Why is the Church again building an ugly cathedral. Once again I see a church devoid of almost any religious significance, except for the cross in it. And it's a cross not even a crusifix.

This is the new Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland, CA.

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0601/cal/

It is about a quarter of the way down on the right-side of the page.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003

Answers

Scott,

Is this even a Catholic Church? It doesn't look like one.

-- Melanie (design465@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Here is their home page:

http://www.christtheli ghtcathedral.org/

I don't know.. there are a number of traditional archetected churches in the SF Bay area (even gothic) for people looking for that style. If this brings in some people who may otherwise not set foot into a church, it could be a good thing.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Here's a good article along these lines.

Ugly churches are never a "good thing." That logic runs along the lines of: "Well, I know she's wearing a halter top and a miniskirt in church, but hey, she came to church, so it's a good thing."

-- jake (j@k.e), December 10, 2003.

Melanie,

Yeah this is a Catholic Church. It is the Diocese of Oakland's new cathedral. Like LA they had to build a new one because there old one was damaged by an earthquake.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

I THINK its justa post modenrist phase in buiding styrctures we are seeing. I see lots of ugly buildings of any sort these days... sorry to say the Cathlic archetecture is swallowing this line as well in some areas...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 10, 2003.

What if Jesus Christ likes a church, even if it's ugly? Not inconceivable; He was born in a cave. There is a streak of materialism in many souls who judge something by its external appearance.

As a boy in New Mexico, I was taken to Mass at a tiny adobe church in Atrisco, on the outskirts of Albuquerque. It was four walled, nothing graceful of lines, tall but not very wide. A short bellfry with one bell, and the outer skin was plain mud-color. The pews inside were rough-hewn and unpainted. This was way before Vatican II, of course in a poor part of town.

Looking back I know in my heart now; it was a true corner of heaven on earth; and particularly because our old Franciscan priest was such a teddy bear. If someone had ever called his parish church ugly; it would have broken Father Paul's heart. I know he wouldn't have parted with that little mud house of God. May he bless us all today from his mansion in God's heavenly Jerusalem.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.

There's more to this than a matter of personal taste. For more information, read this excellent book.

I've been to Mass in a stone hut, too, with no electric light, in the freezing cold, kneeling on the frozen dirt floor, and it was indescribably beautiful. That's not what we're talking about here, though. The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like.

There's more of a connection between art/architecture and faith than many realize. Nothing is in the soul that is not first in the senses (I can't remember who said that, but I wish it was me!). That's all I'm really trying to say. We're sensate creatures. "Smells and bells" create an atmosphere of prayer. Neocubist monolithic murals do not.

...or maybe I'm just an elitist Pharisee.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 10, 2003.

Jake ====> "The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like."

If the people doing the new designing do not SAY that they are making a deliberate attempt to change theology, then we have no right to make assumptions and accuse them of doing this. What can happen instead is that some folks get addicted to certain older styles and become close-minded to new ones, even new ones designed by people whose theology is perfectly OK.

"De gustibus non disputandum."

-- Me (no@importa.com), December 10, 2003.

some folks get addicted to certain older styles and become close- minded to new ones

This is what I'd consider a "new style" Catholic church:



Please consider my mind closed to it, or anything remotely like it.


Closed.


Tightly.

"De gustibus non disputandum."

Fac ut vivas.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 10, 2003.

Jake,
The style of architecture you love is fine. I love refined taste in a church. I've been in some of Spain's most glorious churches; and they haven't lost their attraction. Vatican II didn't have any of them destroyed; nor Saint Patrick's in NYC. We have them all; and we have many lesser churches. This statement: ''The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like.'' is born of your complete departure from love and humility. You cannot believe this.

Yes, good taste is better than bad. Love is also better than pride and obstinacy. Mind your own actions and allow others to live as good Catholics. --Without your restless animosity?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.

Jake, I liked your picture better than Oakland design--the first thing that came to my mind was not "church", but "hangar".

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 10, 2003.

"The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like."

Bingo. Not that there's anything intrinsically Catholic about Bingo, but in context here, it's Catholic alright.

"...or maybe I'm just an elitist Pharisee."

I'm with you all the way. Here to help.

That picture you posted above? It looks like a compressed Stonehenge.

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

Thank you, Emerald. Your vocation is very apparent. To have fun with the faith; answer to no one and be ready every day in case a Catholic you don't agree with gets too serious. Yes; and all the while you stand for tradition. Is there anything else you wanted poke fun at? Come on! Groucho Marx as Catholic --You oughta be in pictures.

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

Let me think about it and I'll get back to you.

But it goes something like this, and it makes a little bit of sense: I see the Faith as a supreme romance. But when romance goes astray, it can provide a lot of fodder for comedy.

I said could... it could provide the fodder for it. You are not bound by any ecclesiastical decree to actually laugh, although there are exceptions.

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

On second thought Eugene, maybe I shouldn't have pushed the point in exactly that manner. My apologies if my style doesn't serve the discussion here.

But two real things are work here; you said:

"As a boy in New Mexico, I was taken to Mass at a tiny adobe church in Atrisco, on the outskirts of Albuquerque. It was four walled, nothing graceful of lines, tall but not very wide. A short bellfry with one bell, and the outer skin was plain mud-color. The pews inside were rough-hewn and unpainted. This was way before Vatican II, of course in a poor part of town. Looking back I know in my heart now; it was a true corner of heaven on earth..."

I'm pretty sure that I would be with you all the way on that score; I know the kind of thing you're getting at. But when you say this:

"There is a streak of materialism in many souls who judge something by its external appearance."

...thoughts are going to go in the direction of that humble church you are talking about that was pleasing to God but to the monstrosities that are now being built with millions of dollars of the parishoner's money that are an affront to the faith. It's a real problem; I've got pictures on my desk here of that real problem locally. A lot of the new architecture contains imagery and symbolism in design which is not at all Catholic but just plain new age and strays into territory that is not at all Catholic. It's even more than just a matter of being dirt ugly.

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

Yes, good taste is better than bad. Love is also better than pride and obstinacy. Mind your own actions and allow others to live as good Catholics. --Without your restless animosity?

Where is this coming from, Gene? How is it prideful to believe that if a parish is financially capable to provide a grand palace for Our Lord, that it is inexcusable that the end result in this day and age is almost always something that looks like the picture above, or even worse, Card. Mahoney's monstrosity? Why is it prideful to suggest that if a church is a house for the Blessed Sacrament, then the atmosphere should foster a sense of reverence and Catholic faith?

Monies are spent on "renovations." What always happens is that rather than repair chipped statues and refurbish old pews, statues are removed, pews are replaced with comfy, padded chairs (sans kneelers, of course) beautiful stained glass windows depicting various saints are replaced with images of peaceful landscapes and fruit. And the worst of all - for Christ a separate "chapel" is added on - separate from the area where His children gather supposedly for Him. How do these "renovations" foster the Catholic faith? A sense of Other- worldliness? Awe?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 11, 2003.

This statement: (quoting me): ''The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like.'' is born of your complete departure from love and humility.

Stating that architecture and faith are connected makes me hateful & proud, then? Well, OK. Tell ya what, I'll go a step further and say that old architecture is incompatable with new theology. Result: "Compressed Stonehenge."

You cannot believe this.

I can, and do.

Love is also better than pride and obstinacy. Mind your own actions and allow others to live as good Catholics. --Without your restless animosity?

I realize you're looking for a fight. Bravo for you for having some fight left in you at your age! It's just that you create chasms too huge to brigde, i.e., insinuating that ugly church=house of love and humility and jake likes old churches=jake is a Pharisee.

Your argument deflates in on itself in your struggle to keep it alive for the sake of having something to fight about.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

Jake,
We have no argument. I told you plain that I love refined Catholic churches, with beauty and devotion side by side.

You are the only arguer. You once more insist on treating the ''ugly'' with the same beady-eyed disgust you treat our Holy Mass. (Which means OUR, yours as well as mine.)

