership in the Body of Christ. A spiritual revelation taught by --Saint Paul!

If we are in the Catholic Church, there is cause to believe in our inclusion; because it is full communion (oneness) with Christ makes us memebers. If a good person believes another gospel non-Catholic, than the clear teachings of the Church, --

He/she may not --??? be ''anathema'', and yet, real, full communion with Christ is doubtful. Therefore, membership in the Mystical Body of Christ (Church Militant) is actually in doubt. Notice I haven't claimed it would be impossible.

Because, I admit, as you said: ''Whether or not that suits your palate Eugene -'' However, the last phrase is questionable, *it's a fact!* It MIGHT be so, if Our Lord allows. Now is your congregation or persuasion of itself what gives you this membership?

NO. It isn't the true Church. You are born again in baptism; a Catholic sacrament. Not in any other. You could be incorporated, individually. Resulting from the sacrament of baptism. I don't pretend to know. (As you think you do.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.


Jmj

Hi, Gene. You wrote (to Dave B): "I'll leave John to settle the Bartlett's objections with you; he's capable."

Well, I really have nothing to add, because I already consider the matter "settle[d]".
It appears to me that Dave spent a few minutes looking at the first Svendsen page (about the Barrett book), then spent a few more minutes rushing through my detailed analysis [which cost me perhaps two hours of study and writing], then spent a few final minutes to jot out some angry bluster. This kind of weak effort deserves no further response.

To me, the only interesting thing in his reply was this phrase: "... I don't intend to rejoin Catholicism.
That is far more promising than "I'd rather die than go back to popery" or "Why would I return to a non-Christian religion that murdered millions in the Crusades and Inquisition?" or "You won't catch me worshiping Mary and bowing to a foreign prince," etc..
Now, since plenty of people have said such radical things as these, yet subsequently became Catholic converts, Dave's comparatively mild words seem promising: "I don't intend to rejoin Catholicism." We have all done some things we once didn't "intend to" do!


Ian, I want to thank you most sincerely for your words of gratitude and approval.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.


OK, John.
Bartlett's figures are all academic to me. I know of just one true Church; and all the rest are pretenders; 28,000 or 25; not a matter of degree, but of authenticity. This doesn't mean I enjoy taking David B down. He is into the spirit of Christianity. It's not easy to flatly refute a good person who believes that he is indwelt by Jesus Christ owing to some erroneous formula he feels he's complied with. One would be more than pleased to accept it as ''fact'' If it were fact. In charity, I would be willing enough.

Dave, however has certified that because Jesus ''indwells'' millions who believe this formula, even the True Church, and by association, the Mystical Body of Christ --blends into and over the many millions who deny important articles of the apostle's faith, i.e., Catholic doctrine. Of whom possibly millions are fallen into heresy.

I would like to think Christ has some say about it. Yet, Dave says emphatically: It's a fact! With a fine arrangement like that, well-- Sure. Why bother with scruples like conversion to the Catholic Church? ''One church is as good as another.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.


adopted by the majority of bishops, priests, religious, and faithful..

In our day the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been nearly universally denied, even as the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ was denied by 97% of the Catholic bishops during the Arian Heresy in the 4th century. At that time, as in our own day, God raised up a powerful voice to combat this pernicious error: St. Athanasius. Though he was excommunicated, beaten up, thrown out of his diocese, scorned, and called a heretic, he stood firm and defended Truth against nearly every bishop and priest in Christendom! Hence the saying: "St. Athanasius against the world." If anyone said that Christ was God, they were labeled as a ‘heretic,' an ‘Athanasianite,' a ‘fanatic,' an ‘extremist.'

Today, anybody who says "outside the Church there is no salvation" is also labeled as a ‘heretic,' a ‘Feeneyite,' a ‘fanatic,' an ‘extremist.' What is it about this doctrine that engenders such animosity? More importantly, is it true? Was Father Feeney right? Is it really a Catholic doctrine that says what it means and means what it says?

