John's post is below. Following is Mr.Matatics response on 11/19/03 He can be reached at GMatatics@aol.com God bless, FGC

------------------- Answers Jmj Hi, Olly. We know that James White is not Catholic (and is in fact very anti-Catholic -- though his sister has converted to Catholicism).

But is Gerry Matatics now a Catholic? My understanding is that he was a cradle Protestant, became a (Presbyterian?) minister (graduating from seminary with Scott Hahn), converted to Catholicism, but then fell away from the Church and into the pseudo-traditionalist schism (if not heresy). Do you have more recent news of his returning to the Catholic Church?

God bless you. John

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

Gerry Matatics' response:

"Since renouncing Protestantism and embracing the Catholic Faith in 1986 I have never left the Catholic Church, therefore there is no need to "return" to it. It is those who misconstrue my discovery of Tradition and my attachment to the Tridentine Mass as somehow involving my "leaving the Catholic Church" who are in error, not I. My rejection of all the recent doctrinal, liturgical, and moral novelties which are utterly without foundation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the constant teaching of the Magisterium in no wise constitutes a departure from the Church. In Christ our King, Gerry"

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003

Answers

[FGC, why did you start a new thread, rather than add to the other thread on which I responded?]

Mr. Matatics's response (according to your "paste") included these words:
"My rejection of all the recent doctrinal, liturgical, and moral novelties which are utterly without foundation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the constant teaching of the Magisterium in no wise constitutes a departure from the Church."

This does not sufficiently clarify the situation, because he doesn't say who is responsible for the "novelties" nor define the "novelties" precisely enough.

If, by "novelties," he is referring only to things perpetrated by scattered dissenters (individual bishops, priests, theologians, liturgists) and rejected by the Vaticn, then he is on solid ground -- and he may have returned to the Catholic Church.

But if he is claiming that the documents of Vatican II and/or the post-conciliar papal and Vatican-curial documents and/or the 1969/1970 Roman Missal and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and/or the 1983 Code of Canon Law is/are "novelty/novelties" ... then he is still in a pseudo-traditionalist schism (a la the Society of St. Pius X).

It's really a shame if he is still outside the Church. I first read about GM when he was (briefly) a teacher at the beautifully orthodox Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia, in the mid-to-late 1980s. Next I heard him mentioned in Scott Hahn's conversion story in the late 1980s. Subsequently, I heard GM on some tapes of his own. What a shock to read, in the early 1990s, that he had placed himself in an even worse condition (schism, after being a Catholic) than he had been as a cradle Protestant. Like the pseudo-trads that are ruining this forum, GM is (objectively speaking) in a state of mortal sin and cannot be saved without returning to the Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

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

Oops! Let me reword the ending of that last sentence ...

"... GM was and may still be (objectively speaking) in a state of mortal sin and cannot be saved without returning to the Catholic Church (assuming he has not yet returned).

God bless you.
John
PS: You can send him my comments if you wish, but be sure to tell him that, if he does reject any or all of those documents I listed above, then he would be wasting his time to try to defend his position, because I couldn't care less about any excuses he may offer.

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

Hi John, I'll pass your comments on to Mr. Matatics.

Are you saying Traditional Catholics are going to hell?

God bless, FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.

Hey! When did The Holy Catholic Church define that Traditional Catholics are not Catholics? I'm not talking about SSPX, of course! I'm talking in general.

Thanks and God Bless You

In Cordibus Jesu Et Mariae

A Friend

-- A friend (no@matter.fm), November 19, 2003.

No getting into the details of this matter.. but who the heck is anyone, to start dumping mortal sins on anyone, objective or otherwise. Who made him a theologian.

-- Anon. (dime'sworth@ofadvice.com), November 19, 2003.

This is a respone in a email from Mr Matatics that he asked me to post for him as fallows:

Dear John: You claim to be an orthodox Catholic. I assume, then, that you are familiar with classic Catholic moral theology. You therefore don't need me to tell you how serious are the sins of slander, libel, and defamation of character -- especially to a world-wide audience such as the Internet (unfortunately) provides you, and especially regarding someone who must make his entire living and support his family (we just had our tenth child born) based on his reputation as an orthodox Catholic. If you cannot immediately provide evidence for your outrageously libelous allegation that I ever was, since my becoming Catholic, "(objectively speaking) in a state of mortal sin" (and in schism) "and may be still" -- and you cannot -- then as your fellow Catholic I am compelled by that same Catholic moral theology to admonish you to, with equal immediacy, publicly retract this allegation and publicly apologize to me and to every single person who has read it. Unless you immediately do so, I am afraid that it is not I but you who are "(objectively speaking) in a state of mortal sin," namely the sin of libel in a grave matter regarding a public figure. But don't take my word for it: consult any reputable work on Catholic moral theology. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Reproachfully yours, Gerry Matatics

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 19, 2003.

Jmj
Dear Mr. Matatics:

Please call me "Mr. Gecik." (I'll be optimistic and hope the day will come when I can let you call me "John.")

Since you have sent me the above message by private e-mail, I will carry on further correspondence with you in that mode, slowly and carefully, rather than here.

You have asked for a public retraction and apology for something I previously stated on this discussion thread. There is nothing that would please me more than to learn, after a careful investigation and exchange with you, that I have made a mistake and should indeed apologize and retract publicly.

Why? I was one of the first Catholics anywhere to know about your conversion in 1986 (from reading about it and seeing your photo in a Christendom newsletter, and then hearing your first audio tape), and I was a great admirer of yours for about five years. Naturally, I would like to admire you again.

However, given what I have read about you over the course of at least ten years (including today), it is now very unclear whether or not you will be able to convince me that I have wronged you. (It could turn out, ironically, that you have wronged all Catholics and owe us an apology.)

If you do convince me that I have done you an injustice, I will return to this page and say so, adding the retraction and apology you requested. But if you do not convince me, I may return to this page and add other information that would be appropriate to help other readers.

For those other readers, I will only add one item today -- lest they be misled by the overall tone of your message. Some could come away, after reading your florid and angry "reproach," with a belief that you have always had a "squeaky-clean" reputation and that what I wrote about you earlier was absolutely "off the wall" and baseless -- a complete invention by me, the kind of thing you have never encountered anywhere else before.

Without going into any details, I believe that I have a right to disabuse those folks of such a notion. I believe that I have a right to inform them that, for about a decade, you have found yourself having to deal with comments like mine -- and far, far more troubling words than mine -- coming from people (like Karl Keating) whom regulars at this forum hold in high respect. [Only after receiving your message today, I learned that you deny everything that Mr. Keating has charged, so I am adding that now, in fairness to you.] In fact, my knowing that you must be mentally exhausted at having had to try to defend yourself for so long ... has helped me today to understand why you reacted to my words so shrilly and (in my opinion) disproportionately.

I promise to be in touch with you, Mr. Matatics, when I have had a chance to prepare an e-mail message.

God bless you.
(As yet) Unreproachably yours,
John Gecik

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

Bravo, Gerry.

All those in this forum who throw around accusations of schism and heresy (usually at Traditional Catholics) must take note of this, not just John.

Rome attempted to excommunicate only Archbishop Lefebvre (no excommunication actually took place for lack of, shall we say, serious matter). But Rome has never attempted to excommunicate those who attend the Tridentine Mass! Rome has never attempted to excommunicate those hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of lay Catholics who choose, perfectly within their rights, to not attend their local parish church but instead attend a Tridentine Mass, and who constantly get labeled as schismatics and/or heretics by mistaken and confused people such as John.