I've often said CORRECTLY, you are dividers. Nothing pleases you more than attacking every post-Vatican II move; you will never unite. (That's a definition of schism right there.)

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

For Emerald:
I'm not bound by ecclesiastical decree to negate your heart-felt problems with architecture in the 21st century. But I know of NO ugly churches. I know of bad architects, and of poor taste. But no Catholic church is ugly, Em.

Here's the words: ''talking about that was pleasing to God but to the monstrosities that are now being built with millions of dollars of the parishoner's money that are an affront to the faith.'' Isn't that a bit TOO-TOO? No, we haven't built affronts to the faith. The faith stands upon more than your good taste, Sir. Pardon me for saying but: if God lives for me in a ''monstrosity'' and you won't come in with Him, YOU are the loser. I'll be where He is pleased to be, with His holy people.

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

You once more insist on treating the ''ugly'' with the same beady- eyed disgust you treat our Holy Mass.

See what I mean about looking for a fight?

Nothing pleases you more than attacking every post-Vatican II move;

You mean...all this ugliness is connected with the Council in some way? Fascinating premise. Tell me more.

you will never unite. (That's a definition of schism right there.)

I'm schismatic because I detest horrid architecture? Gene, remember what I said about those gaps you create? Also, please keep in mind the moderator's new guidelines and kindly play by the rules.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

No Dear Boy; I said because you ''will never unite''-- not because of taste. I actually believe I top you in taste. If I were just looking for a fight, I'd put your so-called taste down. But I am not.

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

This statement: ''The problem is a deliberate attempt to change theology by changing conceptions of what a church should look like.'' --is so off the wall as to demolish your arguments completely. First, you say deliberate. That's dumber than the architecture is. ''Change in theology'' is a feeble or stupid analogy to bad taste in buildings, Jake. That's what I meant when I remembered the adobe church with affection. It was a rustic mud building; but the theology within was divine.

The ''monstrosities'' Emerald decries are as divine as the use they're put to, not just bad architecture. They house the Catholic faith, whose theology never changes.

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

No, we haven't built affronts to the faith

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been inside churches which are Catholic in name only - Meaning that there is nothing inside, atmosphere-wise, which clearly demonstrates that one is in a Catholic church - No statues, kneelers, tabernacle to be easily found, an "altar" which looks more like a diningroom table, no Stations, no stained-glass windows depicting saints.

If you can admit that these sorts of church buildings exsist, how can you say that they are *not* an affront to the faith? If you insist they are not, can you explain how they emphasize the faith? Can you explain how expressions of Catholic belief and worship can be found in the absence of kneelers, the difficulty of locating the tabernacle? How can the Catholic veneration of saints be recognized in a parish where no statues of saints are to be found? How can a parish called 'Blessed Sacrament' justify hiding the Blessed Sacrament in another room?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 11, 2003.

said because you ''will never unite''-- not because of taste.

I'll leave your rulebreaking for the Moderator to deal with, if he chooses to do so.

I actually believe I top you in taste.

I'm quite sure you do.

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

First, you say deliberate. That's dumber than the architecture is.

That awful Californian nightmare of a building was built...accidentally?

feeble or stupid analogy to bad taste in buildings, Jake.

I think bad taste is ugly. Apparently you do not. Your problem.

The ''monstrosities'' Emerald decries are as divine as the use they're put to, not just bad architecture.

I suppose a priest could say Mass at McDonald's, too. That doesn't make McDonald's suitable for the purpose. It's possible, I suppose, to build a library under a bowling alley, too. The fact that something can be done does not justify the idiocy of doing it.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

The ''monstrosities'' Emerald decries are as divine as the use they're put to, not just bad architecture. They house the Catholic faith, whose theology never changes.

See though, Gene, one wonders if they even planning to house the Faith there at all. Take a good long look at the link from this thread's original Church-in- question.

Do you see the Faith even being mentioned on that website? I don't.

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

I don't care to, Emerald. I'm content with the fact we have the Blessed Sacrament for it's occupant. Your partner claims there is some reason for an ugly church, related to ''changing the theology''. He's concocting a conspiracy theory for us, since he seems to think the effort is deliberate, in order to change our Church's theology!

Nice building, nicer theology. Bad building, not so nice in theology. Haha!!!

Well, Jake's wrong. He confronts me with: ''First, you (Gene) say deliberate. That's dumber than the architecture is.'' (My words) -- and quips:

That awful Californian nightmare of a building was built...accidentally? (Very cute.)

No, Jake; the ''changing of our theology'' is NOT a deliberate strategy; AS YOU SAID. As if you had seen the truth. God is the real owner of that church, FYI.

There isn't even some strategy, or that INTENTION, in building churches you hate to look at. That isn't a fact. Sorry to have to disappoint ya ! ! !

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

Gene, it's true. Who wants to believe this? I don't either, but it's still true.

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

For your lovely Spouse:

No, we haven't built affronts to the faith, Regina. REPEAT: NO!

She inquired: ''How can you say that they are *not* an affront to the faith? Can you explain how they emphasize the faith? Can you explain how expressions of Catholic belief and worship can be found in the absence of kneelers, ( ? ? ? ) the difficulty of locating the tabernacle?''

Just a harrowing experience! Going to Church! Haha! If you cannot ''find'' the tabernacle, Regina, just ASK somebody where it might be. Maybe it's hiding from you & Jake on purpose!

There's no ''absence of kneelers'' at our parish. But I was in the huge cathedral of Seville a couple of years back. Had to kneel on the cold stone floor. It hurts!

But, I knelt; and YOU can kneel. Just stop your groaning, Dear.

''How can a parish called 'Blessed Sacrament' justify hiding the Blessed Sacrament in another room?'' Hey! were you and Jake in the wrong room? Our tabernacle is on the left side of the sanctuary. Big red candle in a chandelier hangs over the room there. What difficulty? ''How can the Catholic veneration of saints be recognized in a parish where no statues of saints are to be found?''

Regina; I suggest you carry your own statues with you. Just stop your crabbing.

______________

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

To be absolutely clear, when I say "house the Faith" the at the Church, I'm not making specific reference to the Blessed Sacrament in this case, but to the profession of the Catholic Faith that is supposed to be professed, expressed and believed by those who gather in that building.

The reason they should be gathering, first and foremost, is the Blessed Sacrament. The Real Presence is not the issue here; the issue is whether anyone knows about the Real Presence, or cares about it, or considers it the Alpha and Omega of this particular Church's very existence.

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

Emerald:
O ye of little faith! God has us all in the palm of His hand; and instead of trying to provoke people like us, you should give thanks for all those who truly believe. We have NO CONTROL over those few or many who lack faith. Moving the parts we focus on around our sanctuary has nothing to do with any unbelief you might observe (You observe everything, I know.)

I believe rightly, that the main reason our tabernacles were relocated was because the holy altar (it's NOT a table) is where the celebration of the Eucharist takes all our attention absolutely.

In case you've forgot, this is the central event and personal encounter with Jesus Christ in every Catholic place of worship. Not quiet adoration before the tabernacle. Adoration is just as holy and divine. But we don't require a center stage for it, it's mostly private and solitary. There is NO insult or downplaying of the True Presence within a side tabernacle. Such ideas are simply insupportable for those who have real faith.

Location is flexible. The disposition of your HEART is never flexible. You can adore Him just as well from the back of the building, or going out the door. He is never too far away, Emerald. When are you going to start thinking straight?

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

just ASK somebody where it might be. Maybe it's hiding from you & Jake on purpose!

In a building that has its primary purpose in housing, surrounding, protecting, and giving honor to the Blessed Sacrament, one should not need to ask for directions to find It. The architect who shuttles It off to a remote locale, or the pastor who relegates it to a cry room or a broom closet both say something through those actions; something about the Real presence.

Hey! were you and Jake in the wrong room?

That would have been the "wrong church," and no. We would never have any reason to set foot in such a place. You knew that, right?

Our tabernacle is on the left side of the sanctuary. Big red candle in a chandelier hangs over the room there. What difficulty?

Read this, for starters.