To find out the answer to these questions, let us first examine the three infallible definitions given us by the Roman Pontiffs:

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "There is but one Universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

In the philosophical science called Logic, the above statement is known as a Universal Negative, allowing of no exceptions at all. If there were just one single exception to this statement, the Church would not be the True Church of Christ, as she, who claims to be infallible in such matters, would have told us an "infallible error."

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

We now know, infallibly, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Pope. The only people on the face of the planet who are submissive to the Pope are Catholics: all pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are automatically excluded. If there were just one single exception to this definition, then we must conclude one of two things: a) the Pope is not infallible, or b) the person in question is not a human creature . . . go figure.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.


When it comes to good St. Athenasius
Protector from soul-euthanasius
I have this to say
That to him I will pray
To uphold Nulla Extra Ecclesius

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.

Some of us here know what heresy is. Some of us only think we know. The more self-absorbed here are anxious to play victim; ''OH! You called us heretics because we love the kind of Church we used to have! You let so many old-time popes down!'' And these same ''victims'' have no qualms calling Pope John Paul II a heretical Pope, or NOT a Pope in the first place!

Maybe the way to calm you down is this reminder:

I said you were elitists and fanatics. You are concerned with appearances, external appearances. You make more out of languages than Love of God & neighbor. Just as the Pharisees loved the LAW over their own Messiah.

You pray for the ruin of a Church council, not the success of a Church council. You polarize our Catholic faithful, you refuse to be united to them. Your religion is the Ego-- What pleases your sensitivity; not religion as God desires it- - a call to the lost children of the Church-- Come back, come to the house of the Lord, where He loved us as One People.

God loves our Communion in Jesus Christ. But you divide. You can't even unite with His Vicar on earth, much less the humble and marginalized. You are the Elite.

Are you heretical? You could become so-- Keep up your squawking.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.


I said you were elitists and fanatics.

Nope.

You are concerned with appearances, external appearances.

Not.

You make more out of languages than Love of God & neighbor.

Nay.

Just as the Pharisees loved the LAW over their own Messiah.

Sorry!

You polarize our Catholic faithful

Call it tough love.

you refuse to be united to them.

Only doctrinal accuracy can.

Your religion is the Ego--

The exact opposite...

What pleases your sensitivity; not religion as God desires it-

Anything but.

...a call to the lost children of the Church-- Come back, come to the house of the Lord, where He loved us as One People.

That's our hardcore message; we haven't abandoned it.

God loves our Communion in Jesus Christ. But you divide.

False.

You can't even unite with His Vicar on earth, much less the humble and marginalized.

We do it properly.

You are the Elite.

It is you who say we are the Elite.

Are you heretical?

No.

You could become so-- Keep up your squawking.

Really?

I apolgize it has decended to this level. I can do better; can you?

Ever Ancient, Ever New. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


Come on, Catholic people. Rise up; pray for the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II.

Lift him up to the Almight God with your prayers and personal sacrifices. Feed the body of Christ with your littleness and the wasting away that He blesses you with.

Uphold the doctrines of Faith; Never compromise; never give an inch. Give until it hurts; pick up your crosses, fight the good fight, perservere to the end, finish the race.

Forego everything for the sake of the Kingdom; love your neighbor; say things that are hard to say. Appeal to the infinite Mercy of God for the sake of others and you will be handled in like manner.

We fight Principalities and Powers. All is for nought that we cherish in this life; all of our being is summed up in our last hour.

I looked for your relatives today in the field today, Eugene, but I couldn't find them.

Yes, it is important to me. Nothing could be more important.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


You need stroking, Emerald. Why else would you sink to the ground and give off all that musk? But this is a strange place to come for satisfaction. A Catholic arena of ideas.

Blah on the Web? Thanks, and catch you tomorrow. You'll get over it, Lad /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.


