Like John G., I'm both tired and frustrated by the continuous futile debates.

I am ASKING, can we move on to more important subjects, especially, questions from viewers who need and are searching for true answers to their problems?

Thank you all and God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2003

Answers

Hi, John.

I'm not sure I understand your frustration. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's only about 4 or 5 active discussions/debates on the subject you're weary of, and well over 30 which have nothing to do with it.

Please don't think I'm being unkind, but I don't understand why people complain about this sort of thing. I mean, no one is forcing anyone to click on any particular threads...

It does need to be mentioned (not entirely for your benefit) that these threads which you don't wish to see anymore aren't started by those who are regarded by some as problematic posters - the Trads at the forum - and we certainly don't involve ourselves in every new discussion which comes along. I'd say our participation here is very limited.

I appreciate your point of view, I'm just not sure I understand why it's an issue. Just as I avoid certain discussions (and posters) with ease, surely others can skip over subject matters which aren't to their liking...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 23, 2003.

"...questions from viewers who need and are searching for true answers to their problems?..."

That is what some people do come here for by the way.

They do not come here to be attacked and accused of false things. So if you are ASKING this and you are both tired and frustrated then you have yourselves to blame. Look in the mirror, especially John G.

-- F. Teddrin (tbw@domain.net), April 23, 2003.

Some of these differences between forumites, imho john, touch on clashing principles that run so deep that peace, at least visibly, is not always going to be possible... let alone, trying to impart understanding to others who wish to obtain it.

The only one that can really put a stop to this, believe it or not, is the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

Well, I guess I got my answer. I sure hoped for a truce.

The Pre-Vatican II church is not the modern Roman Catholic Church. Period.

Moderator, will you please enter this matter? God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2003.

John P, in post #1, you said:

I am ASKING, can we move on to more important subjects

and then in post #2, you said: The Pre-Vatican II church is not the modern Roman Catholic Church. Period.

So do you want to move on, or don't you?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

The pre Vatican II church is not the modern church? Sorry, Pope John Paul II said Vatican II can only be interperted in one way, in the light of previous councils and established church teachings, dogmas and doctrines. There is no pre or post Vatican II church. Where the conflict arises is not Vatican II itself, but the vauge and herretical "Spirit of Vatican II" that has little to do with the actual documents of the council.

-- John_B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

John B, the torch & club contingent is trying to bait people like you & I into saying something that they feel they can use as leverage.

I respectfully suggest that you do not feed the trolls.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

I refuse to enter another debate. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2003.

F. Teddrin, I couldn't have said it any better myself!

-- Grant (thefowler02@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Regina

I have to take exception to your statement that we should only click on the non pre/post Vatican threads if we wish to stay out of your neighborhoods. Every topic that is brought up as a Catholic topic is a pre/post vatican II topic to some in this forum and for the other 99% it is not even a hint of an issue.

In fact, before I happened to wander in here several weeks ago, I had never even talked to anyone who was a "latin mass" type. Of course, I knew they existed, but had never given their existance much credence. I must also say that unless you can show me by your actions or by what you say that you deserve any credence, you are doing your cause much harm.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 23, 2003.

I must also say that unless you can show me by your actions or by what you say that you deserve any credence, you are doing your cause much harm.

Your post is incomplete. You failed to demonstrate *how* I'm "doing [my] cause much harm."

By calling it a "cause" you implied that I hold a position different from Catholicism, yet you failed to demonstrate how my position splits apart from Catholicism. It's ok though. To date no one has been able to.

You also failed to demonstrate why my words and actions should be credible to *you* personally. If you are looking to be convinced that the Traditionalist "cause" is in perfect keeping with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, you didn't provide the answer to *why* you need to be convinced. If it's because you are looking to practice your faith in a more traditional way, I can recommend some wonderful books (such as any encyclical from Pope St. Pius X) to help you get started. If you are not looking to practice your faith in a more traditional way, you failed to tell me how my "cause" is relevant to you.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

Now we see:

John B, the torch & club contingent is trying to bait people like you & I into saying something that they feel they can use as leverage.