I suggest you carry your own statues with you. Just stop your crabbing.

Be sure to save some of that love and humility to sprinkle on the congregants at your lovely church building.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

I'm straight, thinking straight, and I think that the Blessed Sacrament should be straight down the centerline of the Church and the focal point of all honor, visibility and attention.

Just shootin' straight. =)

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

Moderator, please delete the following words from an earlier post, since they get into an area you have forbidden. (Thank God they were basically ignored, and none of the old debates flared up!) ...
"You once more insist on treating the 'ugly' with the same beady-eyed disgust you treat our Holy Mass. (Which means OUR, yours as well as mine.) I've often said CORRECTLY, you are dividers. Nothing pleases you more than attacking every post-Vatican II move; you will never unite. (That's a definition of schism right there.)"

It is nice to see that this thread has remained centered on a normal discussion of legitimate subjects -- church architectural styles and the appropriate/permissible arrangement of fixtures.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Thank you Moderator; no matter how you choose to respond. If we cause Jake grief, I'm sorry. If his friend Emeralsd is unhappy we're sorry. We are not sorry to dispute their biased opinions. Let them try to divide her, but we will not lose faith in our holy mother Church.

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

Dear Folks; You most likely won’t like to hear this – but I really like your new Cathedral in California. The obvious reason (for me) is that its architectural statement supports a Reformed worship space. Simple design, lots of light, altar in the center (and it appears, ground level) with the people visually in contact with one another – it is reminiscent of Early American sanctuaries from the Reformed Traditions.

While many 17th and 18th Century American Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational sanctuaries in the New Jersey, New York, and New England areas followed the English meeting house design – a significant number of town and rural sanctuaries were square, circular, or octagon in design. Windows were clear glass. The Communion Table would be at the center of the building (or toward the pulpit) and pews or chairs would face the Table. The Baptismal Font would be close to the door and the pulpit would be at the side of the building where everyone could turn their head either left or right to see the preacher. (A bit of a neck pincher for a two to three hour worship service.) See - http://www.hvnet.com/museums/huguenotst/walloon.htm

The architectural statement of those early square or circular buildings had a three fold purpose – 1) the primacy of the Word and Sacraments 2)to have the congregation be active participants (rather than recipients) in the communion and 3) to identify the entire interior of the building containing the believers as the sacred space in the presence of Christ, recalling the Holy of Holies in the Temple as presented by the writer of Hebrews.

As the 18th Century moved into the 19th, many of those early wood and stone structures were replaced with English Wren Gibbs design churches. The design retained a simple interior (usually white or light colors) and clear windows to facilitate reading from Psalters, Bibles and hymnals. However, pews were reset in a hall format with the Communion Table moving towards the front, but remaining on floor level with the congregation.

Many of these sanctuaries (including the one I presently serve) were Victorianized in the 19th Century with stained glass and split chancels or dais pulpits (along with gingerbread woodwork and multicolor trims). However, during the late 1960’s and 70’s, many were renovated to their original Wren Gibbs design (including the Old Stone Church in Upper Saddle River, NJ). If any of you are in the Northern New Jersey area, feel free to contact me. I will be happy to show you around. While not from the same religious tradition as most on this forum, it is an interesting walk into American history.

Have a Merry Christmas.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), December 11, 2003.

I'm not unhappy, Eugene. It's an interesting subject.

While taking a break the other day I opened up this magazine devoted to upscale architecture; mansions, castles, estates, etc. I could soak this stuff up all day, but in a strange way, it isn't about wealth and prestige but about beauty and purpose. I was thinking it over while looking at the pictures to try to discern the exact difference. There is one, I believe.

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

If any of you are in the Northern New Jersey area, feel free to contact me. I will be happy to show you around.

This is you? I'm in the area, and although I appreciate your hospitality, I would/could never go into a Protestant church.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

Robert,
There's the whole problem. We aren't rid of Pharisees, not even in our day.

You didn't ask Jake to come worship with protestants. Just to have a look around, then return to his own flock. But we needn't tell you; the person we're talking to is pure. If he entered your unholy sphere, it would defile him. God is always secondary in the estimation of Pharisees. Most important is their caste. If we come into their buffer zone we must call out, ''Unclean!''

This can't represent Catholicism to you, I hope. Christ did most certainly found His Catholic Church upon the Rock Saint Peter. Of this we will not hear arguments. But the Catholic faith keeps Jesus Christ's own commandment: ''Love one another as I have loved you.'' That part of the Holy Gospel needs to penetrate into Jake's darkness. If we all pray for him, the light of God's love may illumine him before he leaves this world. You can pray as well as a Catholic can. Make your prayer to Our Lord heard, Robert. Jake may not think God answers protestants, but why not help him realise that isn't so?

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

Tell ya what, Rev., you come to Mass with me & my family one Sunday, and I'll come to Upper Saddle River & have a look around your church. Heck, I'll even buy you breakfast. We'll answer each other's questions.

See? I am ecumenical.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 12, 2003.

Gene, you're making much more of this than you need to. You accuse us of being prideful and full of animosity, yet it is only your posts which wreak of both.

The point we're trying to make, which if you'd just let *your* animosity go, you'd see and probably agree with, is that church buildings ought to reflect belief in the Real Presense and the Catholic faith. Many of these post-Vatican II churches (and pre- Vatican II churches which have been "renovated") simply fail to do this, IMO. It's not a matter of taste, Gene. I've been to a few traditional chapels which were ugly in the sense that colors didn't match, fixtures and decor were a bit too...ornate, the color of the walls was a little tacky. But inside those chapels Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is given His proper place at the Head of His House made it simply breathtaking.

We are talking about the church building and the Faith going hand in hand. We are talking about the inside of a church building reflecting what Catholics believe. We gather for Our Lord, we worship Our Lord, confess our sins to Our Lord, we adore Him, we receive Him. If all that is true, and it is, why is He off to the side? In another room?

Now then...

You didn't ask Jake to come worship with protestants. Just to have a look around, then return to his own flock.

And what purpose would that serve? What do jake (or emerald or me) have to gain by "having a look around" the worship space of a false religion?

But the Catholic faith keeps Jesus Christ's own commandment: ''Love one another as I have loved you.'

And how did Christ show love, Gene? By teaching *Truth.*

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 12, 2003.

Dear Jake;

Thanks for the offer, however, my time is committed on Sunday mornings.

From your comments, I suspect that I have attended many more worship services in Catholic churches than you have in Protestant churches.

I have worshipped with Catholic communities beginning with the ecumenical activities of Vatican 2 and the National Council of Churches, which the Reformed Church in America is affiliated. Professionally, I have always had a good working relationship with Catholic clergy and their congregations in the communities I have served.

I was a participating guest at the dedication of the Parish Hall for St. Charles Barameo Church in Gardiner, NY. Terrence Cardinal Cooke celebrated the Mass. He was extremely gracious. Aside from the parish priest, I was the only other clergy he mentioned who sat upon the dais – and every priest in Ulster County was in attendance.

Throughout my career, I have also worshipped with the Catholic clergy in their sanctuaries with the congregations they served as they have worshipped in the sanctuaries with the congregations I have served.

I have participated in weddings in Catholic churches, and have had Catholic priests participate in weddings in the sanctuaries where I served.

This does not include the numerous funerals and weddings I have attended as a friend of the family.

However, my point was not to invite people to worship – that is an open invitation – but offering a chance to see how historic communities lived and worshipped, discovering their story.

As to the Oakland Cathedral – I liked its bright and open design because it places a significant emphasis upon the interaction of the people worshipping God. For many people such as myself, gothic structures (such as St. Patrick’s – Catholic - or St. John the Divine – Episcopal ) filled with art work and statues are interesting, but they are distracting in the act of worship and meditation. Or, as my grandmother used to say, “Its just not me.”