This needs to get cleared up right away. Even if this forum's resident Novus Ordo Catholics believe that every member of the SSPX is excommunicated, well, guess what? Lay people who attend the Mass said by a SSPX priest are NOT members of the SSPX! In order to be a member of that order you must be a religious. So even if certain people insist (wrongly) on believing that the members of the SSPX are excommunicated, lay people could not be included.

So what is the big problem? Why do the resident Novus Ordo Catholics of this forum insist on libeling those whom even Rome herself has not attempted to condemn?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.

God bless & reward you, Mr. Matatics, for your brilliant and insightful work in defending the Faith.

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

Mr. Matatics,

If you asked "for a public retraction and apology" than why do you ask for a "public apology" by private e-mail?

We want to help you sir, but you must be a "stand up" man.

In other words, air it out bro so you can be refuted if you are still a Protestant.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 19, 2003.

Psyche, as always, I find ZERO merit in what you have to say. Your ignorance of the facts is exceeded only by your obnoxiousness. I won't discuss it further, though, because I consider you banned from the forum (besides being "de facto" schismatic and possibly heretical).
JFG

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

To me, you also are banned, Jake/Joke, but I cannot resist pointing out this ironic fact ...

If G. Matatics is the orthodox Catholic he claims to be, then he will join me in completely rejecting the pseudo-traditionalist guano you (and fellow Stooges and groupies) have been dropping on the forum for almost two years.

Now, the fact that you complimented him highly shows one of two things:
(1) he is orthodox, but you didn't know that, and you would not have complimented him if you had known that, or ...
(2) you are sure, from reading his material, that he is schismatic like you (which would mean that he'd have no right to make demands of me).

Interesting. I'll let you know the facts after I've had my dialog with him.
JFG

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

"Mr. Gecik",

Mr. Matatics is right - you should be ashamed of yourself. Who are you to decide who is banned? Are you the moderator? Who are you to declare who is schismatic or heretical?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.

1) he is orthodox, but you didn't know that, and you would not have complimented him if you had known that, or ...

(2) you are sure, from reading his material, that he is schismatic like you (which would mean that he'd have no right to make demands of me).

3. He's a Traditional Catholic husband & father of 10, has written very extensively and very well in defense of Tradition, and as such he has my deepest admiration. I don't care about his affiliation or non-affiliation with any group, diocese, religious order, or organization. He is a Traditional Catholic. We are of one mind as far as the essentials of the Faith go. We don't need to run around checking each others' credentials.

Interesting. I'll let you know the facts after I've had my dialog with him.

...because anything you post publicly about a private exchange will necessarily be the "facts," right? Why not have it out publicly? It'll be fun watching him reduce you to a quivering, profanity- uttering pile of rage.

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

The truth is, Mr . Matactics has just a zit-sized complaint which he's inflating out of all proportion. Somebody INSULTED ! ! ! him; offended his grandiose dignity and has to PAY!

Instead of letting it sluff off and saying, Drop Dead, Gecik, He comes down HARD!

Ironic the sight of two Catholics; each more indignant at a passing slight, now bickering about their damaged reputations. Isn't Matatics a sinner? Isn't Gecik one too? What's this aguish, then when someone dares say -- He sinned--

Bunch of hothouse orchids. They never think they'll have to carry a cross behind Jesus Christ. All they want is satisfaction. Let's have it out; choose your weapons, Varlet! Hahaha! Both wanting always to boast of their spotless reputations?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

No different than you Gene.

The thread was started with Johns' name on it. I rember when Coose started one with your name you went ballistic and threatened the Moderator if he didn't delete it.(and it was deleted)

A man has a right to defend his name if a thread is started with his name on it.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 19, 2003.

Oh, Come! ''to defend his name''--Let me see; will that help him live forever? Will he pay less for gasoline? Will his children grow up with stronger bones and teeth? It's all vanity! I have no case against Coose or you or John Gecik. The three of you have overstepped and I fogot about it.

Not to show what a cool guy I am, or how saintly. I'm a sinner and I know it. If they choose to call me a sinner I say--That's OK. We can't deny that; any of us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.

No one denyed being a sinner.. we all are sinners where the problem is is that he stated that if you dont go to the english mass you are in schism

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 20, 2003.

"where the problem is is that he stated that if you dont go to the english mass you are in schism"

Exactly. Which is stupid.

Gerry Matatics said himself on this thread (or had it posted by proxy) that 1) he has a wife and ten children, and 2) he supports them and himself solely through his reputation as an upstanding Catholic. This is why his good name is so important to him, obviously. I'd like to know how many posters at this forum both have ten kids and support the whole family with no other source of income than a widespread reputation as a good Catholic?

John, can this be said of you? Eugene? Anyone?

Then stop criticizing Gerry when he's upset and seeks redress because someone here tried to besmirch his only source of livelihood for himself and his whole family.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.

Not only that but how many have talked to him in the last year or two or three? Or were we just convently talking about him from meeting and talking to him 1986? Because if you havent you are spreading hearsay which is a sin also.

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 20, 2003.

I came across a booklet online Sins of the Tongue It's a real eye-opener.

Backbiting is eminently destructive, for it robs a man of what is most precious to him: his reputation. That is why theologians are in unanimous agreement to say that it is more serious than stealing; for a sin is all the greater in that it deprives someone of a greater good. Robbing someone of his reputation is worse than stealing his money, according to the words of Solomon: "A good name is more desirable than great riches." (16) Backbiting inflicts great harm for it shoots three arrows in a single round and deals a triple death. Saint Bernard assures us of this: "Is this tongue not that of a viper? It is surely very fierce, for it kills three victims with a single sting. Is it not a sharp spear, for it pierces three men in a single throw. The backbiter's tongue is a sharp sword, a double and even a triple sword, like General Joab's lance that pierced Absalom as he hung in the oak tree."

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.

Calling all ex-Catholics, non-Catholics, pretend-Catholics, and anti-Catholics who have posted on this thread ...!

Yes, that means you ... FGC ... "A friend" (also known as Javier Novoa) ... Anon/Anothing ... Kevin [the only person with guts enough to give his whole name] ... PsychoPsyche ... Jake/Joke ... NickNack ... and ChetHuntley.

I called you all together to give you just one collective message -- the only one I am going to give you on this thread. In fact, I won't return to this thread again -- unless and until I have something to add concerning my private conversation with Gerry Matatics. What I am going to tell you is this ...

1. This forum was founded as a Catholic discussion forum in January of 1988.

2. Between that time and some point in 2001, it had several genuinely Catholic regulars. I am talking about REAL Catholics like myself, the current Moderator (Paul M), Eugene Chavez, and Mateo. I started here in January of 2000, and I have posted between 5000 and 10000 messages in almost four years.

3. Between start-up in 1998 and some point in 2001, this once-great forum was not pestered by the non-Catholics people whom you call "traditionalists," but who are actually pseudo-traditionalists (phonies pretending to be Catholic, but who are either ex-Catholics or never-Catholics). My impression is that every one of you is in this non-Catholic camp (of de facto schismatics, dissenters, or de facto protestants/heretics).

4. Since you are not Catholic (in my opinion), and since you are not here for a valid reason (according to my reading of the forum's rules), I have no use for you, except to pray for your salvation (which daily seems to grow less likely). I will not discuss religion with you. I do not care a hoot what you have to say about anything. I consider you banned. If you post messages on this thread, it will only be to impress each other with your ever-increasing stupidity -- because surely no one else will be reading them.

