The Mass in its entirety is no question the most holy and most beautiful thing on earth.

Any moments/prayers that are your "favorites"?

My answer: Hard to pick just one, or just a few!! of course the entire Canon/Consecration, but I also like the genuflection during the Nicene Creed: ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO EX MARIA VIRGINE: EST HOMO FACTUS EST. Very humbling and moving when everyone falls to their knees at that moment.

Also like the priest's prayer after Communion of the Priest: Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo. Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero. Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custiodiat animam meam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

("What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given me? I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the Name of the Lord. Praising will I call upon the Lord and I shall be saved from my enemies. May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul to life everlasting. Amen.")

Your faves?

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003

Answers

At the communion rail, when kneeling; "May the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting, Amen.

-- Bubbles (9999.@444.com), November 11, 2003.

For me, it would be Psalm 42, the Judica me:

Priest:
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam
de gente non sancta, ab homine iniquo,
et doloso erue me.

Server(s):
Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea:
quare me repulisti?
et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus?

Priest:
Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam:Br> ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua.
Server(s): Et introibo ad altare Dei: * ad Deum, qui lætificat juventutem meam.

Priest:
Confitebor tibi in cithara, Deus, Deus meus:
quare tristis es, anima mea? et quare conturbas me?

Server(s):
Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi: * salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.

Priest: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto
Server(s): sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in secual saeculorum. Amen.


English translation:

Judge me, O God,
and defend my cause against the ungodly people;
O deliver me from the deceitful and wicked man.
For Thou art the God of my strength; why hast Thou put me from Thee?
and why go I so heavily, while the enemy oppresseth me?

Send forth Thy light and Thy truth, that they may lead me,
and bring me unto Thy holy hill, and to Thy dwelling
And that I may go unto the altar of God, unto God Who giveth joy to my youth.
Upon the harp will I give thanks unto Thee, O God, my God.
Why art thou so heavy, O my soul? and why art thou so disquieted within me?

O put thy trust in God; * for I will yet give Him thanks,
which is the help of my countenance, and my God.

P. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
S. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 11, 2003.

my favorite part is the portion where the priest holds the Host and the Chalice up while i am on my knees tapping my heart and whispering mea culpa (sp?-- "through my own fault") and the priest says "This is the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who takes away the sins of the world."

Then I respond what i think is perhaps one of the most profound elements ever written with "Lord, i am not worthy to recieve You, but only say the word and i shall be healed."

i dont know why, it just strikes me as such a beautiful act of humility, to recognize that through ones own fault we are unworthy, no matter how we try, and yet God recognizes our efforts and saves us anyway.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2003.

Ditto that.

But this is a close second:

Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero.

"What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

My favorite part is anytime there's music during Mass.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.

It's funny jake and jaime how those two sections you both refer to are the ones that have always attracting my attention the most.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 11, 2003.

My favorite part is the "Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea"

"Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof: say but the word and by soul shall be healed." †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 11, 2003.

But this is a close second:

Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero.

It really is beautiful, Em, isn't it?

I seem to remember a notation in my Missal stating this prayer derives from the prayer of the the three martyred youths? Am I remembering that correctly? Or is that from another prayer. Don't have my Missal handy at the moment.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

My favorite part is any time there's music during Mass.

By the Grace of God, we definitely have some beautiful polyphony and plain chant at our disposal. Anything you like in particular?

I'm fond of Palestrina, and would give anything to be present at a High Mass set with his music.

Some of the Asperges plain chant is very beautiful -- solemn moments at the beginning of worship, truly.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

I really love it when our pastor says: ''Let us pray;''

But the Mass is beautiful and fulfilling from beginning to end. We have no reason to dismiss a single minute of it as less wonderful. Holy Mass is the Communion of Saints all as One in Jesus Christ. We have Him in our midst, and with Him are all the angels and saints. Together we give glory to, and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Thank you, Beloved Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ; for giving Yourself to us in Holy Mass! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Thanks for posting the link. I think of anything with rhythm as being musical, so I was not excluding any kind of chant, by any means.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 11, 2003.

I really love it when our pastor says: ''Let us pray;''

Agreed! If I counted correctly, the priest intones Oremus five times: 1. After Confiteor, before inaudible Aufer . . . 2. After Gloria, before the Collect(s) 3. After Nicene Creed, before Offertory 4. After The Communion, before the Pater noster and 5. After Communion Prayer and before the Postcommunion prayer

The first Oremus precedes yet another gem in the arrayed beauty of the Mass:

[Priest inaudible, going up to the altar] Aufer a nobis, quaesumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad Sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. ("Take away from us our iniquities, we implore Thee, Lord, that with pure minds we may worthily enter into the holy of holies: through Christ our Lord. Amen.") [Priest kissing altar, at place where saint's relics enclosed] Oramus te. Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic sunt, et omnium Sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen. ("We implore You, Lord, by the merits of all Thy Saints, whose relics are here, and of all the Saints, that thou wouldst deign to forgive me all my sins. Amen.")

Thank you, Beloved Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ; for giving Yourself to us in Holy Mass!

We, your humble servants -- so unworthy of this sacrifice -- praise, honor, glorify You, ask your forgiveness, and give You thanks. Amen.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

1) AT the elevation, "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His Supper." Response: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed."

2) The sign of peace. Where the peace of Christ is extended by a simple handshake or embrace.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 11, 2003.

