Jubilee Cross in trash

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Catholic Church embarrassed as pope's 'Jubilee Cross' discovered in dump Tue Oct 28, 2:04 PM ET

ROME (AFP) - Italy's Roman Catholic hierarchy, outraged by a court order to remove crucifixes from a school, faced intense embarrassment after media reports that a cross used by the pope to celebrate the Church's Jubilee year had been abandoned in a Rome rubbish dump.

The bronze, six metre (20 feet) high cross was discovered in the dump on the outskirts of the capital, Italy's RAI Due television reported.

A group of lawmakers from the National Alliance party of Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini have signed a letter calling for an explanation as to why the "work of art" had been abandoned.

The two tonne cross formed the centrepiece of the celebrations when Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II celebrated mass before an estimated two million young people at Tor Vergata, outside Rome, which became known as the "Catholic Woodstock".

"After the Jubilee, everything was dismantled. The cross, and the altar used by the pope was to be installed in a Church to be constructed in Tor Vergata, where the Jubilee was held," said a spokesman for the Italian episcopal council, Monsignor Claudio Giuliodori .

"The building of the Church is the responsibility of the public works department for the Lazio region, which took charge of the cross and the altar," Giuliodori told AFP.

The cross, weighing over two tonnes, was created for the Jubilee celebrations by Italian sculptor Stefano Pirotti.

The discovery comes as Catholic cardinals and the political establishment are up in arms after a court ordered the removal of crucifixes from the classrooms of a state school after complaints from a radical Muslim leader. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031028/od_afp/italy_vatican_religion_031028190435

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003

Answers

Why, oh why? Is the Sistine Chapel next? The Pieta?

How poignant.

They should have put that cross up for auction on eBay rather than let it end up in a dump!! They could have made probably at least a couple million, to build new churches, or to feed the hungry and take care of the sick, and the cross would've been well taken care of in a private collection or museum (or very rich parish).

The article mentions the altar was supposed to be with the cross. What happened to the altar?? Is it still in the dump??

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.


If they were just going to dump it, the sculptor who made it should have been given the chance to take it back--I'm sure he is outraged over how his work was treated.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 31, 2003.

Jake writes: "Or pay a lawyer to defend a sodomite pervert..."

Boy, for a second I thought Dennis Molson had returned...

It's also pretty funny that throwing away a big, bronze cross is somehow made to be a symptom of a sick Church "taken over by false doctrine."

Schismatic Traditionalism's muck-raking never fails to amaze me. Well, I'm sure the world will not run out of things for people to complain about. What causes this need to be so negative? Is it pessimism? Or a need to fulfill one's conspiracy theories? Is it despair? I suppose the real answer is "all of the above."

Thanks for a good laugh,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 31, 2003.


Mateo, have you no respect? Not even for the Cross?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003.

"Mateo, have you no respect?"

For muckrakers? Umm....no.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 31, 2003.



"...a sick Church "taken over by false doctrine."

"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise." --from Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 2, pp. 352-353

Also,..."Our Lady of Good Success, however, spoke of the worldwide crisis in the Church and society that would begin in the 19th century and extend throughout the 20th century. During that time, she warned, there would be an almost total corruption of customs and Satan would rule almost completely by means of the Masonic sects. In the Catholic Church the Sacraments would be profaned and abused, and the light of Faith would be almost completely extinguished in souls. Truly religious souls would be reduced to a small number and many vocations would perish. Great impurity would reign and people would be without any care for spiritual matters. "

And yet those who are faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are labeled as "schismatic Traditional[ist] muck-rake[rs]! † Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), October 31, 2003.


"And yet those who are faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are labeled as "schismatic Traditional[ist] muck-rake[rs]!"

Believe me, Martin Luther saw himself as "more faithful" than the Catholic Church, too. Keep posting your theses...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 31, 2003.