5. I couldn't care less what you think about Gerry Matatics and me, about what he says or what I say, about how we will resolve this matter, publicly or privately. I do whatever I want to do, without any influence from non-Catholics like you. (If you want to influence me, talk my bishop into telling me something. That's your only hope.)

Just so you have an idea of why I have complete contempt for you, I'll demonstrate how goofy you are by quoting a comment one of you made above (and none of the rest of you corrected, presumably because you agreed):
Doofus #1: "where the problem is is that he stated that if you dont go to the english mass you are in schism."
Doofus #2: "Exactly. Which is stupid."

Try as you might, little tykes, you will not find any words of mine "stat[ing] that, if you don't go to the English Mass, you are in schism." Why won't you find it? Because I never said it, and I never would say it. In fact, I have said the opposite -- that I have EQUAL respect for Mass celebrated in English or Latin, and equal respect for the older rites and the newer rites. I have also explained in the past that I am over 50 and used to be an altar boy and choir boy, praying and singing in Latin prior to Vatican II. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, collected knuckleheads.

I recommend that you just cool your hormone-driven jets, shut the hell up for once in your life, and do something productive (away from this forum, which is home-away-from-home for Catholics like me, but a foreign territory to non-Catholics like you).

God bless you.
John

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

[Correction of "typo":] This forum was founded as a Catholic discussion forum in January of 1998. [Not 1988]

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

You just said it again john

"5. I couldn't care less what you think about Gerry Matatics and me, about what he says or what I say, about how we will resolve this matter, publicly or privately. I do whatever !!!!I want to do, without any influence from ***non-Catholics*** like you.!!!! (If you want to influence me, talk my bishop into telling me something. That's your only hope.)"

OH so i guess the whole church has never been in order every one who has gone to the latin mass for years has been "non-catholic". Also our Bishop, Raymond l. Burke dident know he was giving some "non- cathloics" a church, so then he gave us "non-catholics" the sacrements including my confermation (which was completly in the old rite i might add). The fact is you can blow steam this way and that way anyway you like Mr. Gecik, the fact is it is not up to you to say if we are Catholic or not. Nothing was changed in V II toke away the Old Rite, you can sit up on that pesital and say we arent true Catholics all you like. Your next post is going to tell me the exact same that i am judging you. Iam used to the ingorance by now....

Have fun in your own little world deciding who is catholic and who isent.. Rest asured that us "non cathloics" will be praying for you.

KeV

-- Kevin WIsniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 20, 2003.

"My rejection of all the recent doctrinal, liturgical, and moral novelties which are utterly without foundation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the constant teaching of the Magisterium in no wise constitutes a departure from the Church."

This is so simple, it's a pity this thread exploded like all of them.

(a) Nothing wrong with an attachment to the Tridentine rite, unless it leads to disobeying the local ordinary, who has the Church-given mandate to disallow it in his own Diocese.

(b) Everyone should reject "doctrinal, liturgical, and moral novelties which are utterly without foundation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the constant teaching of the Magisterium."

(c) The belief that the Magisterium since John XXIII has taught error constitutes "doctrinal, liturgical, and moral novelties which are utterly without foundation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the constant teaching of the Magisterium."

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

Just for the sake of trying to get you guys to understand... The Bishop of a discesecan not stop a preist of his from saying the old rite and he can not stop the people from going the tridenin mass (forgive my spelling i have work shortly). The Pope has stated maney times... I dont have time to find any quotes.. not like it will matter anyhow you are all anti Latin anyway...

Off to work...

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 20, 2003.

Nothing wrong with an attachment to the Tridentine rite, unless it leads to disobeying the local ordinary, who has the Church-given mandate to disallow it in his own Diocese.

Really? I thought he had a Papal mandate to allow it in a "wide and generous manner." It's the same document you think declares our excommunication, I'm surprised you're not more familiar with it.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

(If you want to influence me, talk my bishop into telling me something. That's your only hope.)

That’d be this guy, no? Well, he’s no stranger to Traditionalists. He’s got a liberal/homo/Modernist rap sheet a mile long, and you’re waiting for him to “influence” you? It’s almost inappropriate to mention him and the word “hope” in the same sentence. It seems that there’s no human hope of him turning around and defending the Faith. Just look at a href=”http://www.unavoceca.org/Archives/2001/20010805.html”> this:

”For example, in Virginia, Bishop Paul Loverde removed the vocations director of the Arlington Diocese because of that priest’s opposition to allow homosexuals into the seminary. This is the same Bishop who did not censure Rep. James Moran (D) of Virginia who supports contraception, abortion, and divorce-and probably homosexual marriages.”

and this

and this

and this

and this

and this

With His Excellency being so…….busy, it’s not hard to see why he hasn’t quite gotten around to complying with Ecclesia Dei, in which the Pope told him to grant “wide and generous” permission for the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese. Yet, to this day, 15 years later, he’s got

not one single “approved” Latin Mass anywhere in his diocese

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Jake, Your links aren't working. What bishop are you talking about? Thanks, FGC

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.

testing link.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Testing another link.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

So indoctrinated was this "conservative Catholic" (who thankfully became a Traditional Catholic before being labeled a "neo-Catholic") that I rejected all the graces that God was sending my way. I cannot list the number of times Traditional Catholics challenged me to read what they sent or references they suggested. Being an obedient Catholic I consigned their wisdom to the trash basket while I daily espoused all that the Holy Father was doing without realizing what he was doing! Talk about blind obedience, I was the greatest offender. I defended what today is the indefensible. And I did it by simply relying on "The Pope said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Indeed, with that flawed syllogism I helped promote the heresies of Assisi without even knowing what went on at Assisi. I daresay few knew about the 1986 Assisi debacle for the Catholic media was careful not to expose the fraud that was being aided and abetted by people like myself.

-- Sweet Cherub (Molly h.r.@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.

"For example, in Virginia, Bishop Paul Loverde removed the vocations director of the Arlington Diocese because of that priest’s opposition to allow homosexuals into the seminary."

I know this priest. As usual, Jake must make up some diabolical speculation to paint the darkest picture he can. Believe me, Fr. Gould is doing quite well in his ministries.

Just as in past cases, I wonder why Jake and other schismatics care about Catholic priests. Fr. Gould's success was finding men who would be faithful to the Catholic Magesterium. Men who would celebrate the Mass which Jake et al call an abomination!

It reminds me of the time Jake tried to use Fr. Perricone's plight to his advantage.

You are a sick man, Jake. You should spend some more time discerning what spirits inspire you to post all this muck.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

As usual, Jake must make up some diabolical speculation to paint the darkest picture he can.

I don't know this priest, but I'm aware of the reports I've read, and not just from "schismatic" Traditional Catholic websites. The mainstream media reported on it, too. Not to say that I believe everything I read in the mainstream media, but it raises my bringing it to the attention of the forum beyond mere "speculation."

"Diabolical" is a term that would be better suited to describe a Bishop removing a priest from his position as Vocations Director because of his opposition to latting sodomites into the seminary. If my crime was posting a link to the story, I guess I'm guilty.

Just as in past cases, I wonder why Jake and other schismatics care about Catholic priests.

You "care" about the SSPX enough to attempt to discredit them, no?

Fr. Gould's success was finding men who would be faithful to the Catholic Magesterium.

Key word "was."

It reminds me of the time Jake tried to use Fr. Perricone's plight to his advantage.