I have had both Catholics and Jews comment to me about the high degree of comfort they experience as they worshipped in the Old Stone Church. They appreciated the plain beauty of the interior, but more important, the meditative quality of the intimate structure. My interpretation of this commonality isn’t so much what the sanctuary brings to the people who worship, but what the people bring in as they worship. Gene is right, the sign of our faithfulness to Jesus Christ is our willingness to follow his new command, “Love one another as I have loved you.” – again, this fits the intention of a sacred space in the Reformed Tradition.

PS For fans of the NBC TV show ED - The Old Stone Church doubled as the "Stuckeyville Old Stone Church" - episode 51 (I think) "The Wedding." You can see still photos at Stuckyville.Com or at NBC.com. That's not a plug for the show and we don't get any residuals.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), December 12, 2003.

Dear Regina: You speak very passionately about love for God; which I've no opposition to. But: ''you'd see and probably agree with, is that church buildings ought to reflect belief in the Real Presense and the Catholic faith.'' is hardly a tenet of our faith. A building will serve God with or without your aesthetic seal of approval. The TRUE Presence (Not real) of Jesus is in our tabernacles and on the holy altar whether you appreciate the building or hate it. A building doesn't have to REFLECT a thing. That's not a basic truth.

Certainly, I love a perfectly designed church with royal appointments reflecting God's glory. I dislike any gross environment in the area around our altar. Who doesn't? But the environment shouldn't be adorned to please ME. --My own soul is the offering I wish to make God; and the souls of my brethren united in one holy Communion-- love.

This is possible no matter where we worship. Good men have worshipped on battleships and met their Creator on the same day. They were worthy of Him for one whole day, offering Him their lives. Not glitz or lavish designs.

You're concerned with the accouterments and splash of a building, while trivializing our holy people. The community is where God lives, not just within some space in your parish.

On the day he calls me, I'll leave behind the whole world's collection of great churches. To me, as to Saint Paul, all riches will be as dirt. Behind me will beevery glorious building on earth; I can't take any cathedrals with me.

Neither will you. In the meantime I suggest you temper your enthusiasm for them, as also your contempt for the ''ugly'' ones. Offer what you have to Him. We have the best; and the worst. All belong to Him.

The deepest diamond mine on earth already belongs to God, but He really wants your heart. He wants MY heart; not wonderful surroundings ugly or beautiful; which will someday pass away.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

Thanks for the offer, however, my time is committed on Sunday mornings.

Mine, too.

From your comments, I suspect that I have attended many more worship services in Catholic churches than you have in Protestant churches.

I've been in a Protestant church once in my life (years ago), and that was for a wedding, not a "worship service," so I'm sure you're right.

In any event, my invitation to come to Holy Mass is an open invitation as well.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 12, 2003.

Dear Jake;

While you did not mention the particular Protestant tradition where you attended the wedding, in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, a wedding is a worship service incorporating a sacred ceremony.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), December 12, 2003.

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember. For some reason, I want to say they were Methodists, but I haven't seen or hear from those people in at least 10 years, and I didn't care for them all that much then.

I remember a woman dressed up like a priest, officiating. That's about all I can reliably recall.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 12, 2003.

But: ''you'd see and probably agree with, is that church buildings ought to reflect belief in the Real Presense and the Catholic faith.'' is hardly a tenet of our faith.

I never said it was a "tenent of our faith," Gene. I believe that church buildings should be a reflection of what that faith is. Just as a classroom should be equipt with study materials and things a professor would use to aid him in his teaching, and be conducive to a learning environment, so should a church contain those things which clearly show that the church building is a sacred home for Our Lord and that we are in the presence of the Holiest of Holies. From there the altar should demonstrate that we aren't partaking in merely a community meal, but that a sacrificial action is taking place. Kneelers demonstrate how Catholics position themselves outwardly to show humility and reverence. Stations of the Cross demonstrate our constant reflection on Our Lord's Passion. Statues reflect our veneration of those holy men and women who led extraordinary lives for love of God and how they can be models for us.

You take those things away, or shove them off to a more...inconspicuous (sp?) place, and what are you left with? A barren meeting hall which really says, above all else, "nothing all that special going on here."

A building will serve God with or without your aesthetic seal of approval.

True, but where is the inspiration? Where are the indications that the church building is set apart from any other worldly building?

The TRUE Presence (Not real) of Jesus is in our tabernacles and on the holy altar whether you appreciate the building or hate it.

"Not real"?! You're going to have to explain what you meant by that.

A building doesn't have to REFLECT a thing.

No, it doesn't *have* to, but shouldn't it? And how come almost all of them did before...a certain time in recent history?

If I walked into your home, would I know you lived there? Do you have personal mementos, photos, and other things around expressing who you are? Who your family is? Or do you have nothing more than a couch, TV. computer and desk, a bed, a fridge, a table and some chairs surrounded by blank, stark white walls? I dislike any gross environment in the area around our altar. Who doesn't? But the environment shouldn't be adorned to please ME.

Who said it should? The environment should be adorned to demonstrate our desire to please God, our desire to express thanks for His gifts. Our desire to acknowledge the supreme gift He has left to us - the Blessed Sacrament.

Not glitz or lavish designs.

A humble parish does what it can. The results can sometimes be more beautiful than a cathedral. But that's not what we're talking about. We talking about serious cash being spent on stripping away rather than building up the outward expressions of our faith.

You're concerned with the accouterments and splash of a building, while trivializing our holy people.

You've got that backwards. I see many so-called "holy people" leading very splashy lives while trivializing the faith and the buildings where that faith is practiced.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 12, 2003.

Dear Jake;

If she was Methodist, she was wearing the robes of her office as a Methodist minister. If she was Episcopalian, she was wearing the vesture of her office as an Episcopal priest.

But, more to the point, why would you attend a wedding of people you did not like? If you couldn’t ( or didn't want to) participate as part of the witnessing congregation you should have sent a card.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurch.org), December 12, 2003.

Regina,
You would return with a rebuttal no matter what anybody said. The title of this thread had to do with the ''religious significance'' of a church building. You only present Regina's notion of what's significant. You have nothing else of substance to say.

I already stated I am thrilled and delighted with older-styled traditional churches. I've seen many stupendous ones in this country and in Mexico & Europe. They're great! I have no problem with any of them; but simply refuse to think they are indispensable. They need not be replicated ad infinitum in order to give glory to God. Simple churches can also give Him glory. EVEN UGLY ONES ! ! !

I've made my point here; why I don't believe these things over-ride the spiritual aspects of Catholic faith. You seem to think they do.

I made my point. You dismiss it; so now go in peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

You would return with a rebuttal no matter what anybody said.

And you look for fights where none exsist.

The title of this thread had to do with the ''religious significance'' of a church building.

Exactly. And my argument is that if a church building is devoid of religious symbolism it sends the message that the religion is insignificant.

Simple churches can also give Him glory. EVEN UGLY ONES ! ! !

And I agree. But there's a big difference between ugly decor (which I am *not* talking about) and stripping all appearances of Catholicism from the building.

I've made my point here; why I don't believe these things over- ride the spiritual aspects of Catholic faith. You seem to think they do.

St. Benedict said something along the lines of "people learn more by example than by words."

What example does a church building which is stripped of all outward expressions of the faith set, Gene? I'm not talking about a humble, simple parish which might not be able to afford much. I'm talking about the *deliberate* stripping away of expressions of the faith in parishes which can afford to build grand palaces for Our Lord...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 12, 2003.

I use to love to go to Christ in the Desert monestary. The chapel there is in no way 'traditional'. It used a Santa Fe adobe style, some modern tall windows and rough wood logs as pews. It was the most holy place I could find at the time. I still have very fond memories of the place and can still smell the karosene lanterns that illuminated it at night.

I am also very fond of the Boy Scout camp outdoor chapels.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

All outward expressions of faith? That's what? Tile shingles? Steps up to the door? Walls? That's a non- starter. Churches HAVE no ''outward expressions'' to ''strip''.

Repeat: ''You only present Regina's notion of what's significant. You have nothing of substance to say.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

why would you attend a wedding of people you did not like?

In retrospect, I'm not altogether sure. I'm 10 years older and wiser now, and I would no doubt have sent my regrets if I were to receive the same invitation today.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 12, 2003.