Where the peace of Christ is extended

Another beautiful moment -- especially so, since it occurs only at Solemn High Mass.

The priest kisses the altar upon which the consecrated Host lies, then "kisses" (ritually embraces) the deacon, who "kisses" the subdeacon, who "kisses" the servers, and so on. A dramatization of the mediatorial character of grace, cascading from the Eucharist through God's ministers to us, and a living out of the post- Resurrection Eucharistic "pax scene" in the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 24:35,36). Amen.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.

My favorite part is during the consecration when the Priest elevates the Host or the Chalice and then the server rings the bells. I forget what those are called.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

My favorites are little pieces of the Eucharistic Prayer that spontaneously pop into my head when I am meditating alone after or before mass, I love them. At those times I am amazed that I can say some of them because I can't memorize anything well.

We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it

You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you.

Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.

The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands

Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us your forgiveness.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

and then the server rings the bells. I forget what those are called.

surprisingly enough, during my stint as the altar server instructor of my childhood parish we refered to them as... well, bells, really. but we did it with a holy mindset.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2003.

When they are well-prepared, the General Intercessions (Prayer of the Faithful) are very helpful. I find their presence a welcome restoration to the Mass.

While Eucharistic Prayer I (sometimes called the "Roman Canon") will never grow old, we now have been blessed to hear several other Eucharistic Prayers -- each structured around the solemn consecrations of bread and wine. My favorites are Eucharistic Prayer IV and the two Eucharistic Prayers of Reconciliation.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

Eucharistic Prayer I (sometimes called the "Roman Canon")

"Eucharistic Prayer I" is most certainly NOT the Roman Canon. If it is called that, it is called that in error.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

The Catholic Church tells us that Eucharistic Prayer I is also known as the "Roman Canon," and this Catholic forum cannot let non-Catholics like the previous poster tell us otherwise.

For example, multiple footnotes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church refer to "Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon)" -- as can be seen here.
Of course, "EP I" refers to "Eucharistic Prayer I."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

We can lay them out sise by side if you like.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

I think that my favourite part of Mass, at the moment anyway, is the Our Father. There is something so powerful about being grouped around the Eucharist and using the prayer that He taught us. I believe that St. Augustine wrote somewhere about what a moment of Grace this is and how it forgives our venial sins. Does anyone know where this is?

A few posts ago Jaime Esquierva asked where the 'Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero,' prayer comes from. It is from Psalm 115/116.

John, Eucharistic Prayer IV has some beautiful language in it, but someone pointed out to me recently that it may contain at least one heresy. The Host is refered to as 'bread' after the consecration.

'gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ,'

I have even heard a translation that says 'one bread and one wine'.

There is another difficulty with this prayer. The preface for Eucharistic Prayer IV says: "Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you alone are God, living and true." This has been cited as Arianism - that the Second Person of the Trinity, known to us as Jesus Christ, was not truly equal to the Father.

I have hardly ever heard Eucharistic Prayer IV used in the UK where I live, and it is considered to be rather a risque thing to do.

I should like to add that this is not personal criticism of John or anyone else who uses or likes this prayer. I may be terribly wrong about all of this, but these things certianly do not sit comfortably with me.

Blessings to all,

Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), November 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Adrian. (Welcome back.)

You wrote: "... someone pointed out to me recently that [EP IV] may contain at least one heresy. The Host is refered to as 'bread' after the consecration. 'gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ,' I have even heard a translation that says 'one bread and one wine'. There is another difficulty with this prayer. The preface for Eucharistic Prayer IV says: 'Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you alone are God, living and true.' This has been cited as Arianism - that the Second Person of the Trinity, known to us as Jesus Christ, was not truly equal to the Father. I have hardly ever heard Eucharistic Prayer IV used in the UK where I live, and it is considered to be rather a risque thing to do."

The first thing I would say, Adrian, is that we need to have complete faith that the Holy Spirit would not allow heresy to creep into the Mass, most especially into a Eucharistic Prayer.

Secondly, please keep in mind that the official text of EP IV is in Latin, which has no deficiencies (much less a "heresy"). I believe that the original ICEL translation had the phrase, "one Bread and one Wine" (meaning those words metaphorically, not literally), but this was later changed to "one Bread and one Cup."

Like you, Adrian, I am not enthusiastic about the use of the word "Bread" for the Host (even when meant metaphorically), because of the problem of so many people not being properly educated concerning Transubstantiation these days. However, it is wrong to say that we must not utter the metaphorical word, "Bread," after the consecration, because St. Paul himself does it at 1 Cor 10:17 -- "Because there is one Bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one Bread."

By looking at the Latin for EP IV, we can see that the original translation was flawed, because there is no reference at all to "wine" (though there is to "Bread," a la St. Paul): "concede omnibus qui ex hoc uno Pane participabunt et Calice" = "grant to all who partake of this one Bread and Chalice".

Thirdly, please keep in mind that EP IV has been in use for over thirty years. If there were anything wrong with the Latin text (which includes the fixed Preface), surely it would have been revised or banned by now.

The Preface has: "Father in heaven, ... you are the one God, living and true" (in Latin: "Pater sancte, quia unus es Deus vivus et verus"). Properly understood, this is not Arianism. When St. Thomas cried out to Jesus, "[You are] my Lord and my God," was he denying that the Father was God? No. As long as one does not say that one of the divine Persons is not God, it is all right to say that another of the divine Persons is God (or "the one God"). This phrase in the Preface is an echo of a statement in Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (and both are probably an echo of something much older). "Dei Verbum" #3 says: "God ... taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident Father and just Judge ...".