Fr. Perricone & I have corresponded via mail. He's extremely gracious and incredibly intelligent. I'm going to one of his evenings of recollection in a couple of weeks, if I can. I had nothing to gain by posting the story about the horrendous reception he got from his flock because he sometimes used *gasp* Latin during Mass. Nothing, that is, except to expose further how Catholics like you operate. Your position is a lot more fragile and transparent than you believe it to be. If I'm wrong for posting the NY Times article, then I'm no more wrong than you are when you post links to websites of misguided fringe elements whom you know full well do not represent the positions of Traditional Catholics. It would be like me posting links to the Women's Ordination Conference and saying "Hey, everybody, this is what Mateo believes." What happened to Father is true. Despite the source of information having been the NY Times, what they reported was accurate. I have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

You are a sick man, Jake. You should spend some more time discerning what spirits inspire you to post all this muck.

See above. Muck comes in an array of hues.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

"Diabolical" is a term that would be better suited to describe a Bishop removing a priest from his position as Vocations Director because of his opposition to latting sodomites into the seminary. If my crime was posting a link to the story, I guess I'm guilty."

All speculation, Jake. Neither Fr. Gould nor Bishop Loverde have hinted that this speculation has any basis in fact. Still, I wonder why you would care, since Fr. Gould doesn't say mass in Latin.

"You "care" about the SSPX enough to attempt to discredit them, no?"

Name a post in which I have spoken about an SSPX priest. Does merely mentioning that their bishops were excommunicated fall under your definition of "muckraking?" I'm not making up wild speculation as you have with Fr. Gould.

And that's your only goal--to stir up dissent. Thank you. Martin Luther would be proud that someone is carrying on his legacy by attacking the Catholic Church with wild speculations.

"Fr. Perricone & I have corresponded via mail."

Have you told him that you believe the mass he celebrates (even if in Latin) is an abomination? Somehow, I think you left that part out. I wonder if he would agree with your radical schismatic position.

Other than Dennis, I've never seen someone here who wanted to smear the Catholic Church more than you, Jake. Muckraking for the Greater Glory of God. Is that the SSPX take on Ignatian Spirituality? How sad...

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I wrote: "Fr. Gould's success was finding men who would be faithful to the Catholic Magesterium."

Jake responded: "Key word "was." "

No. The keyword is "faithful." Men who would give their lives to serving their Church, bishop, and offering the sacraments in their current form, not their form 50 years ago...or 500 years ago...or 1000 years ago...or 1500 years ago. The sacraments as they are to be given today.

Your schismatic confederation's fate seems to be on track to be as irrelevant in the future as the "Old Catholic Church" is today. Have fun on your sinking ship. I will pray that not too many souls are lost to your schism before they die.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Neither Fr. Gould nor Bishop Loverde have hinted that this speculation has any basis in fact.

Surprise! Has either of them denied it?

Still, I wonder why you would care, since Fr. Gould doesn't say mass in Latin.

Nice dodge, but we both know you're just tapdancing.

Name a post in which I have spoken about an SSPX priest.

What do you do for your next act?

Martin Luther would be proud...

*Yawn*

Have you told him (Fr. Perricone) that you believe the mass he celebrates (even if in Latin) is an abomination?

He didn't ask.

I wonder if he would agree with your radical schismatic position.

He knows that I go to a Traditional chapel, and he knows my priest, in his words, "very well." He declined my invitation to come & say Mass, saying that "the current situation would make that difficult," and that he hopes I understand.

I do.

Is that the SSPX take on Ignatian Spirituality?

That informaiton os readily available to anyone with a search engine and 30 seconds to spare. I assume you qualify.

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

Men who would give their lives to serving their Church, bishop, and offering the sacraments in their current form, not their form 50 years ago...or 500 years ago...or 1000 years ago...or 1500 years ago. The sacraments as they are to be given today.

See what I mean about "transparent?" If the N.O. Mass and Sacraments are "the way they are to be given today," it implies that Mass and Sacraments as they were offered for 14 centuries are not the way they're to be given today, that they're in some way archaic, or forbidden, or outdated. They're not, and you know it.

on track to be as irrelevant in the future as the "Old Catholic Church" is today. Have fun on your sinking ship.

Looking around, not only is my "ship" afloat, but a steady stream of new crewmwmbers is coming aboard! What's the median age of priests in your diocese, and what's the enrollment in the seminary? Run those numbers for the last decade, and do some projections along the same downward curve for the next decade.

You're taking on water. Man the lifeboats.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

"If I'm wrong for posting the NY Times article, then I'm no more wrong than you are when you post links to websites of misguided fringe elements whom you know full well do not represent the positions of Traditional Catholics."

You are wrong for trying to manipulate the plight of a priest--one who celebrates a Mass that you consider to be an abomination--as if you were his best buddy. You are wrong to infer that my argument is centered on attacking the credibility of the NY Times and the Washington Post when they write about religion. Such an accusation is just an attempt to divert attention from revealing your duplicitous behavior with Fr. Perricone.

Implicit to your statement ("do not represent the positions of Traditional Catholics"), I see that you admit that there is no single position of what you consider to be "tradtional Catholicism." Each schismatic is his own pope, setting the bounds to his own version of what the umbrella includes. Some of you are more inclusive. Some of you (our favorite anti-pope) are less inclusive. Some are inclusive in order to try to appropriate the sympathy points of a "NewChurch" priest like Fr. Perricone, while you are less inclusive when you call the same priest's celebration of Mass as an abomination. What a sad thing to be a schismatic.

AMDG,

Mateo

PS--I do find it humorous that you're going to an event led by a "NewChurch" priest. Do you think he has a lisp? I'll bet these Traditionalist priests do. Oh wait, I'm starting to post like you! That's what I get for hanging around schismatics too much...

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

"Implicit to your statement ("do not represent the positions of Traditional Catholics"), I see that you admit that there is no single position of what you consider to be "tradtional Catholicism." Each schismatic is his own pope, setting the bounds to his own version of what the umbrella includes. Some of you are more inclusive. Some of you (our favorite anti-pope) are less inclusive."

Since when is fallowing ten past popes when the current trys to chaneg things that rae never to be changed... IE; the words of consecration and the words of ordantion... Oh yeah we are our "own popes" Its agood thing we are other wize i would still be in that "catholic school" learning the "sex-ed" ie: ahh just use a condom dont worry about chasity we dont do that anymore.. the truth of the matter is your little English ship is sinking.. Jake is right check your numbers for vocations agenst most of the other orders... keep up that "faith" and you wont have a church soon.. But thats ok because as many have said is past posts: by changing to the english mass we can draw more protestants..

So just keep up that bilnd Falling of the Magisterium. And enjoy those mass with the budda on the altar the pope did... and think anything you like of our sinking ship

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

"Looking around, not only is my "ship" afloat, but a steady stream of new crewmwmbers is coming aboard!"

Many protestant sects grow for a short time. Even Islam is on the rise. My "ship's" got about 1 billion members. How many does yours have? 20,000?

"What's the median age of priests in your diocese, and what's the enrollment in the seminary? Run those numbers for the last decade, and do some projections along the same downward curve for the next decade."

Ask Father Gould. By the way: would you consider three or four priests per parish a "shortage?"

"See what I mean about "transparent?" If the N.O. Mass and Sacraments are "the way they are to be given today," it implies that Mass and Sacraments as they were offered for 14 centuries are not the way they're to be given today, that they're in some way archaic, or forbidden, or outdated. They're not, and you know it."

Now, you're just not making sense. What are you trying to argue? Are you saying that the celebration of the Sacraments hasn't changed based on the teachings of the Church over time?