I respectfully suggest that you do not feed the trolls. (Jake, aka Billy Goat Gruff)--

Your neat rhetoric flies in the face of all our friend Emerald is proclaiming. Who gives us the bird here every day? You keep baiting, and hoping something appears in reply to give you some leverage. ''I respectfully suggest'' you button your cyberlip, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

The Regina file:
An excerpt-- ''By calling it a "cause" you implied that I hold a position different from Catholicism, yet you failed to demonstrate how my position splits apart from Catholicism. It's ok though. To date no one has been able to.''

What's this You implied; 'Yet you failed; My position--?

A position means that along the way, you truly speak out for something. The main thing you have done, Regina, is denounce the Mass (or parishes) that YOU CLAIM give the Church a black ey.

Anybody can cry. If you support somehow a good middle way, Catholic faith without spiteful side glances at your neighbor, with love for one another and Our Savior-- No one will have motives for correcting you. Something ''To date no one has been able to do.'' (Your words.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

Before you go looking into my "files" I suggest you tidy your own, Gene. Your M.O. is 'if you can't dispute what they're saying, just accuse them of lying.' Or 'If they can provide the sound information you request of them, just ignore it when they post it.' Rather boring and cowardly, if you ask me.

Somewhere else in your post you mentioned "spiteful sideways glances at your neighbor". I think it's my turn to post as my "hubby" would:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

I've respectfully and successfully disputed most everything you say, Regina. That's why you get hissy. I forgive you, Ma'am.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

May I add:
The same paragraph you rebuked as pot kettle black / addresses your good husband--

If you support somehow a good middle way, Catholic faith without spiteful side glances at your neighbor, with love for one another and Our Savior-- No one will have motives for correcting you. (Or your phobias.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

I've respectfully and successfully disputed most everything you say, Regina. That's why you get hissy. I forgive you, Ma'am.

Accusing someone of lying doesn't fall into the "respectful sucessful" catagory, Gene. Flinging around such accusations, in your eyes, saves you from *having* to dispute anything I say. It's called taking the easy way out.

You asked me to provide examples of how the new Mass fails to clearly define doctrine. I didn't "get hissy." I answered your request with honest, solid facts. You ignored the post. You asked me to talk about what it was which made me leave the New Mass for the old. I didn't "get hissy." I told you. You then got "hissy.

Again, Gene, try to stick to what's actually going on rather than what you *imagine* is going on. Reality: Try it sometime.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

If you support somehow a good middle way, Catholic faith without spiteful side glances at your neighbor, with love for one another and Our Savior-- No one will have motives for correcting you. (Or your phobias.)

The above is Gene-speak for "If you agree with us no matter what we say, if you'll just ignore the problems in the Church or with the new Mass - or even better - pretend they don't exsist, if you be a good, complacent, cowardly little lady with no opinions whatsoever, at least none that differ from ours - we'll embrace whatever you say."

Not gonna happen.

Phobias, huh? I can add that to your list of unfounded accusations... Consider what I said about reality, Gene. It works. Just give it a chance.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

Dear Regina:
My response to a number of your statements has been unbelief. If you think they're true, you resent being ''called'' a liar. That's too bad; you can't prove them. And-- I HAVE disputed them. Only with proof can you pretend I wasn't successful. I do feel sorry for causing you emotional pain. Forgive me if I did.

You now claim, ''I answered your request with honest, solid facts.''

But facts have to be corroborated, not just solid to your satisfaction. A 10 minute space each month to hear confessions???

This priest; he has a very short attention span. Or did you hang around for ten minutes each month, to see what was going on around the confessionals? Nice try. NO cigar, Regina. The other ''facts'' are still hearsay. But-- with all respect, maybe you told a half-truth.

God knows you want to do the right thing. I've never thought you had evil designs; nor does Jake. Only a clash with our modern Catholic situation.

If so, join me. I hope to do some useful work from time to time. Right in this forum. I don't spend all my time beating up nay sayers.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

And-- I HAVE disputed them. Only with proof can you pretend I wasn't successful. I do feel sorry for causing you emotional pain. Forgive me if I did.

Saying "I don't believe you" doesn't "dispute" anything. It doesn't prove you to be right any more than it proves me to be wrong. It doesn't solve anything. Or resolve anything.