Fourthly, my understanding is that the two biggest reasons we don't hear EP IV much are not fear of heresy, but rather: (a) many priests stumble over the less familiar words that surround the consecrations, and (b) radical feminists have complained that the Prayer is loaded with "sexist" language. [Read it through, and you'll see what bugs them!]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

Jmj

Non-Welcome, ineligible Pseudo-Trad.
You wrote: "We can lay them out side by side if you like."

The only thing that I would "lay ... out side by side" is the unconscious bodies of you and your sidekicks, after I deck all of you.

Little boy, when are you going to learn not to contradict me? When we differ, I am never wrong, and you are never right -- because I do not speak things from my own mind, but only pass along what the Church says. You contradict Her -- to your own detriment -- time and again.

All I really need is the Catholic Church's word that "Eucharistic Prayer I" is the "Roman Canon" -- and, as I showed above, I have that. Because I have faith, I need no further proof. However, having been a Latin-reading altar boy under the older rite of the Mass, and having studied Latin for nine years (majoring in it in college), and having seen the Latin text of Eucharistic Prayer I, I know with my own senses and mind that "EP I" is the "Roman Canon."

I won't tolerate an ex-Catholic like you trying to nitpick -- pointing out that about 1% of the two texts are different. The tiny differences have no significant effect -- and certainly do not prevent a normal person from referring to "EP I" as the "Roman Canon." (I know exactly what the differences are. I don't want you to list them, and I won't discuss them with you anywhere -- especially not here, since this thread is for a different purpose, and I won't abet you in trashing this thread as you have trashed so many others.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

The only thing that I would "lay ... out side by side" is the unconscious bodies of you and your sidekicks, after I deck all of you.

...and you say there's no humor on this forum.

Pshaw.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 17, 2003.

On the other hand some things aren't quite so funny.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 17, 2003.

You should read the law before trying to play games with it, Joke Tweedle-Dee. Had you read it, you wouldn't have wasted your time and mine by leaving the link.

Nota bene [that's Latin, by the way, Dippy] this passage from the law:

"Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member ..."

Point 1: I didn't threaten. I made a joke that even included the use of the conditional mode ("would").
Point 2: You knew that I didn't threaten. You took it as it was meant -- a pun.
Point 3: Even if you were dumb enough to have thought it was an actual threat, it could not have "place[d you] in reasonable apprehension," since I have no idea who you are or where you are. I've been in contact with you for almost two years without trying to find out who or where you are, because I have always wanted to have ZERO to do with you until you become Catholic again.

May God forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.

The words must be in total for a valid consecration. Infallible council said so.

The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass: "Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38

-- Hulk (intenslycatholic@dorite.com), November 18, 2003.

You may think so, Hulk. You aren't a theologian, or the Pope. We listen to the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

An infallible statement from he Council of Florence isn't a part of the Church, Gene?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

The format of the Mass and its prayers are NOT doctrinal or moral matters. Therefore, declarations regarding such matters are NOT infallible statements.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2003.

The format of the Mass and its prayers are supposed to reflect and express doctrinal truths. Tinkering with them means that those truths are expressed less clearly. The Canon, as with everyting Consillier, has ben blurred, muddied, tampered with.

Go ahead & post the text of EP1. I'll show you what I mean.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

"Tinkering with them means that those truths are expressed less clearly."

.. or more clearly? That would seem a more likely reason for the Church to"tinker" with the prayers it has written. Like when it "tinkered" with its Creed by inserting the Filioque. Did the Church have the right to do that? Or do you still use the "traditional" pre-Filioque Creed? If the Church had the right to make necessary adjustments to something as doctrinally basic as the Creed - which it certainly did - how could it not have the right to alter the prayers of the Mass?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2003.

"Adjustments," where they're required to clarify things, have always been done. To destroy something and replace it with something new is not an "adjustment."

It's like this: Jack has a '97 Dodge with a squeaky spring. He taks the car to his mechanic who looks it over, agrees that the spring is bad, and tells Jack that he'll work to fix it. Later that day, Jack goes back to the garage, and the mechanic presents him with a '99 Chevy. Now, it's still a car, and furthermore its springs are in good shape, and besides, the mecahanic argues, it has fewer dents & scratches and looks nicer than your Dodge, so the mechanic can't understand why he's confused and won't just get in the Chevy & drive off & be happy. "Why!?" he demands, "Why don't you just get in the Chevy? You're crazy not to take this car!"

"Because," Jack says, losing his patience and gritting his teeth, "It's not my car."

"Because

-- jake (j@k.e), November 18, 2003.

"Because," Jack says, losing his patience and gritting his teeth, "It's not my car."

who cares what vehicle you drive to get there as long as the engine is sufficient to get you where you are going???

personally, jake, i LIKE the latin mass. i prefer the new mass, however. you, on the other hand, recognize the latin mass, and condemn the new mass as being insufficient in comparison. that is something which you shouldnt do. its like saying "my dodge viper is better than your porche for going to the grocery store!"

WHO CARES? both of us are trying to get to the same place, and we both have a vehicle that will get us there, so how about you LAY OFF errors in the new mass so we can be well and done with this whole subject?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 18, 2003.

It's a pretty funny example, because you have a schismatic saying something in the old rite needed to be FIXED. That's a first, I think.