Was your Baptism done with full immersion, or were you "re-baptised" when you joined your schismatic church?

Were you confirmed as an infant by a priest or by a bishop in your teenage years?

Did you and your wife marry at your home, or in the Church in the presense of a priest? Was the priest the minister of the sacrament, or were you and your wife the ministers? Before 1300-1500, there was still an open question as to whether marriage was even a sacrament.

When you receive the consecrated Host, did you bring it home to your family?

Is your priest married?

Remind me again how the sacraments have never changed in form?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Jews and Muslims, are considered devout..... But the smells and bells crowd,...... that bunch is out!

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

Kevin,

Ouch! I mean OUCH! Just a little proof-reading. It doesn't have to be perfect. Taht wuold mkae me ahppy.

"So just keep up that bilnd Falling of the Magisterium. And enjoy those mass with the budda on the altar..."

Enjoy reading the pagan philosophers: St. Thomas Aquinas did.

If bitterness were a virtue, you schismatics have cornered the market! Most of your post was just negative wishful thinking, Kevin. Was there anything else of substance you'd like me to respond to?

Here's your reading assignment.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"Jews and Muslims, are considered devout..... But the smells and bells crowd,...... that bunch is out!"

I knew I liked you, Bubbles. You rhymed!

Watch out, though. "Smells and bells" doesn't always mean orthodoxy to doctrine!

I think the Vatican has some communication with many groups-- protestants, Orthodox, SSPX, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus. It's healthy to at least keep a line of communication open. I don't what you mean by considering Jews and Muslims devout; maybe you were just looking for a rhyme. All men are called to embrace the Catholic Faith, even if the call isn't in Latin.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

You are wrong for trying to manipulate the plight of a priest

Yeah, you said that last time. I heard you. You have yet to show how. I posted an article because I thought it was shameful that even the appearance of anything pre-Consillier would actually cause parishioners to picket on the sidewalk of their own church. I wrote him a letter to express my empathy, and he responded very graciously. That's all. Stop looking under rocks for a Lafebvrist conspiracy.

--one who celebrates a Mass that you consider to be an abomination- -

Those are your words, not mine.

as if you were his best buddy.

Nope. Just some guy who read an article.

You are wrong to infer that my argument is centered on attacking the credibility of the NY Times and the Washington Post when they write about religion.

Didn't you do just that?

Such an accusation is just an attempt to divert attention from revealing your duplicitous behavior with Fr. Perricone.

...which is?

I see that you admit that there is no single position of what you consider to be "tradtional Catholicism."

There are different positions. Never said there weren't. There are different positions among those of your ilk, as well. Taking the "divide and conquer" approach is hardly appropriate for anyone like you. You people can't agree on anything. There are well-meaning but misguided Novus Ordo attendees, and well-meaning but misguided Traditionalists. I can't understand why you feel as if you've made some sort of big expose.

Some are inclusive in order to try to appropriate the sympathy points of a "NewChurch" priest like Fr. Perricone,

I didn't ask for his sympathy, nor do I want/need it. Quite the contrary. I offered mine!

while you are less inclusive when you call the same priest's celebration of Mass as an abomination.

Those are your words, not mine.

PS--I do find it humorous that you're going to an event led by a "NewChurch" priest.

2 conferences, Rosary, Confessions, and Benediction? Sounds pretty innocuous, and not at all "humourous." If he were going to say (the Novus Ordo) mass, I wouldn't go. I still might not. Haven't made up my mind for sure.

Do you think he has a lisp?

I know he doesn't. I've heard him speak several times.

Oh wait, I'm starting to post like you!

I wonder if this Mass is a Novus Ordo. They're right in your back yard, eh? Why not drop in one Sunday? I mean, as long as they're offering the "right" Mass and all...

That's what I get for hanging around schismatics too much...

I hear 'ya.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

"Those are your words, not mine. "

Or maybe they were Isabel's. I don't remember. Well, leave it to you to be furtive about your feelings about the Catholic Church.

"I can't understand why you feel as if you've made some sort of big expose. "

As long as we're in agreement that nothing binds you schismatics together except your conspiracy theories, centered around the Catholic Church. That's the only thing that unites protestants, too. As I've said before, it must be nice to have a boogie man to blame all your problems on.

Enjoy,

Mateo

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

CHAPTER III, part 7 THE POST-CONCILIAR RITE OF ORDERS

Comparing the traditional with the post-conciliar matter and form for ordaining bishops As noted above, Pope Pius XII, while in no way changing the rite used since time immemorial (60) determined in a presumably infallible manner that: 'In the Ordination or Consecration of Bishops the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the consecrating Bishop. The form consists of the words in the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: 'comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica - fill up in Thy priest the perfection (summum can also be translated 'fullness') of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment this Thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty.' Later in the same document he states: 'We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it...'

One would have thought that this statement by Pius XII had settled the issue once and for all. Not so! Only 20 years later we find Paul VI issuing his Apostolic Constitution entitled Pontificalis Romani (June 23, 1968) in which he retains the matter -the laying on of hands - but in which he specifies that the form for ordaining bishops is to be: 'et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolis, qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indificientem nominis tui - So now pour forth upon this chosen one that power which is from You, the governing Spirit whom You gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.'(61)

We have then two forms, or more precisely two groups of 'essential' words wherein the substance of the form is to be found, and both of which are stated to be required for validity. How are we to explain this apparent disparity. We know that the Church has the right to change the wording of the form for Holy Orders, but only in so far as she doesn't change their 'substance' or meaning. The problem to be resolved then, is whether both forms mean the same thing. Several approaches are possible:

1) We can compare the wording of the two forms and find those words or phrases held in common. Doing this however yields the following common element: the single word 'et' which means 'and.' Now, obviously 'and' cannot represent the substantial aspect of these two forms and such an approach must be rejected as absurd.

2) Another way to determine the substance of the form is to consider the various consecratory prayers in use throughout the universal Church (Eastern and Western). This was indeed done by Jean Moran, and still later, by the English bishops in their 'Vindication of the Bull' Apostolicae curae.'(62) 'In each of the rites which the Catholic Church has recognized, the 'essential form' is contained in a 'consecrating prayer' to accompany the imposition of hands, and these prayers are in all cases of the same type, defining in some way or other the Order to which the candidate is being promoted, and beseeching god to bestow upon him the graces of his new state.'(63) They then proceed to give a list of these prayers which includes the ancient Leonine Sacramentary 'still preserved in the modern Pontifical,' the Greek, the Syro-Maronite (which is also the Syro- Jacobite), the Nestorian, the Armenian, the Coptic (or Alexandro- Jacobite) and the Abyssinian, together with the ancient Gallican, the rite in the Apostolic constitutions, and the 'Canons of St. Hippolytus.' They proceed to list the significant words respectively in each - the 'High Priesthood' (summi sacerdotii), the 'Pontifical dignity,' the term 'Bishop,:' the 'perfect (or complete) priest,' and the 'Episcopate.' This specification is to be found in all the known used forms (i.e., in the essential words of the various Western Catholic and Orthodox Churches).(64) It is even found in the Canons of Hippolytus. The form of Paul VI does not fill these requirements. Present in the words specified by Pius XII, it is conspicuous by its absence in the post-Conciliar form. Neither the rank, nor the power, nor a clear equivalent is present. And as Leo XIII made clear in his Apostolicae curae, the mentioning of the Holy Ghost - if 'Governing Spirit' is in fact the Holy Ghost - is insufficient.