Mateo, The difference between me (and othere Trads.)and Luther is that we are only going by what THE CHURCH TEACHES. We are not making this up like Luther did. All that we are doing is reamining faithful to what the Church taught for almost 2000 years. In fact this is not the frist time that there have been internal problems with the Church. I am sure that you have heard of the arian heresy and the brave stand of St.Athanasius , but for those who haven't: " Athanasius against the world." This phrase refers to St. Athanasius' brave stand against the Arian heresy of the 4th c. when the vast majority of Bishops -- even Pope Liberius himself -- succumbed to heresy. St. Athanasius was even EXCOMMUNICATED for his ORTHODOXY, but was later EXONERATED and CANONIZED. The full phrase is, "If the world goes against Truth, then Athanasius goes against the world." The story of St. Athanasius is a good "check" on papolatry and the errors of false obedience. His words to the faithful are good solace for traditional Catholics today who watch Novus Ordo-ites destroy church buildings, trash the liturgy, and preach lies: "May God console you!... What saddens you ... is the fact that others [Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are OUTSIDE the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The TRUE Faith, obviously." †Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), October 31, 2003.

Again, somehow this story of a big, bronze cross in the garbage is proof of a grand conspiracy? Oh, dear. Could you explain the connection again please? Jake said it had something to do with lawyers and perverts. Now Pope Liberius and St Athanasius are relevant?

Another funny thing about this is that I was accused of not having "respect for the Cross." I still don't see where one can come to that conclusion without having an agenda to discredit me personally.

Over and over again, traditionalists (both schismatic and non-schismatic) argue how ugly modern churches (including their crosses/crucifixes) are, and yet in no way do they believe they are insulting the True Cross of Jesus Christ. For example, if I have a problem with the artistic license taken when a "Resurrectix" (Rising Lord on the Cross), am I insulting the Cross of Our Lord? Of course not.

Regarding excommunicated saints: you know that Martin Luther could have justified his disobedience by bringing up St. Athanasius, right?

In contrast, let's read from a great ecumenist when he speaks to his priests:

"In your sermons do not touch on subjects which Catholics and Protestants are at variance, but simply exhort your hearers to virtue and devotion, devotions approved by the Church. Awaken in souls a thorough knowledge of themselves and a love of their Creator and Lord."

A conspiracy theorist could read into this statement someone pushing wishy-washy, non-confrontational, even new-age concepts (awaken a "knowledge of themselves"). When one lives in despair and everything points to the grand conspiracy, it's only natural to assume the worst.

So who is this ecumenical writer? Was the poison of Protestantism and syncretism entering these priests as they attended their Church Council? I do love a good conspiracy...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 01, 2003.


PS--Jeff you brought up "papolatry and the errors of false obedience." If you are accusing me or anyone else of these things, why don't you start a new thread and support your accusations. If you are unable to do this, please retract this statement. Thanks.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 01, 2003.



Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

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

It's OK, Emerald. I poisoned both of the goblets. :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 01, 2003.

Again, somehow this story of a big, bronze cross in the garbage is proof of a grand conspiracy? Oh, dear. Could you explain the connection again please?

Not a conspiracy, just a sad metaphor. Tragically appropriate imagery that illustrates the state of te Novus Ordo religion.

Jake said it had something to do with lawyers and perverts.

I said that instead of throwing the cross in the garbage, they could have hocked it to pay for a few lawsuits brought by victims of sodomite pervert priests.

Was that a bad idea?

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), November 01, 2003.


"I know something you don't know. I'm not left-handed"

Good to hear you're alive and well out there Mateo; hope all is well with fatherhood. Kids will assist you in developing an immunity to Iocane powder if nothing else will.

Now stop provoking me with the schismatic bait. =)

Speaking of modern Church art and archetecture, here, I'll bait you with this courtesy of the Rog Mahal website.

"What in the world could that be?!?"

On conspiracy theory:

"...cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through world seeking the ruin of souls."

Arch-conspiricist exposed.

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


"Speaking of modern Church art and archetecture, here, I'll bait you with this courtesy of the Rog Mahal website."

Clearly, your insult shows that you have no respect for the Blessed Sacrament...just as Psyche so adeptly proved that I have no respect for the Cross.

Arch-conspiricist exposed.

According to schismatics, the Catholic Church is the quintessential instrument of evil (not too far from Martin Luther). Maybe they'll unite with their conspiracy-theory protestant brothers. Schismatics will probably start calling the Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" and the Pope the anti-Christ. The day is coming soon when SeattleCatholic.com and RemnantOfGod.org will unite to fight the evil Whore of Babylon/neo-Church. There's so much overlap in content already. It's nice that they've got the same organization to blame everything on.

By the way, Easter is actually the Catholic Church's pagan institution of the worship of Ishtar...and Catholics actually worship Ra, the god of the Sun...and the Catholic Church took over the IRS. Amazing the conspiracies one can find on the Internet...