Other than that, the goal of our faith is to *achieve salvation*, and to do this we preserve Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We are not obligated to mindlessly preserve every human tradition someone dreams up if they no longer retain their utility.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 18, 2003.

There are some here, who brush off everything before V2, as "discipline". On the other hand, everything after V2 is dogma.

I ask those, is there anything prior to V2, that you would consider infallible? Exceptions, both declarations on BVM.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

"There are some here, who brush off everything before V2, as "discipline". On the other hand, everything after V2 is dogma."

Who are you speaking for? I have never heard such a statement, nor a hint of such a position from anyone here.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 18, 2003.

Mateo; You must read more carefully. Funny, how the eye discerns only what it wants to see.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 18, 2003.

"We are not obligated to mindlessly preserve every human tradition someone dreams up if they no longer retain their utility."

*Whew*. That's welcome news. Ecumenism has really been getting me down lately.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2003.

Emerald,

I don't see why ecumenism should be getting you down, it's the church's way of trying to get you and your lost brethren back into her fold before you die. Why would that bother you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 18, 2003.

It ain't woikin'! lol. See?

j/k

Frank, I think you've had quite enough fun with that word schismatic now. It's become too much of a good thing.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2003.

I don't see why ecumenism should be getting you down, it's the church's way of trying to get you and your lost brethren back into her fold before you die.

Pretending for a moment that I was, God forbid, out of the fold, ecumenism doesn't seek to get me back in, but to instead share in the joys and riches that we share rather than what separates us.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 18, 2003.

Oooh... I almost missed that. Frank says I'm now among the separated brethren as well this time, and I go to the indult.

Somebody must have switched interpretations while my back was turned.

Why, again, am I a separated brother?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2003.

Jmj

"The format of the Mass and its prayers are NOT doctrinal or moral matters. Therefore, declarations regarding such matters are NOT infallible statements. -- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2003."

The above is 100% correct, much to the dismay of yet another pseudo-traditionalist (Hulk) who doesn't belong here. The Catholic Church, in promulgating a new Missal with a slightly modified formulation of the phrases used at the time of the consecrations, instituted a new discipline that made the discipline of Florence inactive (except for the relatively rare occasions on which an older Missal would subsequently be used).

"Why, again, am I a separated brother?"

Why ask us, "Why"? We can't read your mind. We don't know why you chose to become a Protestant. We do know, though, that you need to be "separated" from the forum by a good old-fashioned banning.

I believe that a half-dozen orthodox Catholics have now called for you to be banned. Heck, even you called for yourself to be banned:
"I'm in complete agreement with Eugene, and would highly suggest that Emerald be banned from the forum. -- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003."
Now, all that remains is for the moderator to prove to be an honest man -- and not a liar -- by banning you (and the other Stooges) as he promised me he would do after others spoke out in favor of your being banned.

St. James, pray for us.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.

all that remains is for the moderator to prove to be an honest man -- and not a liar --

Has it occurred to you that this might not be the tone to take with someone from whom you want something, and is the only one with the ability & authority to either grant or deny it?

Just sayin'.

If this is your idea of being a squeaky wheel, you shouldn't hold out much hope for getting greased. Put your "probation" on probation and just leave now with what little dignity you have left. It'll save everyone some time and grief. This advice is free, and I'll even rip up the bill for the $0.02 you owe me.

You're welcome.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 19, 2003.

Emerald,

You at this point have no right to expect me to answer your questions, IMO. I've asked you several times to answer simple yes or no questions, and you never have. Posting 20 page rambling essays won't help you, only being honest with yourself will do that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 19, 2003.

"Mateo; You must read more carefully. Funny, how the eye discerns only what it wants to see."

Bubbles, I asked a direct question. In avoiding my question in this way, you are showing a poor example of the willingness or ability of a schismatic to debate honestly with Catholics. Why all the ad hominems against me? I don't think such tactics are productive for you.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2003.

Who are you speaking for? I have never heard such a statement, nor a hint of such a position from anyone here" Your words.

You do not ever quote ANYTHING, prior to V2. If so, where? In fact you do not quote anything. Just constant diatribes from the keyboard of you 3. Mateo, that is my direct answer to you. Now you discount it. Come up with one,, just one. Instead you all just sit there like 3 judges, throwing us out of the Church, with your "binding" decisions.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 19, 2003.

Bubbles: "You do not ever quote ANYTHING, prior to V2."

Anything would include:

1) The Holy Bible

2) The writings of the saints (St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Bernard, etc)

On this alone, your statement is proven false. I would like to understand how you arrived at this false conclusion, though: how many of my posts have you read?

I wonder why you again seek to discredit me. Are you attempting to discredit my arguments merely because I haven't used the subset of Catholic documents that you demand? Bubbles, I'm going to give you a straight statement: I use whatever resources I find to be relevant and reliable.

Your argument is drifting, though. First you wrote:

"There are some here, who brush off everything before V2, as "discipline". On the other hand, everything after V2 is dogma."

Then, you write:

"You do not ever quote ANYTHING, prior to V2."

What is the logical relationship between the two? If someone hasn't quoted a pre-Vatican II Council document, would you so quickly conclude that they are brushing off everything before V2 as a discipline? If so, is it fair to say that you have been brushing off the Holy Bible? I've never seen you quote it.

Bubbles: "In fact you do not quote anything."

An interesting accusation. It sounds great. Too bad it is un-true. I wonder if you could get someone else to back up this statement.