3) Another way to determine what is substantial is to consider the opinions of the theologians during the post-Reformation period. They are reviewed in some detail by Paul Bradshaw in his history of the Anglican Ordinal. One such individual was the Benedictine Wilfrid Raynal who stated that a valid form must express the distinctive character of the order being conferred in one of three ways: a) An allusion to the type found in the ancient Testament of the order conferred; b) The mention of some spiritual power which is the distinctive privilege of the order to which the candidate is raised; or c) The actual mention made of the office under the name which from earliest times has become attached to it, viz summus sacerdos for Bishop or Sacerdos secundi ordinis for Priest. He further added that the actual mention of the words Bishop and priest must really and truly bear the meaning attached to them by the Universal Church. A formal denial of the distinctive character of these two sacred offices must vitiate the Intention, and would render the ordination null and void. Now, as Bradshaw points out, 'all the Western and Eastern forms fulfilled these requirements.' The new rite of Paul VI does not.

All debate is resolved by the statement of Pius XII in his Sacramentum Ordinis. As the renowned theologian J.M. Hervé, who considers this definition infallible, states: 'forma vero, quae et una est, sunt verba, quibus significatur effectum sacramentale, silicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti - the true form (i.e., the substance of the form) is that which signifies the sacramental effect, which is to say the power of 'orders (i.e., priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Spirit.'(65)

Consider once again the form specified by Paul VI: 'So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing spirit whom you gave to your beloved son Jesus Christ, the spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.'

It is perfectly clear that in no place is it specified that the rank or dignity of a Bishop has been conferred. The request that God give the 'governing Spirit' (Spiritum principalem - whatever that is) 'whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy Apostles' may imply that he is raised to the rank of the Apostles, but it doesn't clearly so state. The sacramental effect is not clearly specified and at best we are left with another post-Conciliar ambiguity. Again, in the former, the grace of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated by the time honored phrase 'Coelestis unguenti rore' while in the latter we are left with a phrase entirely new to sacramental theology -spiritum principalem. In so far as some will argue that this phrase (or the phrase 'eam virtutem quae a te est, Spiritum Principalem) suffices for the substance of the form, and indeed, in so far as it is the only phrase in the new form for which such a claim could be made, it behooves us to examine it in detail.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

Jake,

It's just a matter of following your links...

"Dignity" has Masses each Sunday in Washington. Here's their church. Do you think that Bishop Loverde or Cardinal McCarrick support them? Didn't you say something about Bishop Loverde wanting gays in the priesthood? Hmmm...

Do you think it is wrong for them to defy the wishes of their bishop?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Bubbles,

More random cut-and-paste? What for?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

You don't refute it.... You just cute it. Nice going!

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

If the bishop wants gays, the bishop gets gays. You guys had better start obeying, right now. You don't have to like it... Just obey it" these "flower children" didn't get in by the underground railroad. They had a "friend" at Chase Manhattan.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

"You don't refute it.... You just cute it. Nice going!"

Refute what? If I posted pages of cut-and-paste text and didn't say why, would you be interested in reading it in its entirety?

Without intending to "refute" what you posted, I asked a simple question. What is the point of your cut-and-paste?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

i dont have time to read bubbles post so no clue what was said there but... You can call us a sect all you like you have yet to prove that the mass was changed because of a good reason other then it brings more prosestants back.. So me where they said to make all these changes to the mass.. you keep saying it was correct show me where..

untill l8r when i have to argue with you again for lack of sense...

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

\

See what I mean Mateo.

Bishop Bad Boy Santa Rosa's charismatic Catholic bishop got busted shaking down a priest for sex. But he had friends in high places -- and they served him well. BY RON RUSSELL ron.russell@sfweekly.com

Courtesy of the Press Democrat

After he was caught exploiting a subordinate priest for sex, G. Patrick Ziemann could have been consigned to a life of ignominy upon stepping down as the Roman Catholic bishop of Santa Rosa in 1999. And after he left the sprawling diocese that stretches from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border $16 million in debt following his seven years there, at least a few angry Catholics believe he walked away with far too little punishment. But life after the fall has turned out to be relatively sweet for the charismatic and once wildly popular religious leader known to many as Bishop Pat, despite his notoriety as one of the American church's highest-ranking bad boys. Residing in comfortable, if not luxurious, exile at a monastery in the Arizona desert that doubles as a tourist destination, Ziemann, 61, is fit, tanned, and in good spirits. A fixture on the artsy party circuit in nearby Tucson, he's even spotted occasionally at a karaoke bar. Although his clerical privileges are restricted while he undergoes "spiritual rehabilitation," church officials haven't ruled out the possibility that the disgraced bishop may someday get a crack at heading another diocese.

And neither has he.

"It's whatever the Lord wills," he tells SF Weekly in the first newspaper interview he has granted in the nearly four years since being engulfed in scandal. "Whatever the Lord has in mind for me, I'm willing to accept."

That this fallen star among U.S. Catholic leaders -- even one who claims to pray four hours a day, as Ziemann does -- entertains the possibility of a career comeback is itself revealing. After all, it was only a few years ago that he forced a young priest to wear a beeper so that he could summon him for trysts in cars, hotel rooms, and even the Santa Rosa Diocese office. (Once, police reports reveal, Ziemann had the cleric orally copulate him on the eve of their joint celebration of a special Sunday Mass.) Then again, as his kid-glove treatment since being banished from Santa Rosa suggests, Ziemann may know too much to be jettisoned. Even now, more than a year after priestly sex abuse burst into the headlines -- first in Boston and then across the nation -- the former leader of 140,000 Northern California Catholics looms as a tantalizing figure in the unraveling scandal afflicting the church.

He has been protected by and remains intimately connected with three influential fellow hierarchs, including San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada. It was Levada who presided over Ziemann's skipping away from Santa Rosa with criminal impunity after church officials refused to fully cooperate with authorities. Ziemann's mentor and chief patron is Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, whose problems with pedophile priests rival the scandal-plagued Boston archdiocese's. The other member of the troika is Manuel Moreno, who until his surprise resignation this month for health reasons, was bishop of Tucson, Ariz., and in whose diocese Ziemann was given refuge at the Holy Trinity Monastery near the legendary gunslinging town of Tombstone. Moreno has a long and tawdry record in covering up for pedophile priests.

Ziemann's ties to the trio was obvious.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

You don't read anything, therefore you don't learn anything, Mateo. Ignorance is bliss..... sometimes.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

"i dont have time to read bubbles post so no clue what was said there"

Glad I'm not the only one.

"but... You can call us a sect all you like"

I don't recall ever describing psuedo-traditionalists (is that a better term?) as a "sect." To me, the term "sect" infers a unity of belief, which I don't believe exists in their schism.

"you have yet to prove that the mass was changed because of a good reason other then it brings more prosestants back."

I do not have to prove anything, as I am a mere believer in the Catholic Faith. There is an open-endedness about your statement, though. You aren't questioning a single change; but are trying to discuss all change. I don't think that one can do this; because the answer varies based on the change in question. If you really are interested in a particular "novelty," I would recommend that you post a new thread, as Jaime did, to isolate the discussion. That makes discussion a bit more worthwhile.

"So me where they said to make all these changes to the mass."

Same comment. Isolate the change.

"you keep saying it was correct show me where."

Well, I am not the final judge on "correctness." I can quote the Holy Scriptures, writings of the Church and her saints, and historical commentary, as I did with Jaime. I would be happy to do the same for you, if you would like to bring up a specific issue.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"You don't read anything, therefore you don't learn anything, Mateo. Ignorance is bliss..... sometimes."