No.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


That's pretty witty and all, Eugene, but please oh please tell me why I'm a schismatic.

Please?

This stroking stuff; that's foreign to me... what does it mean? But forget about that anyways since it really doesn't address this long- standing false accusation that's been promulgated against certain forumites who wish to adhere to the doctrines of the Faith.

Humor me a bit in my silliness, huh? Help me out here. Tell me how this thing about the ordinary magisterium works. Tell me how it is that the Holy Ghost guides His Church.

Tell me my heresy.

Tell me my schism.

You the man, Eugene. Tell me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


Please, Emerald.
No one says you are schismoid. You are merely hanging with a silly crowd. All they preach is elitism; the Mass isn't their main concern. It's cooh-a-ll in the Boomer era to ''Question Authority.''

When we meet our Maker, we won't be able to avoid our responsibility; or gloss over our narrow-mindedness. The rejection of our priests and bishops, of our Holy Father as well, will spell Big Trouble, not Question Authority.

You don't have to inaugurate a new traditionist Church to fall into schism. All you have to be is guilty of scorn for the Church God takes to His Heart. That's what the Elite is now plainly guilty of.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.


Jmj

Sad to say, the "blah cascade" reveals a real part of you, Emerald.
Though I've seen hints of it on occasion, you've been hiding the full-blown "jerk" side of yourself until now. You set it free in a weak moment last night.

I think, as a penance, that you should have to look at the cascade every day until you snap out of your current elitist trance, put the schism behind you, stop abusing us orthodox Catholics, and start helping us to straighten out Ed R and his cronies.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.


Sad to say, the "blah cascade" reveals a real part of you, Emerald.

John, you're on to something. What you are witnessing is the weakness due to fallen human nature.

Though I've seen hints of it on occasion, you've been hiding the full-blown "jerk" side of yourself until now.

Imho, you are going way, way too easy on me. You make it look like I'm a blunder only on rare occasions... but, but... the truth of the matter is that day in and day out, I struggle against falling and falling hard. What's worse, sometimes I struggle too little or not at all. At least if I struggle, I can do something, anything, to stem the tides of corruption.

Or can I? I can't do it myself... I fight the inevitable in vain, because as you can readily see:

You set it free in a weak moment last night.

But in the that beautiful picture of Divine Mercy, there are two colors, white and red. The colors of water and blood, of Baptism and Eucharist. I must drop my worthless corpse of an existance at the the feet of the Divine Mercy of the Christ, at the foot of His altar in order to be saved.

Outside of this, there is no salvation for me.

I think, as a penance, that you should have to look at the cascade every day until you snap out of your current elitist trance

My sorry state of existence has long ago effected the demise of the elitism I had once retained, though traces remain it is true, and with every day that passes I reminded of the same.

put the schism behind you

The unproven, the non-truth, the non-provable proposition. One consolation in all my failings; of this, I am not guilty.

stop abusing us orthodox Catholics

I'm not.

...and start helping us to straighten out Ed R and his cronies.

Ed R, like every man... myself, you, the best of us, the worst of us, need to have someone, anyone, to call down upon them the Mercy of God.

Day and night.

Truce? I offer you the olive branch.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


Jmj

I'm sorry, Emerald, but your offer of an olive branch/truce directly conflicts with your words of a few lines earlier -- to wit: "I'm not."

The correct response to "stop abusing us orthodox Catholics" was:
"I will, immediately. I see that the 'blah cascade' was only the latest and most blatant form of abuse of which I have been guilty."

Had you written that, I would have accepted a truce. But I think that you don't really mean to offer peace, because I think that you want to continue to harass us with at least one idea that conflicts with the Catechism (a false interpretation of EENS) -- and possibly several others. There can never be genuine peace as long as that is true.

As Joe reminds us, "Peace is the tranquillity of order." Wherever someone disputes what the Catechism teaches, there is not a "tranquillity of order," but rather a disorder.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.