Jake, you and Dennis M. have so much in common. I'm sure you guys could be really good friends.

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--Keep posting those theses! I'm sure it's therapeutic!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 02, 2003.



Have a fun life, Mateo.

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

That was a flippant reply on my part; my apologies, and I would like to take that back, Mateo. Obviously, it's a kneejerk reaction on my part to your statement:

"Schismatic Traditionalism's muck-raking never fails to amaze me."

It's irritating, because even if any of the traditionalists and any of the other Catholics never agreed with each other, nor ever intended to take sides with the other and remained miles apart, I think it's still appropriate and safe to dump the use of this accusation.

It's damaging to unity, and in a way quite opposite to what the intention that the accusation itself means to point out.

Let me explain why; maybe, just maybe if some are open to considering this, it will finally make sense not to approach tradtional Catholics this way.

The definition of schism, Canon 751:

"the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The Catholics who do not identify themselves as traditional Catholics are wielding accusations that indicate that they are in active "refusal of ... communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Those members they are refusin communion with are traditionalist Catholics.

In a certain manner, while it would certainly be unclear that in doing so, the people of this forum who levy the accusation as you have above are in actual schism against us, certainly one could make the case that the essence of Catholic unity which schism, by definition seeks to wrench apart, is being in some way violated by those who continually refer to those known as Traditionalists as schismatics.

There can be no mistake that traditionalist Catholics are considered by many as being nonCatholics as evidenced by the use of the terms schismatic, heretic, and always the label of Protestant.

They refuse communion with us.

It would be one thing to have the backing of the Roman Pontiff, who, in a clear and universal manner, would have labelled traditionalist Catholics, one and all and in essence, as shismatics or heretics.

This has never happened, nor will it ever happen. This refusal of communion with us does in fact take place without papal mandate. It is, in fact, the private judgment of individual laymen.

To make the case a bit tighter, if you consider this... that schismatics are generally those who deviate from an existing standard in some way, while in the case of traditionalist, it is a movement or direction in the Church against which traditionalist refuse to budge an inch or yield to. It is difficult to make the case that the traditionalist is deviating from a standard when their claim to fame is being a lead weight against motion.

My case, then, is that while perhaps not in any official manner, but let's say pertaining to the essence of the definition of schism, that those who levy such claims against traditionalist Catholics are in some manner in schism against us, since, without papal declaration, they refuse communion with us.

It might further be maintained that, since this cannot be necessary said to be an official act of schism, that might perhaps be construed as a schismatic mentality.

We, however, are almost never seen claiming the same about those who you might call non-traditionalist Catholics. By and large, we never "cut off" our, shall we say, Novus Ordo brethren.

These are worthy considerations I think, when it comes down to who and what are responsible for division in the Church. It's why I think it is dishonesty for people to continue to make such accusations.

I'm being completely honest here; this is no gaming around and it's exactly what I think, and I think it's right. That's one reason why I won't let up and continue to bore people into an oblivion over this; I think it's rending Catholic unity to make such claims of schism where there is no declaration of such, and I don't think it's the traditionalists who are doing the damage. We could disagree on that, and that's fine, but all the repetition in the world does not make a traditionalist Catholic a schismatic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 04, 2003.


Hi Emerald,

I glad you're over your PMS! I was worried about you for a moment! ;-)

Anyway, you said that my "schismatic muck-raking" statement was "irritating." To me, the irritating part is that there is so much uncharitable muck-raking. Aside from using the term "schismatic," (which I've never seen an appropriate replacement for), I have never made such a hobby of slandering these souls. I do not defame them nor do I defame their priests, despite the constant mean-spiritedness that they show the Catholic Church.

I understand you are interested in defending those who attend illicit Masses. I too feel a measure of sympathy for them. But, schism is in their hearts.

To me, the concept of schism is simple: it is a "separation." When they slander Catholic priests by inferring that priests are all homosexuals with a lisp, they are separating themselves from the Faith by this slander. Martin Luther also slandered Catholic priests, throwing allegations of every vice he could think of (greed, lust, you name it). In Luther's heart was the determination to separate himself from those sinful "Romish" priests, bishops, and popes. He believed that he had the true, remnant Christian faith. Schismatic traditionalists also hold this belief.