All outward expressions of faith? That's what? Tile shingles? Steps up to the door? Walls? That's a non- starter. Churches HAVE no ''outward expressions'' to ''strip''.

*sigh.*

Let's try this one more time. Read it slowly so you can, hopefully, get it.

I'm talking about a church removing statues, kneelers, taking the Tabernacle from its rightful place in the center of the altar and placing It off to the side or into another room. Removing the Stations of the Cross, the Confessional booths (and turing them into Reconciliation Rooms) the Crucifix. Replacing the beautiful marble altar with a simple table.

Is it really that hard to understand?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 13, 2003.

Regina, you're mistaken on all counts. You are also unauthorized to make judgments of what is or isn't proper. What's proper to you does NOT necessarily give glory to God.

Nobody has removed kneelers; you haven't related facts. (If in some place somewhere you had nothing on which to kneel it likely is a shared facility where others besides Catholics come to worship.)

There are ALWAYS stations of the cross. The Tabernacle is set up in a WORTHY and CONSECRATED location in or by the holy sanctuary. It doesn't have to suit YOU to be holy and fitting. You say the Blessed Sacrament has a ''rightful'' place at the center. That's your subjective opinion. The bishops decide the matter.

Our holy altar (it's NOT a ''table'') is the rightful property of Jesus Christ commemorated each day in the celebration of the Eucharist. That's ABSOLUTE. Christ can entertain no such qualms as mere fanatical servants do, about ''rightful'' parts of the building. He is just as Truly Present in Holy Mass as He is in the reserved Blessed Sacrament.

With all due respect, you have forgotten that. He can't be JEALOUS of one part of the church and indignant about another placing of the holy tabernacle. That's incredibly BANAL judgment you cling to. A sign of creeping idolatry, which places more value on OBJECTS than on God.

For centuries anti- Catholics have repeatedly accused Catholics of this backwardness. You only bear out what they've always thought.

Most of our reforms are REMEDIES against these ridiculous fetishes by our faithful. But at the same time, no essential area of the Catholic faith is left out of our holy worship. We still keep the letter and the spirit of Christ's holy religion, from the Creed to the holy sacraments, to the veneration of our saints and angels. We still believe our faith even to the sacrificing of our blood. We still keep the holy doctrine of the apostles, and the Word of God. Our newer Liturgy is HOLY and approved of the true authority: the Church and her Popes and bishops.

We need nothing added and/or taken away. Not by worldly souls nor by fanatical ones. NOW-- Go in peace!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

That's incredibly BANAL judgment you cling to. A sign of creeping idolatry, which places more value on OBJECTS than on God.

God is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity *inside* that "object", Gene!

We need nothing added and/or taken away.

Oh? Check out Holy Name Cathedral in 1958

Now see what it looked like in 2000

Nothing's taken away, huh?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 13, 2003.

No, nothing; since this is a newer church --obviously. I see the so-called ''table'' there which makes you so upset. Many others of our present-day churches reach this high level of excellence, and you know they do.

Didn't I ask you to go in peace?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

No, nothing; since this is a newer church --obviously.

Gene, you're not a stupid man. Stop acting like you are. The first picture of the Cathedral was taken in 1958, the second picture of the *same* Cathedral was taken in 2000.

This "newer church", as you called it, was built in the late 1800's.

I see the so-called ''table'' there which makes you so upset. Many others of our present-day churches reach this high level of excellence, and you know they do.

The top picture of the Cathedral before the wreckovation could definitly be described as "excellent." I could imagine walking in there and being overwhelmed by the atmosphere which almost says "This was put together by human hands with adoration for no one else but Our Lord." One is put into the presence of God Himself, upon walking into this *obviously* Holy place. Really, it looks like a piece of Heaven on Earth.

One walks into the second photo, kneels down into the pew and comes face to face with...

...a table and the chair the bishop sits in.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 13, 2003.

Regina:
I like the second picture. You may find the scene inferior to the first one; but we agree to disagree. Your illogical feeling: ''One is put into the presence of God Himself, upon walking into this *obviously* Holy place.'' is ridiculous.

The same Presence is there for you in a new church, you're just unwilling to acknowledge Him. ''God Himself'' is not confined to scenes you happen to be attached to.

You associate ''obviously holy'' with what man constructs for a house of worship. But holiness has nothing at ALL to do with what you sit on, look at, or delight in.

What's ''obviously'' HOLY is your soul. Or obviously tacky. (Present company excepted, naturally.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

One has to take into consideration that one is comparing an old black and white photo probably taken from the choir loft with a well-lighted, well balanced color photo taken from a more pleasing angle. Still, I must agree with Eugene. The first picture has a sense of overbearing, the sanctuary with a crowded, cluttered look, distant from the people who have come to worship there, separated by a wall of marble, the whole scene backed by a garish monument which draws attention away from the miraculous reality which is occurring in its shadow. The second picture projects freedom, openness, light, intimacy. Jesus is clearly the predominant image (I'm sure His image appears somewhere in the first picture too). Jesus, becoming present for me on the table, just as He did for the Apostles, no ostentatious distractions, just Him and me, Him and us. Beautiful.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2003.

a wall of marble

the Communion rail?

a garish monument

the altar?

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

I can't agree with Paul. We all know the older Mass was in a splendid setting. I realise it is a lovely setting, entirely suited for our worship of God. The newer setting nevertheless, is equally suited. Because, more than any dedication of material beauty, it's the faith,/u> of His people that gives glory to God.

Regina & Jake seem to believe material surroundings, or some lavish, SERIOUS setting, raises our hearts up to God more! As if the human heart needed ecstatic experience or else there's no way to ''step up to heaven.''

That's not using your head. We love God. No artificial means is necessary to come into intimate contact with Him! Abraham was true to God's Holy Will in the middle of a barren desert. God came down to His chosen people and lived amidst them in a TENT!

Certainly the glory of a traditional church is thrilling. WE HAVE THEM ! ! ! There is no shortage!

What about love? What about the present shortage of love? For God and for our neighbor? Was Jesus Christ concerned during His days in the world, with living in a palace? Did He send Mother Theresa of Calcutta to reside in some Taj Mahal? I am sure He would have, if this were of some great value to Himself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

What was the cost of removing that magnificent altar (and all the ones like it that fell to the wreckovators during the past 40 years)? Could that money have been spent better elsewhere? My parish has a beautiful altar, brought from Italy during the 1920's. A priest wanted it demolished in the 1970's, and the only thing that saved it was when the parishoners found out the cost. The altar rail was ripped out, though.

"Nobody has removed kneelers; you haven't related facts." Gene, you're kidding, right? Where have you been? Also, unless I missed it, you never answered what you meant by "The TRUE Presence (Not real) of Jesus is in our tabernacles..." Not real???

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

The cathedral in Chicago was not that badly "wreckovated", its nothing that about one months of work and about $250K or so wont fix, its layout is still the same. As for the picture from 1958, all I can say is it doesnt look like it should be from 1958 becuse there is a table in front of the altar and the priest(or Bishop) is facing the conregation. It maybe from 68, but in 58, most parish' still had fixed altars still.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), December 14, 2003.

No, Sir. Kneelers are in place at every Catholic house of worship and in every chapel therein, all over northern California, where I live. If you're intimating I'm too far to see your own church, it doesn't even matter. You're not giving us notice of a common ocurrence. The proper term for Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament (for me, at least) is His TRUE Presence. I won't quibble over the use of ''real''. I hope you don't object.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

The second picture projects freedom, openness, light, intimacy. Jesus is clearly the predominant image

Where?! Where, in the second picture, is Our Lord "predominant" in image, His Real Presense, or otherwise?

(I'm sure His image appears somewhere in the first picture too)."

Not just His image, but His Real Presence, in the Tabernacle, which is right in the center of the High Altar.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

Kneelers are in place at every Catholic house of worship and in every chapel therein, all over northern California, where I live.