This I can do:

"I see that the 'blah cascade' was only the latest and most blatant form of abuse of which I have been guilty."

I hereby do it.

This I must do:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus. There is no salvation outside the Church. This is the Truth of the Catholic Faith, outside which none are saved.

It is Catholic Doctrine; there is no false interpretation of this except the one that makes it null and void.

I will continue to claim this Catholic Doctrine.

Truce?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.


I absolutely, and postively, will not budge on this item, John.

I will not and cannot do it. Seek my expulsion if you must.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.


Oh my, has anyone seen this?

'CATHOLIC' PARISHES INDEPENDENT OF ROME: ARE THEY AN ODDITY OR A LOOMING THREAT? By Michael H. Brown

There it was, just outside of Albany, New York, a brand new church dedicated to the Virgin of Czestochowa.

Save for the fact that there was no cross on the steeple, it looked like an ordinary, even devout church: stained windows, rosaries in a basket as you entered, a crucifix, a Risen Jesus behind the altar, and to the side, angels and a statue of the Sorrowful Mother.

From all appearances Our Lady of Czestochowa was the model of a new church (there's even bingo) -- until one noticed that the nameplate did not say "Roman Catholic." This one said, "National Catholic Church."

Actually, it's the Polish National Catholic Church, and when the lone person there, a custodian, let me in, he handed me literature that spelled out the difference: clergy in this church are allowed to marry; parishioners attend Confession only until the age of 16 (thereafter participating in penance granted at each Mass in general form); birth control is left up to the parishioner; and when it's time for a new bishop, both laymen and clergy have a vote.

There are 156 similar parishes in the U.S.; the church, built in 1999, is part of a network of "national catholic churches" (they often choose not to capitalize "Catholic"). In downtown Albany is another known as Holy Trinity that has no ethnic distinction and is headed by the "most reverend" Richard G. Roy -- who "recognizes the special position of the Bishop of Rome [Pope] as 'first among equals' with other bishops, holding primacy of honor, but not primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church." In other words, they do not answer to Rome; they have their own "bishops." Unlike its Polish cousin (which states no specific position on the subject), the National Catholic Church based at Holy Trinity is an open advocate of homosexuality. While such independent denominations date back at least to the 18th century, and while the Polish version declares its origin as 1907 (thusly known to some as "old catholic"), the National Catholic Church based at Holy Trinity formed in 1998 as sort of a gay version of Catholicism. "We affirm and celebrate the love which can exist between persons of the same gender," says its official website. "Bishop Roy has been active in AIDS ministry and serves as pastor of Holy Trinity National Catholic Church in Albany, where he makes his home with Brother Stephen K. Peterson, OSJD, his partner since 1975."

There always have been renegade churches, but the way they are beginning to meld with the desires of certain mainstream Roman Catholic parishes gives me concern. While at the other end of the socio-political spectrum there is the schism with certain ultra-conservative, "traditionalist" parishes that have broken with Rome, this is not as worrisome because such parishes adhere to fundamental teachings and are not expanding. The liberal National Catholic ideas, on the other hand, find a great reservoir of agreement among many typical Sunday Catholics and especially the tens of millions of liberal Catholics who no longer regularly attend Mass. Already there has been an infiltration of heresies into institutions that still call themselves Roman Catholic.

What do I mean about "infiltration"?

In California is a witch named "Starhawk" who gives seminars and has instructed "dozens" of mainstream Catholic priests. In Notre Dame, Indiana, are complaints that a Catholic women's college allows in witchcraft (or "wicca"). While the Catechism was not allowed as part of religious studies there, pagan literature was reportedly required in a literature course (or so we are informed). You can find all kinds of other instances in an excellent book called Ungodly Rage.

And then there is Cleveland, Ohio: here is based an organization called Future Church that is directly and blatantly trying to integrate the radicalism engendered by the National Catholic Church into mainstream Catholicism -- openly fighting for women priests and married clergy, plus advocating "openness" to homosexuality. At one recent meeting, more than a dozen Roman Catholic priests from the Cleveland area attended.