The Dialog's Vocabulary

I know...you don't like the term schismatic. Well, if I use the term traditionalist, I would be including myself. So what should I call this group? Well, I could contrast it this way: I'm a loyal traditionalist Catholic...they are "dissenting" traditionalists? How about "traitor" traditionalists? How about "I will not submit to authority" traditionalists? What about "separated brethren" traditionalists? Maybe "Trent-only" traditionalists?

When they stop calling Latin-Rite Catholics "Novus Ordos," "Neos," (though I kinda like that one), "Novus Ordinarians," "N.O.'s," and stop calling the Catholic Church "NewChurch," I'll try to think of something more politically correct than schismatic traditionalist. Until then, I'm just not too interested in changing what I see as a completely appropriate title.

It seems that schismatic is a most appropriate term, because they do not believe in the visible Church that Our Lord established. They aren't the first ones, of course.

Regarding this statement:

"By and large, we never "cut off" our, shall we say, Novus Ordo brethren."

This is a bit funny. First, it's funny because the Catholic Church is not a "break-off" organization from Lefebvrists or anyone like them. Second, the acceptance of a "Novus Ordo" brother (this term translates to "Latin-Rite Catholic" in the real world) is conditioned on their willingness to abandon the "Novus Ordo" (authentic Catholic) faith. It's not much different from evangelical protestants who "love Catholics" so much that they want to save their souls by convincing them to leave the Catholic Church. That's how much schismatic traditionalists will accept Catholics. Bob Jones University doesn't "cut off" Catholic brethren. Jack Chick doesn't "cut off" Catholic brethren. Et cetera.

On this forum, I have seen an abandonment of so many important Catholic virtues by this group of "traditionalists." When a fault is found with an action of a pope, bishop, priest, or lay Catholic, the criticism is devoid of hope and full of sarcasm, anger, and despair. The rule is: always assume the worst.

For example, in this thread, we're talking about a big cross that got thrown away. If I had to guess, I wouldn't pretend that the Pope doesn't have respect for the Cross. In fact, such an assumption would beg the question: why would he have had such a cross made in the first place? Reality being the place I enjoy most, I would have to think that the Vatican hired some contractor, who hired some sub-contractor, who hired some yahoo who made a stupid decision when he was cleaning up after this major event. But that's just me living in reality...

The "Smoke of Satan Conspiracy"

Schismatic traditionalists seem unable to submit to the Church on many teachings since the 1960s. For example, the same Catholic Church that changed worship from Saturday to Sunday (that seems to be OK to this group) shouldn't encourage reception of the Eucharist in the hand. Somehow, the same Catholic Church that decided that Christmas should be celebrated around the time of the winter solstice (no problem there for "traditionalists") can't move a feast day (Feast of the Ascension) from a Thursday to a Sunday.

Do you see the contrast here? The two big innovations are totally OK with schismatic traditionalists, while the little things are believed to be the evidence of the "smoke of satan."

A group of protestants claim that satan was the reason that the Catholic Church changed worship from Saturday to Sunday. Another group of protestants believe that placing the Nativity of Our Lord during the solstice was a sneaky way to get Christians to worship the Greek sun god Apollo. In both cases, the claim is that the "smoke of satan" entered the Catholic Church.

A group of "traditionalists" claim that satan was the reason that Eucharist is taken in the hand...and that Holy Days of obligation are moved to Sunday. Honestly, if I was so into conpiracy theories, I'd buy into the nutty protestants much quicker than the nutty schismatics.

Maybe it's not a Conspiracy of satan

Must we forget that the Church is made up of mere mortals with a sinful nature? Luther expected perfection from Rome and all priests and bishops in union with Rome. Because they weren't perfect, he had plenty of imperfect Catholics to slander. Exagerating and embellishing their faults helped justify Luther's disobedience. Now, five hundred years later, a new generation of "I will not obey" Christians has arrived on the scene. And they are following the playbook of Luther. Luther proclaimed that the "smoke of satan" entered the Vatican. And he repeated the lie over and over. Who could blaim him for his disobedience?! He's a model of prudence, right? I mean, should he risk his salvation by attending a Mass in a Church faithful to the satanic influence of Rome? He'd be happy to know that many people are proclaiming this lie today. History repeats itself.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

What I really get a kick out of is that I keep noticing the schismatics seem to really have a thing for Ignatian Spirituality. Doing the Spiritual Exercises, signing with "AMDG," etc. The reason I get such a kick out of this is because of the emphasis of the virtue of obedience.