Well, here's a picture of the cathedral that was the subject of this thread:


Do the kneelers automatically emerge from the floor, or do you bring your own?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

I think the architect of that...church watched the movie "Xanadu" one too many times.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

Many older parish', including the Cathedrals in St. Louis, St. Paul and Washington DC still look like the Chicago cathedral did in the 1rst picture. In these cases, about 1 hrs of work with a automatic hacksaw would get all of these parish' more or less back to their original state. As for the Cathedral of Light in Oakland, with a new far more conservative Bishop in Oakland, do not expect the images as seen in the plans to resemble the final product, especially with Bp. Cummins out of the picture. Notice that on the web site, there are no rendering/drawings of this cathedral.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), December 15, 2003.

Don't eat up the bandwidth with more photos, please.

No kneelers? Kneel on the floor, Regina. No one will deny your great faith. No statues? We have our own at home, don't we? Are your brother and your sister under the same roof with you and Our Lord? Then it's the house of God. We appreciate your nostalgia, it's only human.

I've tried to make my point. You may not want it, but you got it. Posting replies over & over gains you nothing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Don't eat up the bandwidth with more photos, please.

1. There's no rule against it. Yet.

2. The server, as feeble as it's rumored to be, seems to be handliing it quite well.

I understand your disdain for them, though, speaking a thousand words the way they do.

No kneelers?

I'm sure it was just an architectual oversight. I mean, why would anyone deliberately omit kneelers when building a Catholic church? Maybe the architect assumed everyone would want to kneel on the floor.

He must be a Pharisee.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Look Jake:

I have no complaints. I kneel where ever my old knees can find something level under them. You think I'm kidding.

I have been in the medieval cathedral of Sevilla, typically gorgeous Catholic Church. Tenth century. Originally the faithful who worshipt there knelt on the stone floor. I know that now we have the necessary furnishings. They're much better, naturally.

As for why this particular place you joke about didn't have them; who knows? Maybe it's a protestant church that you've sneaked over on us? I know you've done sneaky things before this. Would not surprise anyone.

Whatever the truth, I can't care. Your arguments are boring. Instead of achieving for us some common ground, or comprehension, you're 100% turn-offs after all this time. You and Regina and now Emerald have become albatrosses here. You're reducing John to tears and rage, and you've managed to fatigue even myself. What an accomplishment for God! You can be proud. (But let me recall now; --You always are proud.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

I kneel where ever my old knees can find something level under them.

Me, too.

You think I'm kidding.

No I don't.

Originally the faithful who worshipt there knelt on the stone floor.

Fashioning passed kneelers fitting for a church was no doubt financially restrictive, or otherwise impractical, in the Dark Ages.

I know that now we have the necessary furnishings. They're much better, naturally.

Nothing worng with that, as long as it does not take away from the historical importance of the building.

Maybe it's a protestant church that you've sneaked over on us? I know you've done sneaky things before this. Would not surprise anyone.

I got it from the link posted by the original poster on this thread.

Surprised?

Whatever the truth, I can't care. Your arguments are boring.

If that's your only complaint about them, I suppose I can live with that.

You're reducing John to tears and rage, and you've managed to fatigue even myself.

Maybe you should both take a little vacation from the forum, then.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

"passed"=padded.

Sorry.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

No kneelers? Kneel on the floor, Regina.

You still don't get it, Gene. The absence of kneelers is to keep people from kneeling. I understand that it is expected for folks in many parishes to sit or stand for the Consecration. Why?

You think the architect painstakingly designed chairs to keep our posteriors in cushy comfort, only to leave our knees uncomfortable on the hard floor? The purpose of kneeling is to humble ourselves before God. It is an outward posture of adoration.

No one will deny your great faith.

I'm not out to impress anyone with any degree my faith. I am concerned that there are those in the Catholic Church who are teaching by example and by the wreckovation of church buildings that Our Lord and His Supreme Sacrifice aren't worth showing an outward posture of adoration for.

No statues? We have our own at home, don't we?

Of course. But what are you suggesting? That we should only venerate the saints privately?

Are your brother and your sister under the same roof with you and Our Lord? Then it's the house of God.

Going along that logic the home I share with my family is a "house of God" since we pray together here. But there's much More to be found in the Church than in our own homes, no?

We appreciate your nostalgia, it's only human. Nostalgia for what? It is mere "nostalgia" to believe that in the presense of Our Lord "every kneel shall bend"? It is mere "nostalgia" to believe that representations of the Saints should be given a proper place in every Catholic church-building?

Posting replies over & over gains you nothing.

Last time I checked, this was a *discussion* forum where its very purpose is to post replies to discussions of interest. If you're bored with this particular topic, don't read it. If you're bored with me, scroll over my posts.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

You're reducing John to tears and rage,

Ask me if I care.

and you've managed to fatigue even myself.

Take a nap. We'll be here when you get up.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

Regina says, ''You still don't get it, Gene.'' As if only Regina ever gets ''it''.

A blooming genius; and how did we ever have truth here, before the advent of Regina? Lol!

Jake: ''Maybe you should both take a little vacation from the forum, then?'' Thanks, Jocko. I had one at Yosemite just weeks back. You were free to wonk all that time, weren't you? Now you have to stiffen your little backbone.

BTW; my parish church is furnished with kneelers and statues. There aren't many so-called abuses though. And all of us love God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

BTW; my parish church is furnished with kneelers and statues.

What do you want, a medal?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Already wear a medal. Our Lady of Perpetual Help. A gift from my good mother. Thanks anyway.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Regina says, ''You still don't get it, Gene.'' As if only Regina ever gets ''it''.

"It" being my point, Gene. I was telling you you still didn't get my point.

A blooming genius; and how did we ever have truth here, before the advent of Regina? Lol!

Instead of the snottiness, why not offer an argument with substance on the subject at hand. That'd be a nice change from you.

Now you have to stiffen your little backbone.

For who? You?! Now *that's* funny!

BTW; my parish church is furnished with kneelers and statues.

Oooh. Ring-a-ding-ding.

I thought you said those things weren't important...If they aren't, why are you bringing up the fact that you church has them? If they are, why are you arguing with us?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

Oooh; woe! Ring-a-ding-ding ! Regina has got her poo' lil' feelins hurt ! My snotsiness !

Instead why not give Regins & Jock something of ''substance''--? OK. A reprise of one previous post that you must have ignored. Follows this-- Right here:

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

We all know the older Mass was in a splendid setting. I realise it is a lovely setting, entirely suited for our worship of God. The newer setting nevertheless, is equally suited. Because, more than any dedication of material beauty, it's the faith,/u> of His people that gives glory to God. Regina & Jake seem to believe material surroundings, or some lavish, SERIOUS setting, raises our hearts up to God more! As if the human heart needed ecstatic experience or else there's no way to ''step up to heaven.''

That's not using your head. We love God. No artificial means is necessary to come into intimate contact with Him! Abraham was true to God's Holy Will in the middle of a barren desert. God came down to His chosen people and lived amidst them in a TENT!

Certainly the glory of a traditional church is thrilling. WE HAVE THEM ! ! ! There is no shortage!

What about love? What about the present shortage of love? For God and for our neighbor? Was Jesus Christ concerned during His days in the world, with living in a palace? Did He send Mother Theresa of Calcutta to reside in some Taj Mahal? I am sure He would have, if this were of some great value to Himself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

We love God.

That's not substance. That's a cop-out you employ when you can't defend your positions. You use it quite a bit.

What about love? What about the present shortage of love? For God and for our neighbor?

What about the subject matter?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

''Regina & Jake seem to believe material surroundings, or some lavish, SERIOUS setting, raises our hearts up to God more!''

We believe otherwise. (He'll read the post in segments; we'll repeat what he skips.) (Thanks for this opportunity, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Regina & Jake seem to believe material surroundings, or some lavish, SERIOUS setting, raises our hearts up to God more!

"The Church has always held the ministry of the arts in the highest esteem and has striven to see that "all things set apart for use in divine worship are truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world." The Church through the centuries has also safeguarded the artistic treasures belonging to it.