Bubbles: "Just constant diatribes from the keyboard of you 3. Mateo, that is my direct answer to you. Now you discount it. Come up with one,, just one. Instead you all just sit there like 3 judges, throwing us out of the Church, with your "binding" decisions."

A strange jumble of words...I'm not following you. Come up with one? One what?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Joke jokes: "Has it occurred to you that this might not be the tone to take with someone from whom you want something, and is the only one with the ability & authority to either grant or deny it?"

Quite the opposite "occured" to me, because I am honest and strong in my position -- and I expect an honest and forthright reaction to what I wrote, even if it sounds challenging.

The last thing in the world I need is advice from a weak, fawning, individual. You couldn't even keep your family going to a licitly celebrated Mass. You're so weak that you decided not to wear the pants in the family, but gave in to your Eve's temptation to attend illicitly celebrated Masses. Yet I'm supposed to take advice from you? Nuh-uh, brother!

Unlike you, it would never occur to me to try to ingratiate myself to the moderator. I fear not to tell it like it is: "You promised something, sir. Now come through, and prove you're not a liar." [PS: As I explained in the past, an unelected moderator has power, but not authority. He has to choose now whether or not he will wield the power honestly.]
JFG

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

"The last thing in the world I need is advice from a weak, fawning, individual."

Matthew Chapter 5, 3 thru 12:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the clean of heart: they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:

12 Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta, ab homine iniquo, et doloso erue me. Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti? Et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua. Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum, qui lætificat juventutem meam.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

I quote popes, you quote saints. If you want to quote the bible, try this for size.

"for this is My Blood, of the new and eternal covenant, the mysstery offaith. It will be shed for you and for MANY, do this in memory of Me.

Tell your local priest to quote the bible. Not All, but MANY. Perhaps the two of you are dyslectic.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 20, 2003.

Great comeback, Bubbles! Wow, you really showed me!

L@L

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Actually, she/he did. But........when all else fails....hey! Use sarcasm.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 20, 2003.

My, my. You found a Bible verse which, taken out of context and interpreted by yourself, appears to the unknowledgeable to support your position. How very Protestant of you!

Here are a few more relevant passages you might want to consider:

"And Christ died FOR ALL; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again". (2 Corinthians 5:15)

"For the charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, that if one died FOR ALL, then all were dead". (2 Corinthians 5:14)

"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ ALL shall be made alive". (1 Corinthians 15:22)

"Who desires ALL MEN to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth". (1 Timothy 2:4)

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN to myself". (John 12:32)

"Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto ALL MEN to justification of life". (Romans 5:18)

"For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of them that believe". (1 Timothy 4:10)

"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN ... " (Titus 2:11)

So you see, the wording of scripture, which was originally taken from the inspired teaching of the Church, reveals how the Church has understood the words of Jesus from earliest times. "Many" is not wrong - just inspecific, since it does not designate "all" or only "a large part". ALL the people in the world is MANY people. HALF the population of the world is still MANY people. So many could mean "all" or "less than all". But many passages of scripture indicate that the Church's interpretation of "many" was indeed "all". Otherwise, why would the Apostles have repeatedly expressed it this way? So, now the wording of the Mass has been brought more perfectly into line with the Church's Traditional teaching. Not that the previous wording was wrong - just less precise, and therefore more likely to be misinterpreted by those who believe they have the authority to personally interpret the teachings of the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

"....when all else fails..."

You mean when schismatics cover their ears to the truth? Well, yes, at that point, I'm not going to deny myself the humor that schismatics actually believe themselves to be open to fair and reasoned discussion. That's kinda funny to me. Not to mention Bubble's obsession with ad hominem, even as he claims to quote Catholic council documents so often.

"Actually, she/he did."

Isabel, you think Bubbles showed me, could you tell me what exactly he/she/it showed me?

I just see someone jotting down meandering thoughts randomly. But maybe you see something deeper in the bubbles.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Catholic Church herself.

The Church's official teaching------as we already explained above----- -is very clear on the subject. "If anyone omits or changes ANYTHING in the form of the Consecration, . . . and in this change of words THE WORDS DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING," he not only commits a mortal sin, but "HE DOES NOT EFFECT THE SACRAMENT."------ St. Pius V, MISSALE ROMANUM, De Defectibus, V

That "MANY" and "ALL MEN" do not mean the same thing, even children instinctively understand! If they did, there would have been no need to change the words at all; since the powers that be went to such lengths to do, gives rise to the probability that "All Men" was deliberately mistranslated because: the INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON ENGLISH IN THE LITURGY [ICEL] who holds the copyrights to this gem of a translation even though they slavishly accepted it from a non- Catholic German "Herr Professor," Goettingen's Joachim JEREMIAS who first, in 1963, discovered[!] that Christ's words at the Last Supper really were "This is . . . my blood . . . shed FOR ALL MEN," instead of "FOR MANY," which for nineteen and a half centuries had been accepted by ALL Scripture scholars.

And what a beaut of a "scientific" explanation the Herr Professor and his word-for-word repeating English parrots came up with! HEBREW, we are told, is a language which does not possess a word for all." "The word 'Rabbim' or 'multitude' thus served also in the INCLUSIVE sense for 'the whole,' even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an EXCLUSIVE sense, i.e. 'the many' rather than 'the all.' Thus spoke Jeremias------not the Prophet!------in his "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus," New York, 1966, p.179-182, 229, and quoted in the ICEL's booklet "The Roman Canon in English Translation," in various editions sent to aI' English-speaking priests in the U.S.