No emotional pain to be felt here, but thank you for your consideration. There's nothing to forgive.

You now claim, ''I answered your request with honest, solid facts.''

But facts have to be corroborated, not just solid to your satisfaction.

My "honest solid facts" response was in regard to my having spent a good deal of time providing you with examples - which *you* requested - as to how the new Mass fails to clearly defines doctrine. I offered an honest comparison of both prayers of the Mass. In many instances I let the prayers speak for themselves. You didn't dispute the post. You ignored it.

A 10 minute space each month to hear confessions??

Why is that unreasonable? It was revealed yesterday that at least up until 2001 *your very own* parish was guilty of the very same thing. You say they offer it more abundantly now? That's wonderful! Thank God! It's something we should make use of as often as possible. The other ''facts'' are still hearsay.

I was very upfront with you about how I acknowledge that what a priest says from a pulpit or what time a parish allows for Confession cannot be proven. There's nothing I can do about that, which is fine because there's nothing I *need* to do about it.

Only a clash with our modern Catholic situation.

Modern and Catholic. Two things which go together -- Like Cobra and mongoose.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

''You didn't dispute the post. You ignored it.

And:''which *you* requested - as to how the New Mass fails to clearly define doctrine. I offered an honest comparison of both prayers of the Mass;''

Dear Regina-- I read the post, didn't ignore it. I didn't comment; both are Missals of the Holy Mass, or parts. I don't reject the Tridentine version; I have immense love for it and have said so before. You ''pitted'' that against the Novus Ordo wording. Like in a grudge match.

Well, to me that's absurd. Each stands well and you have no complaint, you pick the older. Good for you.

But there's no relation to the ''defining of doctrines.'' You say the Mass of Vat2 ''fails'' to define ''clearly''.

The definition of our faith comes from the Apostles. The Mass is a holy Rite, not some blueprint from the deposit of faith, Regina. Get a catechism. We celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Jesus; both in Latin and in the vernacular. I love both. You disparage what you dislike. But you won't prove it's inferior in ANY way. It's HOLY. We consecrate the living Christ in our midst. That is why the Novus Ordo Rite has infinite value in the sight of God. Externals have been moved, shaken up. You dislike that; I don't. I also don't go in your neighborhood and knock your parish. It's you who makes a fuss. --And if you claim the parish you grew up in is rotten, what will God say? The whole Ecumenical Council was a failure? That would place the blame on God. God the Holy Spirit, Regina.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

Well, to me that's absurd. Each stands well and you have no complaint, you pick the older. Good for you.

But there's no relation to the ''defining of doctrines.'' You say the Mass of Vat2 ''fails'' to define ''clearly''.

It's not a matter of preference for me, Gene. In my post, I believe I made a good argument as to how essentials were watered down, if not outright abolished (as was the case of the Offertory in comparison to the "Preparation of Gifts".) I'll repeat just a little bit from my post to you in the other thread.

The definition of our faith comes from the Apostles. The Mass is a holy Rite, not some blueprint from the deposit of faith, Regina. Get a catechism.

The Mass is the unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord. Now, what is a sacrifice? A sacrifice is something a Priest offers to God. At Mass, what is being offered to God? At in the Traditional Mass it is clear not what but Who is being offered to God. Christ. The Offertory makes it clear that the Priest in Persona Christi is offering the "spotless Host."

In the Novus Ordo all that is offered in the "Preparation of the Gifts" is the "bread and wine - the work of human hands."

You don't see a significant difference here? A completely new teaching? Or at least an utter distortion of doctrine?

Externals have been moved, shaken up. You dislike that; I don't.

I'm so sorry you regard externals as something insignificant enough to be taken at whim to be "moved, shaken up."

I also don't go in your neighborhood and knock your parish. It's you who makes a fuss.

Where did I "knock" your parish?

You're saying if - in your parish - a puppet made an appearance in the Sanctuary of God's House in His very Presence, you *wouldn't* make a fuss?! If a priest was preaching something from the pulpit which you knew to be contrary to the Faith, you *wouldn't* make a fuss? If you knew much attention was being taken away from Our Lord's sacrifice, you *wouldn't* make a fuss? Wow.