Accordingly, in our own times as well, bishops, no matter how hard pressed by their responsibilities, must take seriously the care of places of worship and sacred objects. They bear singular witness to the reverence of the people toward God and deserve such care also because of their historic and artistic value.

It grieves the faithful to see that more than ever before there is so much unlawful transferal of ownership of the historical and artistic heritage of the Church, as well as theft, confiscation, and destruction."

Disregarding the warnings and legislation of the Holy See, many people have made unwarranted changes in places of worship under the pretext of carrying out the reform of the liturgy and have thus caused the disfigurement or loss of priceless works of art."

- "Opera Artis," Congregation for the Clergy - April 11, 1971 - Circular Letter on the Care of the Church's Historical and Artistic Heritage

We believe otherwise.

I know.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Not contrary at all, Jake. I said clearly, we preserve many thousands of holy and grandiose churches. The Sixtine chapel is still standing; we wouldn't hurt your parish church. What makes you think we reject these?

I'm not sure how your above paste-up says you can't raise your hearts up in the same church where I raise mine. Unless you're a Pharisee, as when they quoted from the Law to Our Lord?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Unless you're a Pharisee

Three.

Read books. Read lots of books.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

We all know the older Mass was in a splendid setting.

Don't say "we all", Gene. Not everyone knows that or thinks that. The proof is in the two pictures I posted. The proof is in that horrible new "church" jake posted. The proof is in hundreds of churches in this country where the "splendid setting" has been torn out.

The newer setting nevertheless, is equally suited.

You know what? You're right! It is perfectly suitable for what it's used for.

Because, more than any dedication of material beauty, it's the faith, of His people that gives glory to God.

A building devoid of outward expressions of Catholicism - its beauty, its splendor, truth and perfection, makes a big statement about the person(s) who determined that the former "splendid setting" of the building should be gutted. It says a lot about where their faith is. And how deep it goes.

Regina & Jake seem to believe material surroundings, or some lavish, SERIOUS setting, raises our hearts up to God more!

The seriousness of the setting (which I assume you think isn't important) calls to mind the seriousness of our faith, the seriousness of Christ's Sacrifice, the seriousness of our mortality and ultimate judgment of our souls. The seriousness of the setting inspires.

Lavish settings aren't necessary if it isn't within the means of a parish. Simplicity, like I said, can be breathtaking. I don't know how many more times I have to say this: It isn't about decorations, plush carpeting, gilted things, and wall color. It's about seeing reflections of the Faith around us in a place where we should expect to see them - our Church. It's about robbing the altar of the Tabernacle, robbing the sanctuary of an *obvious* altar, taking Our Lord from the center, focal point in His own House, banishing the saints, and trying like heck to keep people from kneeling. They've succeeded in that last regard as far as Holy Communion goes. What's next? Oh, that's right. The Consecration - Calvary. Many promote *standing* for that.

You still haven't answered my question so I'll repeat it: If kneelers and statues aren't important as you've been saying all along, why did you feel it necessary to report that your church has both? It's as if you need to prove that your parish is so "orthodox." Now if that's the case, you associate "kneelers and statues" with orthodoxy and tradition. If those things aren't important or don't reflect tradition, what was the purpose of telling us about your church?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

Regina

Didn't you know that the proper posture in the church for the first thousand years was to stand. They didn't have chairs in a church at all much less a kneeler.

Go back to the old European Cathedrals and what do you find? NO CHAIRS. Chairs weren't introduced until about the fifteenth century if memory serves me correctly.

The first pews were a french invention. the rich folks didn't want to mingle with the masses, so they fashioned their own box seat sections called "Pews".

If you want to "go back," then really go back and go back to the standing processional church of the middle ages.

Or heck, lets really go back and all worship in your local Jewish Synogogue.

It ain't about a building at all. When we speak of the Church, we speak of the worshipping faithful. The "Body of Christ" Wherever they gather, then I gotta believe that God is smiling on an authentic church.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), December 15, 2003.

Do you that my first impulse is not to argue with you, Regina; it's going into a void. But I hope to have enough charity in me to tell you ONCE more:

''The proof is in the two pictures,'' NO--It's NOT.

''A building devoid of outward expressions of Catholicism - '' By YOUR criteria? You are simply nostalgic and have nothing better to offer. Don't atend any ''building'' you dislike, Regina. Let others less self- assured than you go there.

''It's about robbing the altar of the Tabernacle, robbing the sanctuary of an *obvious* altar, taking Our Lord from the center,'' --Get REAL. Our Lord is with us; it's YOU who can't be accomodated. No ''robbing'' has been done. You keep using loaded words like that, since your argument won't sustain itself on logic or Catholic teaching. It has very LITTLE common sense.

''trying like heck to keep people from kneeling.'' Your exravagance goes out of bounds like a stray bullet, Reg. Ha! THAT's a howler!

OUR LORD is always at the CENTER, and you can't argue He's any otherwise. As for: ''So I'll repeat it: If kneelers and statues aren't important as you've been saying all along, why did you feel it necessary to report that your church has both?''

Maybe because I NEVER said they aren't ''important'', Regina. You imagined that. I said that we can KNEEL with or without the, and furthermore, I told you we had them in our church because:

You say they're NOT! You keep claiming they're not in the churches we attend, which is a fabrication. What else can one do, but tell you the truth? In our lovely parish church we have: One lovely seven-foort Crucifix above the holy altar (which is stone, and has marble pedestals) and a statue of the Sacred Heart, as well as one of Saint Joseph holding the Infant Jesus. Many painted figures of saints, and an enormous mural of Christ the Pantocrator, with Michael the archangel and various saints and bishops of our Catholic Church surrounding His holy throne. Among them, Sts Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and the church's patron, Saint Basil the Great. We have a lovely Mary Chapel to the left of the sanctuary in which our Holy Hour devotions take place every week, with Benediction and Rosary, including St Michael's Chaplet. No, we have no communion rail. But we aren't reciting from a protestant liturgy, the way you'd likely supposed. We are FAITHFUL CATHOLICS.

NOW-- Go in peace!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Didn't you know that the proper posture in the church for the first thousand years was to stand. They didn't have chairs in a church at all much less a kneeler.

All "no chairs" means is that Mass-goers didn't sit in comfort as we know it. It doesn't prove that they didn't sit on the floor. And I'm sure you know that a chair isn't required to enable one to kneel.

Go back to the old European Cathedrals and what do you find? NO CHAIRS. Chairs weren't introduced until about the fifteenth century if memory serves me correctly.

So, what's your point? I'm looking at two different pictures right now. One is a 13th century mosaic from the Church of San Marco, Venice. Guess what? No chairs. What are Mass-goers doing? You're right. They aren't kneeling. They're lying postrate on the floor.

The other picture I'm looking at "The Coronation of the wife of the Emperor Ferdinand II at Regensburg Cathedral" (1630). Again, no chairs. But you know what? Folks are kneeling anyway! Somehow they made do, I guess.

If you want to "go back," then really go back and go back to the standing processional church of the middle ages.

You've given no shred of evidence demonstrating people stood. I, however, with the help of Medival art, have demonstrated that Mass- goers knelt.

It ain't about a building at all. When we speak of the Church, we speak of the worshipping faithful. The "Body of Christ" Wherever they gather

You're not gonna start singing Kum Ba Yah are you?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 15, 2003.

You're very welcome, Reginia,

Go in peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

OUR LORD is always at the CENTER, and you can't argue He's any otherwise.

You yourself told me that in your church the Tabernacle is off to the side. If by "the center" you meant that spiritually Our Lord is in the center of our lives, that's great. So how 'bout putting putting Him back into the center of His own House?

As for: ''So I'll repeat it: If kneelers and statues aren't important as you've been saying all along, why did you feel it necessary to report that your church has both?''

Maybe because I NEVER said they aren't ''important'', Regina. You imagined that. I said that we can KNEEL with or without the, and furthermore, I told you we had them in our church because:

You say they're NOT! You keep claiming they're not in the churches we attend, which is a fabrication.