And that may be the danger: it's not just the "national" churches. They are simply incorporating attitudes that pervade segments of the formal Roman Church itself -- and may thus set a pattern for future schism.

It's hard to say how much they will grow, but the ideas are already widespread among many Catholics and thus the existence of such organizations could help spark significant division -- an ecclesiastic firestorm.

Are such movements and churches really a threat? Yes. They leave the door open to actual paganism. They invite in sin. And they threaten the primacy of Rome. Coupled with the priest-abuse scandal, which has eroded confidence in mainstream Catholicism, these movements, still on the far fringe, are moving closer and are now more than blips on the radar.

Please pray for unity in all Catholic churches and that Rome once again becomes their leader. Peace & Love

-- Choas (Choas@nomail.com), April 30, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Choas. It's pretty clear to me that these people have just formed another Protestant denomination, but show themselves to be totally dishonest by retaining the word "Catholic" as part of their name. They are not in schism, but in heresy.


Thank you, Emerald, for taking one step forward. There is still a missing ingredient before a truce can exist.
There is nothing wrong with saying these words that you said: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus [EENS]. There is no salvation outside the Church. ... I will continue to claim this Catholic Doctrine."
But different people mean different things by those words -- whether expressed in Latin or English. Rather than call for yet another debate of their meaning, I simply say that I can enter into a truce with anyone who says the following sincerely:

"I believe in the dogma of 'EENS' exactly as its meaning is explained to us today by Pope John Paul II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (reflecting Vatican Council II). These living sources of reliable doctrine in our day -- sources to which I give full assent and religious submission of mind and will -- are in agreement with the authentic teaching on 'EENS' that was more than once delivered by Blessed Pope Pius IX."

It's up to you, Emerald. If a person cannot repeat those words, I believe that he is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.


It's pretty clear to me that these people have just formed another Protestant denomination...

Well, if that's the case, do you know where I can buy some of those collection baskets on a pole? Because that's the first thing we're going to need. lol!

They are not in schism, but in heresy.

If the label of schism doesn't work, heresy is going to be an even tougher claim to stake.

"There is still a missing ingredient before a truce can exist. There is nothing wrong with saying these words that you said: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus [EENS]. There is no salvation outside the Church. ... I will continue to claim this Catholic Doctrine." But different people mean different things by those words -- whether expressed in Latin or English. Rather than call for yet another debate of their meaning, I simply say that I can enter into a truce with anyone who says the following sincerely:

"I believe in the dogma of 'EENS' exactly as its meaning is explained to us today by Pope John Paul II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (reflecting Vatican Council II). These living sources of reliable doctrine in our day -- sources to which I give full assent and religious submission of mind and will -- are in agreement with the authentic teaching on 'EENS' that was more than once delivered by Blessed Pope Pius IX.""

Naaaahhhh. What I said was good enough; it's all my Catholic Faith requires of me in this matter.

It's up to you, Emerald. If a person cannot repeat those words, I believe that he is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

But that would simply be a matter of measuring up to a standard that is not the standard of the Faith, because those words don't come from our Faith but from you; a sort of peer pressure unto popular concensus. You would be asking me not to hold the Faith, but to hold someone's opinion. I am bound not deny an article of Faith.

Ya'lls stuck with me as a member of the mystical body. Man, that's got to stink. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 01, 2003.


Actually, John, the best way in the world to combat further dissention in the Church and more fractionalization is by getting back to holding this doctrine of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 01, 2003.

Emeralds,
Dissent, not dissention. Fragmentation, not fractonalization. The doctrine is upheld, not held. Go back to school. God be with you, keep you from misfortune and error; on to salvation. Amen / and Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

Pardon my errors. I thought fractionalization was ok... no?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Come on, Gene. No fun; so much the letter of the law and the spirit of it! Can't we be allowed to make up are own words without going to get indoctrinated? =0

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

You are creative enough, original enough, daring enough. I take it you want the lexicology and grammar medal too?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

,do think might that qualifactions enough good obtain one ?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

The medal for Bamcjizron? Soytinly! Koko Chavez won that in 1993; my yallter ego <<

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

But, is this what you are getting at?