--And if you claim the parish you grew up in is rotten, what will God say?

What will God say to those who scandalized the faithful with their terribly inappropriate actions and erroneous teachings in His House? What will God say to those who *knew* those things were wrong, but chose to remain silent? Or even worse, *defended* or made excuses for those actions simply because a they were the actions of a priest or a Bishop? What will God say to those who gave a priest, Bishop, Pope more power or capability than he has actually been given by God Himself?

The whole Ecumenical Council was a failure? That would place the blame on God. God the Holy Spirit, Regina.

You're assuming God and the Holy Ghost had anything to do with the "whole Ecumenical Council." You can always tell when the Holy Ghost has touched something - it becomes magnificent. Do you believe the last 40 years have been a "magnificent" time for Holy Mother Church?

You know, Gene, maybe it isn't fair that I pose these questions to you. After all, you're of the mindset that if *you're* happy, that means God is happy. That if things are hunky-dory in *your* parish, than they are hunky-dory in *all* parishes. If the new Mass pleases *you* than it pleases God. If *you* don't see problems, or discrepancies, or poor doctrinal definitions - that means they simply don't exsist. That if you're indifferent to something, God is too.

I, for one, prefer a much less narcissistic approach.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.

Hmmmm, less narcissistic ...let's see ... The Magisterium of God's Holy Church, whom Christ promised would be led to all truth by the Holy Spirit, and the Vicar of Christ, who alone holds the Keys to the Kingdom, are in agreement that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the form currently approved by and for the infallible and universal Church of God, is not only valid, but indeed represents in every way the proper and true expression and reenactment of the Most Sacred Sacrifice of the Cross. But, I liked the Latin Mass better - so they must all be wrong. Talk about narcissistic!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

Paul,
It won't do to ask Regina any more questions, or answer any more of her objections. Her heart is where her love is.

My love is with our Lord Jesus Christ. If He isn't leaving the holy sanctuary, I'm staying with Him. No good can come of telling another person where Christ is. If they cared, nothing else-- NOT a thing would matter to them. I will accept Jesus where He meets me no matter if it's a Gothic cathedral (I've met him in some) or in a back porch of the poorest place in town. I can't make Jesus rich. He makes me rich.

That's why, when our Novus Ordo priest says, ''Go in peace to love and to serve the Lord,'' I answer with happiness, ''Thanks be to God.'' If another day the words are, ''Ite, Misa est;'' I say in return, ''Deo gratias.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

I get a kick out of watching people patting each other on the back for their outstanding jobs of missing the point.

More! Give me more.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

Maybe you guys should stop trying to be so Catholic and simply put on Christ. It would suit you better.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 24, 2003.

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the form currently approved by and for the infallible and universal Church of God

The Church Herself is indefectable. Churchmen can, have, and do: act stupidly, make bad decisions, and harm the Mystical Body.

I liked the Latin Mass better - so they must all be wrong.

You're missing the point. The Mass is the biggest jewel, but it's set in the crown of doctrine. Having permitted that crown to tarnish and dent, the Holy Ghost has not left His Church. Who can say why He has allowed these things to happen? Not you and not me, to be sure, but He left us a blueprint, a legacy: Sacred Tradition. Hold fast and you can't go wrong. Let go and you will surely perish.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 24, 2003.

Jake, Tradition bears out in every age the primacy of Peter. His successor is our Holy Father whom you berate every day here. The bark of Peter is tossed on the waves; however no storm can destroy her. You and the others are like the apostles who ran screaming to Jesus who was sleeping in the hold-- ''Lord, does it not trouble you-- we are perishing!'' Vatican II is up and down on the ocean. But it rides in Peter's ship. We know all is not peachy for a time; but with faith in God, we'll weather the storm. Don't jump overboard yet.

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

We know all is not peachy for a time; but with faith in God, we'll weather the storm.

For today, I'll seize this one point, add my prayers to yours, and embrace you as my brother in Christ. This way we'll both live to fight another day.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 25, 2003.