Bubbles,

I asked for a reason. If you have no reason for posting cut-and-paste, just say it. Sell me on why I should invest my time in what took you a couple of key-strokes to post. Otherwise, get over the "Ignorance is Bliss" accusation.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Dignity" has Masses each Sunday in Washington. Here's their church. Do you think that Bishop Loverde or Cardinal McCarrick support them?

I don't know. Is the church part of the diocese? Is the priest associated with the diocese? If the answer to either question is yes, then the answer to your question is also yes. They approve, at least implicitly, by allowing it to take place/continue to take place.

Didn't you say something about Bishop Loverde wanting gays in the priesthood? Hmmm...

That's his problem (and yours, I suppose), not mine.

Do you think it is wrong for them to defy the wishes of their bishop?

I don't know that they are defying his wishes, but I'll look into that a little more.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

"I don't know. Is the church part of the diocese? Is the priest associated with the diocese? If the answer to either question is yes, then the answer to your question is also yes. They approve, at least implicitly, by allowing it to take place/continue to take place."

I tell you what, Jake. Why don't you follow the link that I provided you? Maybe you could use your detective skills to figure out the answers to your questions.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

Mateo; It is not the cut and paste that is important. It is the content, that is so.

I do not mean dissrespect when I say this, but it is the only way to say it. When the pope says something, (anything, for that matter), the Novus folks, automaticly take it as the gospel truth. Look at the history of the Church. Popes have constantly been challenged by saints. The pope was proven wong on many occasions. Why does John Paul have this aura of infallibility on everything he says. Sometimes it clashes with the most solemn teachings of the Church, but somehow the faithfull will make it fit. If possible, could you please point out one thing in the past 25 years, that you challenge.

Up front, I will bet not.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

Maybe you could use your detective skills to figure out the answers to your questions.

I guess I'm just not that interested.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

"Mateo; It is not the cut and paste that is important. It is the content, that is so."

I am sure you think it is. You still haven't explained why you posted the cut-and-paste.

"I do not mean dissrespect when I say this, but it is the only way to say it. When the pope says something, (anything, for that matter), the Novus folks, automaticly take it as the gospel truth."

I wish that Catholics would take the pope's words as "gospel truth." There are plenty of freelance theologians (Kung, CFFC, SSPXers, etc) out there second-gruessing him.

Here's some reading for you.

There is a reason that we Catholics owe a special allegiance to all of the pope's teachings (even ones that are not ex Cathedra) From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 496. Who is the visible Head of the Church?

A. Our Holy Father the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible Head of the Church.

Q. 497. What does "vicar" mean?

A. Vicar is a name used in the Church to designate a person who acts in the name and authority of another. Thus a Vicar Apostolic is one who acts in the name of the Pope, and a Vicar General is one who acts in the name of the bishop."

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

From Lumen Gentium: "...loyal submission of will and intellect must be given … to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra."

"Look at the history of the Church. Popes have constantly been challenged by saints. The pope was proven wong on many occasions."

OK. Do you have a problem with the documents of Vatican I as well? Maybe you could join the Old Catholic Church.

"Why does John Paul have this aura of infallibility on everything he says."

Well, refer back to the Lumen Gentium quote.

"Sometimes it clashes with the most solemn teachings of the Church, but somehow the faithfull will make it fit."

Like priests going by their first names? You know, it is about this point in the debate when the psuedo-trad accuser gets a little quiet. If you believe the Pope's teachings are not Catholic, start a new thread with your accusations. But give us an example!

"If possible, could you please point out one thing in the past 25 years, that you challenge."

I don't know where this comment comes from. I'm sure you have some purpose. When I have issues, don't worry, I make them known.

"Up front, I will bet not."

That's the spirit!

AMDG,

Mateo

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

I would start another tread if i had the time but as i have classes most of the day i just waste time with the ignorance and the denail. I waste enough time as it is...

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

Jake: "I guess I'm just not that interested. "

Well, Jake, it's pretty easy to follow a link. But, I wouldn't want to shatter your belief in this little conspiracy theory.

It's must be tough to be proven wrong all the time, Jake. I feel a little sorry for you.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"I would start another tread if i had the time but as i have classes most of the day i just waste time with the ignorance and the denail. I waste enough time as it is..."

At least you don't waste time on punctuation, right? L@L :-)

Mateo

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

The Novus Ordo Bishops Bluntly Repudiate

the Dogmatic Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence!

“An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003 * (U.S. Catholic Bishops – Secretariat for Interreligious Affairs: http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm)*

“IV. Recommendations -“We are aware that the problem of the theology of the Filioque… Although dialogue among a number of these Churches and the Orthodox communion has already touched on the issue, any future resolution of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Spirit must involve all those communities that profess the Creed of 381 as a standard of faith. Aware of its limitations, our Consultation nonetheless makes the following theological and practical recommen­dations to the members and the bishops of our own Churches… · that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit…

· that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

· that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

“We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit need no longer divide us.”

Comment: This is an incredible heresy, but first a little background. It is a defined dogma that God the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle… This the holy Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches… But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”

-- Pospicel (Bohunk@yohunk.com), November 21, 2003.

Hey ! somebody beat me to the punch. I don't need any help here.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

I cant help it i cant spell.. can thank that "catholic school" i went to for that too... Just another class to go to.. Spelling class here i come

KeV

-- Kevin WIsniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

This is the first time I've seen this ecumenical document from the USCCB 's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. While one of their recommendations is suspicious, I'll try to read their document when I have some time.

Bubbles, I'm still waiting for the doctrinal errors of Pope John Paul II. If you remember, that was the initial accusation you made. Rest assured, no one has "beat you to the punch."

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"I cant help it i cant spell.. can thank that "catholic school" i went to for that too... Just another class to go to.. Spelling class here i come"

Well, maybe you should have gone to public school like I did. I do like how you transformed your own fault into a way to blame someone else. That's a hallmark of American society. "I'm just a victim!" L@L

AMDG,

Mateo

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

proven wrong all the time, Jake.

Err.

OK.

I feel a little sorry for you.

Not my problem.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

I didn't say it was your problem. I suppose it's not really my problem that you're outside of the Catholic Church; but I still pray for your return. And that's not your problem, either.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

you're outside of the Catholic Church

Am not.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 21, 2003.

Jake; have some respect. Pope Matty has spoken.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

Someone wrote at the beginning of this thread: But if he is claiming that the documents of Vatican II and/or the post-conciliar papal and Vatican-curial documents and/or the 1969/1970 Roman Missal and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and/or the 1983 Code of Canon Law is/are "novelty/novelties" ... then he is still in a pseudo-traditionalist schism (a la the Society of St. Pius X).

Which I would like to point out includes the thought that:

"if he is claiming that the 1969 Roman Missal is "novelty", then he is schism."

We must remember that "novelty" comes from the word "new", or "novus". And we all know that the New Mass is just that. I encourage everyone here to read what Paul VI himself said of the changes. He called them a novelty. After reading the following quote, I also encourage all to go to www.papalencyclicals.net and do a keyword search for "novel" (and forms such as innovate or innovation) and see how the Church previous to Vatican II condemned it. _________________________________________

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE Pope Paul VI

Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.

5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

7. The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the "royal priesthood"; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?

10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).

13. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

14. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See's official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

15. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.

16. But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul's relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic rite of his last supper. He leaves us his body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.

17. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?

18. To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:

1) For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the new rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above.