What the "learned"[!] Protestant Herr Professor------who, by his own admission, does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ------is trying to tell us, dumb Catholic peasants, is this: HEBREW is such a poor language that it does not have a single word meaning "all." Consequently, if anyone wanted to confer the idea of "all" in HEBREW, he could only use a double-meaning word, sometimes to be understood as "many" ------EXCLUSIVE sense------and at other times as "all"------ INCLUSIVE sense. And so it was that Jesus had no choice but to use the ambiguous HEBREW word "rabbim" when He said "This is My Blood . . . shed for 'rabbim.' " And how unfortunate it was that for nineteen and a half centuries translators and biblical scholars all over the world incorrectly gave the HEBREW word "rabbim" its EXCLUSIVE sense of "many," while Christ was actually using the word in its INCLUSIVE sense

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 20, 2003.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are Thine" (John 17: 9) 54. Catechism of the Council of Trent, John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. New York, 1934. pp. 227-28. The words are not good enough for you, but they indeed were for the Council of Trent.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 20, 2003.

Thomas Aquinas on the subject of obedience (yet one more thing not yet read by those who believe to be in the know):

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): "Children, obey your parents in all things," and farther on (Col. 3:22): "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Dt. 5:5, "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words." Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 4:14): "You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" and (1 Thess. 2:13): "When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, "They that resist [Vulg.: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says "in all things," he refers to matters within the sphere of a father's or master's authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

________________

The opinion that traditionalist Catholics are, on the whole and by that very fact, schismatics or heretics has it's roots in a willfull and vincible ignorance and lack of knowledge, lack of due diligence, lack of place and authority to determine such matters, lack of charity, and a lukewarm mentality that lets slip on the sacred aims of Holy Mother Church.

Learn things before passing judgment.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Another favorite part of the Mass. When we sing we pray twice.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 20, 2003.

"The opinion that traditionalist Catholics are, on the whole and by that very fact, schismatics or heretics has it's roots in a willfull and vincible ignorance and lack of knowledge, lack of due diligence, lack of place and authority to determine such matters, lack of charity, and a lukewarm mentality that lets slip on the sacred aims of Holy Mother Church. "

Your statement makes so many unfounded assumptions. More important, though: if the local schismatics can't even listen to simple logic, what is the point? Only the Holy Spirit can lead them back to the Catholic Church.

You realize, Emerald, that anyone disobedient to the Magesterium could use the same argument to justify any disobedience! Quite a bag of worms you're opening...

Regarding St. Thomas Aquinas, did you know that was accused by the traditionalists of his day of corrupting the faith by syncretizing worldly ideas (profane philosophy) with Christian theology? According to traditionalist schismatics, would that make him a modernist?

Also from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

"With St. Augustine (II De doctr. Christ., c. xl), St. Thomas held that whatever there was of truth in the writings of pagan philosophers should be taken from them, as from "unjust possessors", and adapted to the teaching of the true religion (Summa I:84:5). In the "Summa" alone he quotes from the writings of 46 philosophers and poets, his favourite authors being Aristotle, Plato, and, among Christian writers, Boethius [Note: Just imagine how traditionalist schismatics would react if a Church document were to quote a non-Catholic or non-Christian source]. From Aristotle he learned that love of order and accuracy of expression which are characteristic of his own works. From Boethius he learned that Aristotle's works could be used without detriment to Christianity. He did not follow Boethius in his vain attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. In general the Stagirite was his master, but the elevation and grandeur of St. Thomas's conceptions and the majestic dignity of his methods of treatment speak strongly of the sublime Plato."

Sounds like syncretization. I wonder why St. Thomas Aquinas had to look outside the Church for truth? Would such an exercise be of use today? I have heard traditionalist schismatics criticize Catholic schools for even allowing non-Catholic religious studies.

If the pope back then accepted Aquinas' novel method of philosophy, what would one conclude if a pope today accepted or rejected a particular theologian? If the latter is not authoritative to schismatics, why would the former be any more so?

You see, if the lens of schismatic skepticism is directed anywhere other than the Catholic Church after the 1960s, you can convince yourself that you've found as much corruption, modernism, sycretization as you wish. That's because the schismatic lens is dirtied by their prejudices.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

The Catholic Church named St. Thomas Aquinas the Angelic Doctor.

He quotes pagans extensively in his writing, yet the traditionalist schismatics judge him 110% Catholic.

vs.

The Catholic Church beatifies Mother Theresa.

She founds an order in which the sisters wear Indian Saris instead of European habits.

The schismatics question the Catholicity of Mother Theresa, seeing hints of modernism and sycretization.

"Learn things before passing judgment."

Exactly.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 20, 2003.

Watch it, Mateo,

Emerald doesn't think that St. Thomas is absolutely reliable. In fact, he has hinted that St. Thomas may have died a heretic. Now that I'm thinking it over, it seems that St. Thomas is only right where his teachings coincide with those of Emerald...

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 20, 2003.

Hey Catherine.

Do you believe in the concept of a horizontal Church, so to speak?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

...because instead of insinuating something that really doesn't represent what I really think on the topic, Catherine, we could clear up something from a couple months ago about your take on the Church beying horizontal. At least that's what I thought you were saying; if I'm wrong about that, please let me know.