As I have mentioned in the past, St. Ignatius of Loyola was a target of the Inquisition. While he was a student, the Church hierarchy forbade him from teaching the Spiritual Exercises in their primitive form. He always submitted to the authority of the Church. After his dream of the Society of Jesus was realized and formally approved by the pope, it is said that St. Ignatius made it known that if the pope were to request that Ignatius disband the Society, Ignatius would do so without hesitation. This was his obedience to the Catholic Church. Of course, from 1773-1814, the Society was surpressed...and it remained faithful to the Church. I have yet to find a disgruntled Jesuit in that time period who slandered the pope or claimed that the Church was infiltrated by satan.

Even more relevant (I think) to the question of Ignatian obedience, I've found reading St. Ignatius' letters to be a wonderful window into his soul and his mind. I highly recommend reading Letters of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. If someone is interested, I might post some clippings from his letters that show the value he placed on obedience, supported by Biblical references, theological works, and earlier saints' writings.

For a little fun, the next time a schismatic traditionalist is tempted to slander the Church, he should ask himself the question, "WWILD." Translation: "What would Ignatius of Loyola do?" Maybe we could get some bumperstickers, t-shirts, and keychains made. WWILD

I feel badly for those who cling to their disobedience so tightly. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that true obedience to God is absolute disobedience from the Catholic Church. This is so disappointing to see for a variety of reasons. The despair, the sarcasm, the mean-spiritedness, the slander, the disobedience, the pride. I was re-reading the 95 theses of Luther, and those words were done inspired by the exact same spirit of despair. Where is the hope (1 Corinthians 13:7)? Where is virtue? Where is the "Greater Glory of God?"

Anyone can complain about the poor example of others. It takes a bit more effort to be the good example for others.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 05, 2003.


No time right now to respond at length, but I've got time for just one question/observation:

But, schism is in their hearts.

You read hearts now?! WOW!!

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 05, 2003.


Good comeback Regina...I suppose since Psyche and Jake already read the hearts of those at the Vatican, we'll just have to call it even, OK?

Can I read hearts? Well, I can see emotions: despair, sarcasm, anger, etc. I guess I'm just perceptive.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 05, 2003.


I glad you're over your PMS! I was worried about you for a moment

From JFG, this would be par for the course. You're above atuff like that, Mateo.

Well, if I use the term traditionalist, I would be including myself

Don't flatter yourself.

When they stop calling Latin-Rite Catholics "Novus Ordos," "Neos," (though I kinda like that one), "Novus Ordinarians," "N.O.'s," and stop calling the Catholic Church "NewChurch," I'll try to think of something more politically correct than schismatic traditionalist. Until then, I'm just not too interested in changing what I see as a completely appropriate title.

There's lots of justification for the term "Neo Catholic," but that's a whole new thread. The term "schismatic," however, is a term that you people will never make stick on Traditional Catholics. Never. None of you ever have, and none of you ever will, as long as you attempt to do so via the teaching of the Church. I realize that won't stop you from tossing it around, because you toss it around to be hurtful (Hail the New Springtime!), or perhaps as a defense mechanism with which you try to defend the indefensible. Any way you slice it, it's a "straw man," to borrow one of your pet terms.

the acceptance of a "Novus Ordo" brother (this term translates to "Latin-Rite Catholic" in the real world) is conditioned on their willingness to abandon the "Novus Ordo"

If they rightly want to abandon the Novus Ordo religion, they would not be Novus Ordos.

I would have to think that the Vatican hired some contractor, who hired some sub-contractor, who hired some yahoo who made a stupid decision when he was cleaning up after this major event. But that's just me living in reality...

The cross in a dumpster. That's a powerful image. It doesn't matter how it got there, or who put it there. It's a metaphor. It's a mental image. It's a small picture of what's happened since Vatican II because of Modernism, a rotten heresy which continues to sweep through the Church unabated (sadly, even aided!) by the very men whose duty it is to stop it.

the same Catholic Church that changed worship from Saturday to Sunday (that seems to be OK to this group)

There are reasons why we worship on Sunday, and I've refuted you on this in the past. If you've forgotten, read up. If you're jousting at windmills, you should really stop.

shouldn't encourage reception of the Eucharist in the hand.

...since there was no reason to introduce this innovation, which started as an abuse. The practice has never been promulgated OR encouraged (not officially, anyway), only tolerated.