2) For the vernacular text. In Italy, all those who celebrate in the presence of the people from November 30 next, must use the Rito delta Messa published by the Italian Episcopal Conference or by another National Conference. On feast days readings shall be taken: either from the Lectionary published by the Italian Center for Liturgical Action, or from the Roman Missal for feast days, as in use heretofore. On ferial days the ferial Lectionary published three years ago shall continue to be used. No problem arises for those who celebrate in private, because they must celebrate in Latin. If a priest celebrates in the vernacular by special indult, as regards the texts, he shall follow what was said above for the Mass with the people; but for the rite he shall follow the Ordo published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.

19. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that "the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present" (Zundel).

With Our Apostolic Benediction.

---------------------------------- L'Osservatore Romano (English Edition) December 4, 1969

-- Rawbit (rawbit64@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X (c. May 10, 1909)]"

I love our Popes!

What were you saying, Jake?

AMDG,

Mateo

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

"Jake; have some respect. Pope Matty has spoken. "

Yeah, Jake! Have some respect! Bubbles, I really enjoy your posts.

AMDG,

Mateo

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

lol you have problems Mateo...

-- Kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

That's Pope Matt to you, Kevin! :-)

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

lol and with that i quit this room... I have to score down for about 5 years with the touch pad on the laptop... see you in another room..

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

Scroll*

-- kevin w (kez38spl@charter.net), November 21, 2003.

Yeah, Jake! Have some respect!

Wait just a second, pal. I was crowned Pope Joke I recently. So, uh,

*clears throat*

We do, therefore, anathemize Matt I and solemnly declare that he has incurred the grave penalty of excommunication.

Tough break, kid. I kinda feel sorry for you, being outside the church & all.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 22, 2003.

What were you saying, Jake?

"I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

Pope St. Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, "To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries"

-- jake (j@k.e), November 22, 2003.

So Jake,

You agree with only some of Pope St. Piux X's statements? Isn't that cafeteria Catholicism?

You wrote:

"We do, therefore, anathemize Matt I and solemnly declare that he has incurred the grave penalty of excommunication."

Didn't you mean:

"We do, therefore, @n@themize M@tt I @nd solemnly decl@re th@t he h@s incurred the gr@ve pen@lty of excommunic@tion."

That looks more official...

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 22, 2003.

I think that Mateo's position and jake's position on these questions is best addressed, proceeding from principle, in Mateo's thread which he started here.

It might be helpful to reduce the conversation down to first principles as much as possible, and to proceed from there.

The objective, I would assume, is knowledge of the truth. This will be the direction from which I intend to come from, and would hope that all other participants in the discussion will be of the same intent.

-- 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.

I'm afraid, Paul, that the truth is that the laity have no business identifying other members of the Mystical Body of Christ as being schismatics when it has not been declared so by the Holy Father himself.

I claim victory by default by the very fact that those who claim that traditionalist Catholics are in schism cannot supply evidence to support such a claim.

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

No, but we can say that certain movements that call themselves "Traditinalist," who reject some or all of Vatican II and hold themselves as the sole authoritative interpreters of Scripture, Church teaching, and private revelation are not un union with the Magisterium.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.

You can even say that. You leave unclarified what is meant by "reject[ing] some or all of Vatican II", and all who have been asked to clarify have not done so.

There is still no clarification on exactly what it is that's being rejected.

If I don't get a decent, direct answer soon to the basis of this charge against traditional Catholics being in schism, without having the simple questions deleted and responded to in a substantive manner, I may consider opening a static site with reference to this server in order to examine the claim in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

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

You can't even say that, I meant, obviously.

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

Dear Emerald; adieu, adios, arrivederci, au revoir, auf wiedersehen, bye, bye-bye, ciao, chow, cheerio, good day, good-bye,,sayonara so long.

Paul this calls for a clebration, Allelulia!

Alleluia Alleluia let the holy anthem rise And the choirs of heaven chant it In the temple of the skies Let the mountains skip with gladness And the joyful valleys ring With Hosannas in the highest To our Saviour and our King

Alleluia Alleluia He endur'd the knotted whips And the jering of the rabble And the scorn of mocking lips And the terrors of the gibbet Upon wich He would be slain But His death was only slumber He is risen up again

Alleluia Alleluia like the sun from out the wave He has risen up in triumph from The darkness of the grave He's the Splendour of the Nations He's the lamp of endless day He's the very Lord of Glory Who is risen up today

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

make that a "celebration" even!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

I composed this for you kiwi; hope it helps. =)

O Mighty Delete-Button, we thank thee for having delivered us from reminders of documents and doctrines past, yeah, and from the living of the same, and for saving us from all of our Traditionalist foes. When truth and the clarity of it dampened our spirits, we hath found comfort in thee. From henceforth as we walketh through the valley of ambiguity, thou shalt ever be at our side to comfort us in our contradictions, for thou, O mighty Delete-Button, hath been our only recourse.

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

The joy that emits from the mouths of the ignorant, is a thing to behold. Reminds one of that day in Israel, whe the Lord said in effect "Dump that place and shine your shoes".

-- (Gogo,@whats new.com), November 24, 2003.

I am thrilled, Kiwi. Thanks for printing the lyrics of my very favorite Easter hymn. (I'm so happy that I'll even misspell it -- "favourite" -- for you.) This is truly a day for rejoicing.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

Hey - that's not a misspelling!

By the way, I'm going back to Canada today, and I'll get to see all my family!

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 25, 2003.

The crisis in the Church has risen to a new level with the publication of the new message of John Paul II. the theme of which is "Mission is Proclamation of Forgiveness." Some nice things, some true things, are said in the document. Jesus forgave His enemies from the Cross. True! We must love one another as He has loved us. True! We must love and forgive our enemies. Difficult, yet true! But, incredibly, throughout the whole document there is not one mention of the necessity of Baptism, and this in a document on the evangelizing mission of the Church. In fact, near the beginning of the document, Jesus is quoted as saying: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt.28:19,20). You expected perhaps to hear: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…" But that part of the quotation has been omitted in the document, because it refers to Baptism.

-- James Epstein (ranchero@theplains.com), November 26, 2003.

So what's your point? Are you suggesting that the Church places less emphasis on Baptism than previously? The sacrament is still the sole means of entry into the Church and into eternal life. One document cannot stress every aspect of Christian formation. Baptism is not the subject of this document. Why is that a problem? I bet this document doesn't delve into the subject of Confirmation either. Why would it?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 26, 2003.

If you will read what it is saying, the article does indeed need to mention baptizing, or it cuts off the complete words of the Saviour.

It concerns going out and preaching the gospenl. You can find the whole quote in the bible.

-- James Epstein (Ranchero@theplains.com), November 26, 2003.

Before ascending into heaven, Jesus commanded the apostles saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

-- James Epstein (Ranchero@theplains.com), November 26, 2003.

Evangelization necessarily precedes baptism. They are not one and the same thing. The document you refer to deals with the single subject of evangelization. As such there is no reason to expect that it will stray off into discussion of the sacraments or other related topics. Certainly there could be a document on the broad subject of Christian initiation, and such a document would necessarily have to address evangelization, baptism, repentance and confession, the Eucharist, and Confirmation. However, it is certainly possible for a document to address confession without addressing evangelization - or to address evangelization without addressing baptism, as in the present case. Apparently you wish this document was broader in scope. But it isn't; and that doesn't make it lacking in any way. It presents its specific topic, and presents it well.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 26, 2003.

Ephesians 4: 1 - 6 1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

-- Mike Hedges (mhedges@charter.net), January 29, 2004.