Also, what's this thing about having "read my stories" you mentioned once? I didn't quite understand that... I've never published any stories, really. What did you read? I was always kind of curious about that, in passing.

Do you want to discuss this, or just alude to things?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Mateo, yes I did know that about St. Thomas Aquinas.

I'm also aware that people can make excuses. Read up on the papal condemnation of Jansenism to see how a false piety was used as an indication that the heresy was not a heresy, and that the Jansenists were correct in their thinking. Is there no such thing as real piety then? Or should we avoid it as a potential can of worms?

I doubt it.

Note that it might not necessarily be the case that what you call a failure in obedience is really happening, and that most importantly that if it happens in reality here or there, that it doesn't prove your case that traditional Catholicism does not represent real Catholicism either.

About philosophical handmaidens to the Fiath, there is some truth to problematic consequences to using Aristotelian philosophy as a handmaiden to the Faith. There is also problematic consequences for using the Platonic as well. That's because they are both the products human endeavor, they're all going to fall down at some point because they have their limitations.

It's also true that the documents of Vatican II were put together by people who catered to Existentialist thought.

That's gotta be real disconcerting.

Neither of you are approaching the topic with an aim for the truth, imho.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 20, 2003.

Hey Emerald,

Long time no talk.

No, I don't believe in the concept of a horizontal Church. At one point in my posting, though, I became intrigued with the possibility of breaking up a longer post into "sections" using the "horizontal rule" html tab. I mentioned it in passing, and I think you read too much into it.

Again, I don't think I ever mentioned having read your stories. Actually, I was not aware of you having published any stories, either. Was I talking about your older posts? Because I've read quite a few of them. I wouldn't call them stories, though.

You know, I've never really thought about how the Church could be represented geometrically. I would almost be tempted to say that a sphere comes close; when you think about it, every point on the surface of the sphere has a perpendicular vector pointing to the center of the sphere, which would be God. The only thing is, this wouldn't really illustrate the varying degrees of perfection that people can attain. Or the communion of saints. The perpendicular vector (or I suppose you could think of it as a vertical line) is definitely part of the answer. Thinkest thou that it may be so?

I really don't like alluding to things, but sometimes it's faster than researching them. Sorry. Next time I'll get direct quotes.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 20, 2003.

"Note that it might not necessarily be the case that what you call a failure in obedience is really happening, and that most importantly that if it happens in reality here or there, that it doesn't prove your case that traditional Catholicism does not represent real Catholicism either."

In fact, the local schismatics have been hinting that the "traditionalists" are the only real Catholics, and that the "Neo Catholics" (that's the pope, the bishops, all the faithful) aren't really even Catholic. Here's an example:

"The Church is indeed a remnant, and the traditional Church IS that remnant." (Bubbles)

Such is the divisive lie of schismatic traditionalism. It's even more humorous that schismatics claim to be in union with the Catholic Church. But if they believe themselves to be the only Catholics (the remnant), who is left to be "in union" with? Maybe the Liberal Catholic Church, because they celebrate the Tridentine Mass too?

The schismatics can't admit that they have started up their own religion, voted each individual to personally interpret Church documents. I am waiting to be shown how the anti-Pope Pius XIII differs from the local schismatic gang in belief. I'd love to know!

Just as the protestants want to retain the term "Christian," the schismatics want to retain the term "Catholic." In fact, their schism is not without precedent in attempting to retain the term. To name a few groups:

1) The "Old Catholic Church," who disagreed with the "novelties" of the Vatican I Council (like Trent and Vatican II, it was "just an Ecumenical Council").

2) The "Liberal Catholic Church," who love the "smells and bells," but hate the moral teachings.

3) The "Anglican Catholics," who...well...who are kinda "high church" Episcopalians.

You guys are just the newest notch on the schism stick. Fortunately, there are also Churches that had fallen into schism or heresy and were able to pull themselves out of it and submit to the Pontiff. I pray that Rome will find reconciliation with the traditionalist schismatics. But, hey, I'm an ecumenist...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 21, 2003.

"It's also true that the documents of Vatican II were put together by people who catered to Existentialist thought.

That's gotta be real disconcerting."

Well, your accusation is vague. Some questions: Who is "they"?" In what way did they cater to Existentialist thought? Is your assertion that they influenced by it? Or that they were teaching it? Or that a particular document was based on it?

In other words, it's not terribly productive to just make up accusations out of thin air and assume that we'll just take your word for it. The topic sounds like it demands a whole new thread. Something like, "Why Emerald thinks that Vatican II was influenced by Existentialism and to what extent the influence manifests itself with concrete proof." Is that too much to ask?

Once again, the "dark lens" of schism could accuse the Angelic Doctor of "catering to profane pagan thought." It's all in how you word your propoganda. Isn't it?

Neither of you are approaching the topic with an aim for the truth, imho."

Well, fortunately, you aren't in a good position to judge us. If you are tempted to throw out a comment like this, at least do me the favor of backing it up with a concrete example. When I make comments like this, I try to back them up.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 21, 2003.

Sounds like I misunderstood you Catherine. The comment about the story may very well have been someone else.

That's some stuff to be happy about imho; my apologies.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2003.

Mateo says:

"Such is the divisive lie of schismatic traditionalism."

No kidding. It's a lie that traditionalism is schismatic.

What's more, it's real divisive.

St. Philomena, fix this please.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2003.

"No kidding. It's a lie that traditionalism is schismatic."