Somehow, the same Catholic Church that decided that Christmas should be celebrated around the time of the winter solstice (no problem there for "traditionalists")

Not at all. There were reasons for this, too; among them being the erradication of the pagan feasts celebrated at the same time of year, and because of the timing of the winter solstice, which is symbolic of light (Christ) overcoming darkness (sin).

You weren't catechized very well, huh? Don't be ashamed. Nobody our age was. It's not entirely your fault. The "Spirit of Vatican II" apparently allowed for lousy cathechesis. Another post-Conciliar casualty.

can't move a feast day (Feast of the Ascension) from a Thursday to a Sunday

No reason for this whatsoever, other than to minimize the "inconvenience" of going to Mass twice in a week. 75% of Novus Ordos in the U.S. can't even make it on Sunday, so what's the point?!

I feel badly for those who cling to their disobedience so tightly.

Well, we've offered you a remedy. You can't claim invincible ignorance.

Somehow, they have convinced themselves that true obedience to God is absolute disobedience from the Catholic Church.

True obedience to God necessitates resistance to anything that destroys the Faith. It's really more simple than you make it out to be. The USCCB, to cite a recent example, is hatching a plan to remove the "Filioque" from the Nicene Creed. The Novus Ordo response would be to go along, because the USCCB knows what they're doing, and even if they don't, we still need to obey. The Catholic response, in contrast, is and must be to say "Absolutely Not."

The despair

Au contraire! The future belongs to us, because the past belongs to us. True, the Neos have done their damage, but we have a Divine promise that they will not prevail.

the sarcasm

Sarcasm? What sarcasm?

the mean-spiritedness, the slander

You are kidding, right?



-- jake (j@k.e), November 05, 2003.


Quick response (sorry for any spelling/grammar errors)

"From JFG, this would be par for the course. You're above atuff like that, Mateo. "

Jake, it's called humor. If Emerald thinks I'm being mean-spirited, let him speak for himself. You aren't winning any credibility points by trying to be victim by proxy.

Regarding your references to far-off threads where you were the champion and we were humiliated by your genius, could you give me a link please? Such triumpant claims always ring hollow with you.

I'm sorry you don't realize that you are a schismatic and I am a Catholic. Hey, everybody who leaves the Catholic faith thinks they are a more authentic form of Christianity than Catholicism. You guys are just the latest group of protestants to hit the scene.

"There are reasons why we worship on Sunday, and I've refuted you on this in the past. If you've forgotten, read up. If you're jousting at windmills, you should really stop."

You are once again living in a fantasy. Please refer us all to the thread you are referring to. I don't need to be told why we worship on Sunday. If you reading comprehension is failing you, please read my post again. Interesting literary reference, even if it's a total non-sequitor.

"...since there was no reason to introduce this innovation, which started as an abuse. The practice has never been promulgated OR encouraged (not officially, anyway), only tolerated."

Once again, you're just going off on a tangent.

"You weren't catechized very well, huh? Don't be ashamed. Nobody our age was. It's not entirely your fault. The "Spirit of Vatican II" apparently allowed for lousy cathechesis. Another post-Conciliar casualty. "

And again, you shoot for the ad hominem. It doesn't stick because the point isn't whether I understand the reasoning of placing Christmas on a particular day. It is because protestants don't accept the authority of the Catholic Church to make these decisions. You weren't educated in reading comprehension very well, huh? Don't be ashamed. Nobody of our age was. It's not entirely your fault...another education casuality.

"Well, we've offered you a remedy."

So did Faith. So did Luther. So did Bob Jones. So did Jack Chick. I'm not interested in leaving the Catholic faith.

"The future belongs to us, because the past belongs to us. True, the Neos have done their damage, but we have a Divine promise that they will not prevail. "

Even Luther saw damage done by corruption in the Catholic Church of his day. I just don't think he had a valid solution for it. You may see the same corruption that I see, but your response is in line with Luther. Divine Providence will prevail.

Keep studying St. Ignatius of Loyola. He's an inspiration to faithful Catholics everywhere.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 05, 2003.


Jake, it's called humor.

I guess I just didn't think it was funny. Just my unsolicited opinion.

You aren't winning any credibility points by trying to be victim by proxy.

Nor you by being crass.

Regarding your references to far-off threads where you were the champion and we were humiliated by your genius

It's impossible that such a thread exists, as I am dumb as a rock. Perhaps you can point me to a thread where I made the claim of being a genius?