Jake,

Do you know what Sacred Tradtion is? Sacred Tradition is DOCTRINE, passed down by word of mouth, from the Apostles. The form of Mass is not "Sacred Tradition". No Apostle ever attended a Tridentine Mass. The form of Mass is simply "tradition", or more accurately a long series of frequently changing traditions, and stubbornly clinging to the particular traditional practices you happened to be born into is simply stagnation.

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

traditional practices you happened to be born into is simply stagnation.

I was born in 1970. If I were to be carrying on with the practices I was "born into," I would be in the Novus Ordo. Would that be "stagnation?"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 25, 2003.

Pardon, Paul:
I don't believe any who insist on the Latin Missal become stagnant for it. I agree ''clinging'' is unworthy of a Catholic. We can meet modern challenges and remain one Church without staging these ''traditionalist'' demonstrations. What Jake & his brothers do is limit their influence to the fringes. Just as Martin Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII did, cutting themselves loose from the Church. If & when abuses are apparent, the unity of Catholics is best served by attacking the abuse, not the heirarchy and Vatican II.

Ed keeps insisting it is the responsibility of the bishops, and/or Vatican II; heaps scorn on the Pope. This is always going to be counter-productive. These people forget Charity begins at home.

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

Her heart is where her love is.

That's right, Gene. Behold my Love:

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 25, 2003.

Dear Regina,
I love this reply, it is very fitting and laudable. A great scan, too. If we extrapolate your good will,

[Regina's] love is with our Lord Jesus Christ. If He isn't leaving the holy sanctuary, I'm [WE] stay with Him. No good can come of telling another person where Christ is.

Now where is He found every day? Which is the Holy Tabernacle? Are any people of good will being driven away from the tabernacle?

I realize you have a preference for the front & center placement, as opposed to standing in the wings. These are externals, and many object. The purported reason, ''Christ should be in the CENTER''.

Yet, if the faithful know where He is to be found, -- can they return to Him and love Him? --I can.

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

I'm happy you enjoyed the picture. That same picture (in color, so therefore, much more graphic, violent, tragic and Majestic) sits next to my computer monitor. I saw this picture in a wonderful Catholic bookstore once, but didn't purchase it. It left a lasting, haunting image in my mind, and when I saw it again a few years ago, I couldn't pass it up again.

I realize you have a preference for the front & center placement, as opposed to standing in the wings. These are externals, and many object. The purported reason, ''Christ should be in the CENTER''.

Again, I'm so sorry you see it as my preference. I see it as a neccessity; an essential. Our Lord deserves to be in the center. He is the center of Mass and the center of the lives of the devout. Also, regrettable is that you regard the placement of the Tabernacle as an "external", which is, according to you, something that can be "moved, shaken up."

Let me ask you to just consider something, ok? If you were hosting a grand banquet in honor of someone special to you, where would you seat him? At the head of the table so all the guests could see him? Or would you put him at a table all by himself while the guests sat together at another table? Or worse yet, leave him in a room all by himself while the guests congregated elsewhere?

Yet, if the faithful know where He is to be found, -- can they return to Him and love Him? --I can.

-- Regina (Regina@lycos.com), April 25, 2003.

I respect your feelings in this matter, Regina. I have relatives who would agree with you. I once criticized women who entered the church without a head covering; but, what the heck. Nobody cared what I criticized. Same with Our Lord's tabernacle. I felt like you do, at the start.

But, I came to understand that in reality, Jesus is not impressed at ALL with external shows of fidelity. He wants you & me to approach in humility and love; YOUR HEART-- The HOUSE is never going to be a ''holy of holies'' anymore for Him. Your heart is where He wishes to dwell in this world. All the rest is tinsel. He had a Temple in Jerusalem once, with a dome of gold. There's only a shard of the old wall left there today. We have no regrets about it. He lives together with us, and we love him just as much when the tabernacle is over the altar, or to one side;

At least, I do. Anyway, He comes down from heaven at the center during every Consecration-- and receives the world's adoration & worship right there; every single day! Alleluhia!

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

No good can come of telling another person where Christ is.

I wanted to say, also, that I don't recall *ever* telling you (or anyone else) that Christ can only be found at Traditional Chapels, and therefore not your parish (or any other Novus Ordo parish). Christ can be found wherever a valid Catholic Mass is celebrated. However, my concerns go beyond validity...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 25, 2003.