"HE WHO follows Me, walks not in darkness," says the Lord. By these words of Christ we are advised to imitate His life and habits, if we wish to be truly enlightened and free from all blindness of heart. Let our chief effort, therefore, be to study the life of Jesus Christ.

The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ. Yet whoever wishes to understand fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that of Christ.

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

This is the greatest wisdom -- to seek the kingdom of heaven through contempt of the world. It is vanity, therefore, to seek and trust in riches that perish. It is vanity also to court honor and to be puffed up with pride. It is vanity to follow the lusts of the body and to desire things for which severe punishment later must come. It is vanity to wish for long life and to care little about a well-spent life. It is vanity to be concerned with the present only and not to make provision for things to come. It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not to look ahead where eternal joy abides.

Often recall the proverb: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing."[2] Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring yourself to things invisible. For they who follow their own evil passions stain their consciences and lose the grace of God.

Having a Humble Opinion of Self EVERY man naturally desires knowledge; but what good is knowledge without fear of God? Indeed a humble rustic who serves God is better than a proud intellectual who neglects his soul to study the course of the stars. He who knows himself well becomes mean in his own eyes and is not happy when praised by men.

If I knew all things in the world and had not charity, what would it profit me before God Who will judge me by my deeds?

Shun too great a desire for knowledge, for in it there is much fretting and delusion. Intellectuals like to appear learned and to be called wise. Yet there are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise.

Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life eases the mind and a clean conscience inspires great trust in God.

The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you. If you think you know many things and understand them well enough, realize at the same time that there is much you do not know. Hence, do not affect wisdom, but admit your ignorance. Why prefer yourself to anyone else when many are more learned, more cultured than you?

If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail, but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself."

Kempis; Imitation of Christ



-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.


Yes; and more.

Consider that you've shown a reflex maybe just lately. The mention of loyalty to our Holy Father, as regards contoversies within the Church, provokes you to black humor and indifference. You won't make up your mind. I would not have expected a Catholic, who loves Christ and follows Him, to evade the question John Gecik asked. Possibly you have an aversion to co-operating with him, but he posed the very appropriate problem to you. How do we remain faithful to Jesus, but not His commandments? The way to follow Christ is not open to debates; yet you support --for now, movements given to berating and fighting our Holy Fathers. Leaving out the ''approved'' Popes of Ed Richard's encyclical wars.

Make a self-examination. See if this selective belief in our holy mother Church's teachings is just and necessary. Pay attention to saints, yes. Read the life of Christ. Pay no attention to dividers, and the ultra conservative wing. You will still be a follower of Our Lord. The truth will make ya free!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.


Jmj

Thank you, Eugene, for those outstanding comments and recommendations to Emerald. You said what I would have tried to say to him, but I could not have done it as well or as succinctly.

If a person cannot agree to the statement to which I asked Emerald to agree ["I believe ... Pius IX"], that person is definitely caught up in protestantism (even if he attends Mass all the time). Contrary to his claim, agreeing to my statement is something that his "Catholic Faith requires of [him] in this matter."

When he refuses to make this little "Credo," he essentially declares that he has his own magisterium (teaching authority) which exceeds the pope's. In effect, he declares himself Pope Emerald I and effectively excommunicates Pope John Paul II and his fellow bishops for being authors of a heretical Catechism. One could not ask for clearer proof that Emerald himself has fallen into heresy, making false his final words to me: "Y'alls stuck with me as a member of the mystical body." He is no longer in the Mystical Body (the Church), but is like a stinky little toe that has amputated itself.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.