You are once again living in a fantasy. Please refer us all to the thread you are referring to.

I think it was called "Emerald's Questions." You said something to the effect that Catholics worship on Sunday, even though the Sabbath day is Saturday. It's in the archive, unless it's been purged.

Once again, you're just going off on a tangent.

About Communion in the hand? I thought I was right on topic, but if I strayed, it was only because I'm a dolt, not because I had any evil intent.

And again, you shoot for the ad hominem. It doesn't stick

"I'm rubber, you're glue? We could go on forever.

Let's not.

...another education casuality.

My teachers tried, and they taught me lots of things, although I was never more than an average student. They did fail to teach me the Faith, though; and my parents naievely entrusted them to do so. In that sense, yes. A casualty.

Divine Providence will prevail.

Too many people read this statement: "Relax and do nothing / Don't worry, be happy" (note: I'm not saying you mean it that way). A Catholic mind should find that thought repugnant. By Catholics acting and thinking and behaving like Catholics, the Providence of God will be manifested, not by Catholics being fat, dumb, and happy like the rest of the pagans around them.

Keep studying St. Ignatius of Loyola. He's an inspiration to faithful Catholics everywhere.

Good advice. It's been a year since I made an Ignatian retreat. I'll hit those books again.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 05, 2003.


I was never more than an average student.

Including now.
Still refusing to learn complex concepts ... or incapable of doing so.

Yet not averse to claiming that one of holiest and most brilliant people on the planet, the pope, teaches heresy.

Jake? No ... Joke.

-- (Weary@Of.Dimwits), November 06, 2003.


JFGBSDYCBSWOD:

Still refusing to learn complex concepts ... or incapable of doing so.

I'm more likely to be guilty of the latter.

Yet not averse to claiming that one of holiest and most brilliant people on the planet, the pope, teaches heresy.

Did I?

Huh.

Jake? No ... Joke.

Are you sure you went to college?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.


Jake,

Nothing much meaningful in your reply except the following:

"Too many people read this statement [Divine Providence]: 'Relax and do nothing / Don't worry, be happy'"

I'm sorry if you think that people will misinterpret my statement. The fact is that we are all instruments of the greater stuggle of good (those faithful to God) and evil. Luther and St. Ignatius saw the same evils, and responded in totally different ways. Luther saw corruption in the Church and chose to hurl condemnation on the Catholic Church, at the same time he created his new church. St. Ignatius saw the same corruption and chose to be an instrument of Christ and an example of saintliness and obedience to a Church made up of sinful men.

We are instruments in the Salvation of humanity. Both St. Ignatius and Luther responded to corruption. Only one of them served God and his Church faithfully and obediently.

"Jake? No ... Joke."

Jake, I didn't feel like bringing it up, but I have to say that the '@' symbol in your new "email" looks a lot like an 'o.' Maybe you should think of another fake email address.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.


I'm sorry if you think that people will misinterpret my statement.

I didn't mean it was misinterpreted because you said it. I meant that, in general terms, people tend to extrapolate that meaning from statements such as the one you made.

You're right on in your analysis of Luther v. St. Ignatius. Where we disagree is that you see me & people like me as taking Luther's approach. We won't ever reach any common ground there, so I'm not going to get into a pointless volley of posts on that issue. Both sides have laid out their arguments already ad infinitum. We'll fight some other time.

I have to say that the '@' symbol in your new "email" looks a lot like an 'o.' Maybe you should think of another fake email address.

It serves @ twofold purpose:

1. It's @ bit of self-depric@ting humor, and

2. It's @ heck of @ lot less tedious th@n typing out the re@l thing, which doesn't exist @nymre @nyhow.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.


"2. It's @ heck of @ lot less tedious th@n typing out the re@l thing, which doesn't exist @nymre @nyhow."

Well, I @nly wanted t@ let y@u kn@w that the 'at' symb@l l@@ks like an o.

Enj@y,

Mate@

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.


Well, I @nly wanted t@ let y@u kn@w that the 'at' symb@l l@@ks like an o.

You m@de me l@ugh @nd dribble Diet Coke on my tie. @ssuming your em@il @ddress is re@l, I sh@ll be cont@cting you shortly reg@rding a dry cle@ning bill.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 06, 2003.


L@L!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 06, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