I would agree with this statement. Traditionalists faithful to the Catholic Church are not schismatic, and schismatics unfaithful to the Catholic Church are not traditionalists.

Thanks for the correction.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 21, 2003.

PS--Emerald, somehow you completely ignored my questions regarding your accusations against the Vatican II Council. Are you planning to substantiate your claim?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 21, 2003.

Actually, yeah; but I was contemplating starting a thread called "Whether Traditionalist Catholics are in Schism", and then laying out a complete argument as to why people cannot conclude this.

I might go that route; it's too disjointed the way it's working out among various threads and I can't follow it. The one-liners and comebacks are interesting but detract from a conclusion.

The way we're doing it now seems like a shotgun approach, and I'm looking for something more precise.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2003.

"Whether Traditionalist Catholics are in Schism"

This is why I would prefer you isolated your one accusation regarding Existentialism and Vatican II. I think a subject like the one you suggested above is too broad to really have an in-depth discussion.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 21, 2003.

Mateo:

"Traditionalists faithful to the Catholic Church are not schismatic, and schismatics unfaithful to the Catholic Church are not traditionalists."

While a true statemtent if standing alone, it's use in the present discussion is a dangerous trajectory towards the application of a redefined sense of the word traditional.

Translation of this dangerous trajectory into the vernacular:

"There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen."

j/k. I'll make sure to rule that situation out at the beginning of the case.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2003.

The Our Father because we acknowledge that GOD is our Father & that our souls are fed through the sacraments & ask that GOD protect us from the snare & wicknesses of the Devil.

In my growing up years as a Protestant I never gave much thought to the meaning but when I came into the Church in 1950 my dear Priest in my instructions made me realize the true meaning of that powerful prayer.

-- Charlotte R. Carrère (ccarrere@bellsouth.net), November 21, 2003.

Without a doubt, everything that happens in the Mass on Holy Thursday!

It is for me the most beautiful Mass experience, one can ever have.

The many experiences that take place in that Mass, as the beginning if the Easter Tridiuum; (SP?) the washing of the feet, the celebration of the institution of the Eucharist and finally the procession to the altar of repose give this mass a unique character that embodies all that we aspire to when we come together to celebrate our faith.

When the Sacrament has been removed, the Sanctuary area is stripped of all it's symbolic elements and left bare. The Church community, who only moments before were celebrating in praise and song, the most wonderful gift of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, are left to reflect, with only the lingering smell of inscence in the air, the significance of what they have witnessed. They slowly, one by one, they slip out from the darkened church to go back to their lives, their work and their world.

The high point of this experience for me, is a simple hymn, "Jesus, Remember Me, when you come into your Kingdom." We only sing this hymn the one time through the course of the year, but it stays with me always.

peace

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 22, 2003.

Hey Emerald;

IMHO, the real problem is that so many groups (or individuals) use the word "Traditional" to describe the practice of their faith. Some of these groups are definitely in schism. Others may not be.

However, since there are "Traditionalists" who are in schism, I think the majority of people on this forum will not admit that "Traditionalists" in general follow Church teachings. In fact, most people here may take the precaution of avoiding anything labelled "Traditional" because of certain groups that claim this title. Simply outlining what you believe might prove to be more effective than arguing over the name.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 22, 2003.

... And at Mass, I really like the Credo.

I also like to genuflect and cross myself with Holy Water upon entering a church; somehow that symbol is so expressive of Christ's kingship, like swearing fealty or some such medieval thing. It is a public display of respect - and obedience, too, I think.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 22, 2003.

Hey Catherine, Mateo started a new thread.

Hopefully, Caroline, we can all approach the question of whether those known as traditionalist Catholics are schismatics can be approached with an intent to know the truth of the matter. I have posted a new thread in an attempt to get to the bottom of this question, but it has been deleted. I do hope that the question can be answered to everyone's satisfaction in Mateo's thread.

That thread can be found here.

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

This question has already been discussed and fought about ad nauseum. There is nothing to be gained by starting additional threads for the purpose of reposting the same tired arguments and the same ad hominem attacks. If anything has been revealed in the previous threads on this topic, it is that further discussion (1) will not reveal "the truth of the matter" to people who are not open to the truth; (2) will not "get to the bottom of this question"; and (3) will not provide any answers that are "to everyone's satisfaction". Therefore I am not going to allow the forum to be bogged down with dozens of repetitive threads endlessly rehashing the same topic. Time to move on.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

Claims have been made that traditionalist Catholics are schismatics.

The claim is false.

It is time for those who are making the claim to explain their calumny.

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

I repeat - those who make such claims have already offered all possible arguments and explanations many times over; and those who deny such charges have already presented all possible arguments many times over. Let's discuss some Catholic topics that offer the possibility of mutual growth in knowledge and faith, and leave such fruitless quibbling behind us.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

Emerald & Co.

You've already made your decision as to how you think your faith should be practiced . . . so practice it and stop worrying about it.

It doesn't do you any good to defend your views to us. What we think will have absolutely no bearing on you and your salvation. The road to your salvation is yours and yours alone.

If you want to operate out on the fringe, you should expect criticism. You don't have to defend yourself to us, the only one you will ever answer to is the one who waits at death's door. However, if I were you, I would make sure all your notes and files are in order when that time comes, because at first glance, you're going to have quite a time squaring some of that stuff with the Gospels.

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

My favorite part is the end

-- John Smith (dominusobligaturum@heathen.com), March 04, 2005.