>A recent example of clerics losing their office without physically >dying would be the Corrupt Novus Ordo Bishops and others who have >publicly stated and denied the Infallible teaching (Cantate Domino) >that Jews must convert to Jesus Christ and the True Roman Catholic >Faith in order to obtain salvation. They have claimed that the old >covenant of the Jews is still valid. By that act alone their office >is now vacant. JP2 has entered into the synagogue and prayed with >them for the coming of "their messiah". He did not try to convert >them to the True Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith. And You still >think that there is no such thing as sede-vacante other than between >the death of one pope and the election of another? > >May the Will of God Prevail soon within His Church. >

-- Gotananswer (puzzled@bellsouth.com), May 03, 2003.

Contrary to his claim, agreeing to my statement is something that his "Catholic Faith requires of [him] in this matter."

What you are basically saying here, John, is that agreeing with you is something that is required of me.

It is not.

The fact of the matter is you would like me to accept non- doctrinal, non-defining, and non-dogmatic statements which are in compromise with dogmatic statements and doctrines defined by many a past pontiff and held by the Church throughout the ages.

You are asking me to deny my Faith, and I will not do so.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2003.


Jmj

I advise you, Emerald: Lest you find yourself even deeper in hell, do not add "lying" to your list of all-too-apparent grave sin of heresy.

You correctly quoted me as having stated:
"Contrary to [Emerald's] claim, agreeing to my statement is something that his 'Catholic Faith requires of [him] in this matter.'"
To this, you responded: "What you are basically saying here, John, is that agreeing with you is something that is required of me. It is not."

Gutlessly, you make yourself a liar, to try to wriggle off the hook. Devilishly, you try to play with words.
You know perfectly well what I am saying. Do not put any contrary words in my mouth.
[Lord in heaven, how nauseating are human peacocks like this pride-filled bird, who lack the courage to admit that they are wrong, but try to pretend that they can teach the Church, rather than vice versa!]

When I used the words, "my statement," I did not mean "something that I invented." You know well, Emerald, that I was referring to what the Catholic Church has required of each of us. The mere fact that I took what is required by the Church and paraphrased it in my own language does not invalidate it or make it any the less required.

Emerald, you continued the falsehoods by writing:
"The fact of the matter is you would like me to accept non- doctrinal, non-defining, and non-dogmatic statements which are in compromise with dogmatic statements and doctrines defined by many a past pontiff and held by the Church throughout the ages. You are asking me to deny my Faith, and I will not do so."

You are either the greatest liar with whom I have ever conversed or the biggest dunce. If you actually believe the above, you need to go back to grammar school and learn how to read and understand the English Language. But, since you were once in a Catholic college, far beyond grammar school, how can I help but think anything but that you are a liar?

You know that I have the truth, but you are trying to escape it because, like the basest heretic imaginable, you demand to be able to profess what you want to profess -- and not a word more, regardless of what the Church requires of you.

When I altered your defiant expression of heresy, now to express the truth, I arrived at this ...
"The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church requires each Catholic humbly to assent to each and every doctrine proposed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, regardless of whether it has ever been formally defined as a dogma by a pope or council. The Catholic Church, in the person of the Vicar of Christ, has guaranteed that not a single doctrine in the CCC is in conflict or compromise with any dogmatic or doctrinal statement that has been defined by any past pontiff and that has been held by the Church throughout the ages. The Church does not require anyone to deny the true Catholic Faith, but rather to reaffirm (or affirm for the first time) every teaching in the Catechism. And we Catholics will do so, if we wish to be saved."

Emerald, you know perfectly well that Pope John Paul II would endorse everything that I have stated here in this post and my previous ones. For this reason, I don't want any more heretical lip from you. Start this minute to be silently obedient, and stop fighting God's holy servant, the pope, with your damnable pride.

May God have mercy on you for all the pain you have caused me and for misleading so many others.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.


Goodbye John, and may God protect you and keep you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 05, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