I never said that the Vatican has ordered all parish churches to dispose of kneelers and other clearly Catholic things. On the other hand, I know of know directive from the Vatican calling on churches which have disposed of them to restore them. In fact, I believe the Pope congratulated Card. Mahoney for the completion of his monstrosity. I'm well aware that many churches have maintained their traditional looking atmosphere, but more and more too many churches are taking the beauty and splendor and seriousness of those Sacred places and are turning them into barren meeting halls.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 16, 2003.

Regina, why don't you give it up?
In each new post you say less, with even more blather. You've never proven a darn thing here. Just kept shovelling the BS on and on!

Now, I haven't seen the cathedral built by this diocese you're referring to as ''Card. Mahoney / his monstrosity.'' If I ever see it, I'll make up my own mind if it is such, or isn't. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you toned down your blasphemous rhetoric. A Catholic cathedral cannot BE a monstrosity! You take this liberty, calling the house of God vile names; how can we believe you are even Catholic? Every day you sound LESS charitable to your own brethren!

It seems to me if our Holy Father saw fit to congratulate Cardinal Mahoney on the completion of a cathedral, you should feel just great! But you're filled with spite; you give in to unholy temptations --right here in a public forum. Shame on you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Regina, why don't you give it up?

I will. When I'm ready.

You've never proven a darn thing here.

What have I said that I couldn't prove? What have I said that I haven't backed up?

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you toned down your blasphemous rhetoric.

Wanting our faith reflected in the very place we practice it is "blasphemous?" Wanting to give Our Lord the highest place of honor in His own house is "blasphemous?" Interesting.

A Catholic cathedral cannot BE a monstrosity!

It is when you remove Him from the center, turn it into some sort of interdenominational/tourist attraction/meeting place (complete with a cafe...don't believe me?) Erect an image of someone, who I assume is supposed to be Our Lady, and make her look like a feminist "modern woman" complete with bare, muscular arms and a masculine hairdo.

You take this liberty, calling the house of God vile names;

If it's the "house of God" why can't I find Him in His own house?

how can we believe you are even Catholic?

I couldn't care less what you believe me to be.

Every day you sound LESS charitable to your own brethren!

Practice what you preach.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 16, 2003.

(Me)You take this liberty, calling the house of God vile names;

(You) ''If it's the "House of God" why can't I find Him in His own house?''

Answer: You can. Walk up to receive Holy Communion--WITHOUT hatred in your heart for your brethren. Without the self-righteous pride of a Pharisee. You must be BLIND if you can't ''find Him''.

You deny that we are in the House of God? Of course you do. You want to sequester Him into your own private place of worship; a reservation in YOUR tabernacle. Like a captive.

He is with His people every day, and not just His people over at your rock-candy church where nobody calls a priest by first names. It would be a ''sacrilege'' wouldn't it? You get more absurd by the post! I have to pity you, Regina.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

"Answer: You can. Walk up to receive Holy Communion--WITHOUT hatred in your heart for your brethren. Without the self-righteous pride of a Pharisee. You must be BLIND if you can't ''find Him''."

How can you possibly know she does this?

I really don't get it. Honestly, you all are right. I don't get it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2003.

Emerald, do we have to draw you a diagram? Regina ''can't find'' Jesus Christ our Blessed Sacrament-- unless He's positioned out on the altar-top and dead-center blocking everything else from view! But-- I say;

Just receive Him in Holy Communion, if you're so short-sighted you can't see a tabernacle anywhere. (I also said yesterday; why not inquire for His whereabouts?)

The part about receiving Him without bitterness in her heart or PRIDE-- is basic ''state of grace.''

I hope she confesses her sins? Maybe she thinks there's no sin in judging her neighbor falsely, or a Pharisaic self-righteousness. I hope she realises these are sins for which we need forgiveness. I HOPE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

That's a MODEL of a church, right? Not the actual church itself? Did it occur to you it might be cheaper to make a model without a kneeler on every chair, scale insulation in the ceiling, etc.?

Actually, if you can look past the unconventional shape, there are some advantages to this church. The Real Presence of Christ will be at the absolute center of the church, when it's consecrated during mass, and at the center of the faithful. Rather than the old church's way of putting Christ on the far side of the building, He's in the center. Don't see how you'd argue with that.

Plus, as a fringe bonus, people who think the priest should be facing away from them during mass -- can have their way, as can those who would like to see their priest during mass. Just sit where you choose. The next thing would be to put in a real crucifix instead of the cross, but again, on a model, what do you want?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2003.

"Plus, as a fringe bonus, people who think the priest should be facing away from them during mass -- can have their way, as can those who would like to see their priest during mass. Just sit where you choose."

This imagery to me is most amusing, Frank. So what you're saying is something like this: the Trads sit on one side of the church with the priest facing away from them, and the Nuvos sit on the other side with the priest facing them, and everybody is happy, and everyone is in, well, "Communion".

I couldn't help but imagine sitting on my side, the Trad side, in such a setup. A quote from Anne Catherine Emmerich would no doubt, in such a situation, come to my mind:

"I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome ... But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears..."

For comic purposes only. I don't really think this. Really.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2003.

Pretty good insights, Frank. I have to agree with most of your post. Yes, these nice fanatics do jump to some quick conclusions. Regina would have us believe the Catholic Church is doing her damndest to discourage us from kneeling. If Catholics had gone in for such marvelous logic, the Church would have stayed in Jerusalem. We'd all be keeping the sabbath and Regina wouldn't have a plaster saint anywhere in her house.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

I see two things:

1. Eugene, hellbent on not stemming the tide of the loss of the Catholic Faith among the general Catholic populace.

2. Eugene, hellbent on making sure that the Trads don't dare do anything to try to stop it either.

What am I supposed to extract from Gene's advice over the course of two years? I'm not sure, but this is what I've been able to come up with so far:

1. "Shut up."

Is this correct?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2003.

Of course not, Emmie. Cry wolf. keep on crying wolf. In your mind there are ''wolves''. Anyway, no one can stop you. You're a prophet giving out nothing but truth, and you have authority over any bishop. Any Catholic bishop, if he dares to interfere with a prophet.

There's all the reason to believe you. The Holy Spirit can't be trusted in anymore!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

I've never prophesied anything but the restoration of traditional Catholicism.

But hey, I borrowed that... it's not even my own. Besides that, it's a no brainer. I use the term loosely because I fear making the connection between holiness and brains. Looking at the Fiat of the Blessed Virgin Mary, how could I?

It's always been the case that the laity have saved the Church.

Must be a pretty bad situation when losers like jake, I and company are involved.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2003.

I didn't want to call Regina a loser.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2003.

The Real Presence of Christ will be at the absolute center of the church, when it's consecrated during mass, and at the center of the faithful. Rather than the old church's way of putting Christ on the far side of the building, He's in the center.

1. I didn't see a tabernacle. Did you? Must be they wanted to save a few cents on the model.

2. Christ is the Head of His Church, not a peer with His creatures. It makes theological sense for Him to be front and center; elevated, and separate from anyone who would dare drag Him down to their level. He's your God, not your pal.

3. If there's an "old Church," then there must be a "new church." Interesting point. Go with that. Tell me more.

Don't see how you'd argue with that.

See #'s 1, 2, & 3.

people who think the priest should be facing away from them during mass -- can have their way, as can those who would like to see their priest during mass. Just sit where you choose.

By God, you've fixed the whole problem. If only the priest would turn his back on us, we cranks would all be happy. all I needed to do was find a church-in-the-round!

The next thing would be to put in a real crucifix instead of the cross, but again, on a model, what do you want?

I want a crucifix, and so does the GIRM. At this point, though, I think it's safe to say that plopping a crucifix into that barren metting hall would be like putting a silk hat on a pig.

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

Walk up to receive Holy Communion--WITHOUT hatred in your heart for your brethren. Without the self-righteous pride of a Pharisee. You must be BLIND if you can't ''find Him''

Is your reading of my heart free or will you be sending me a bill?

Seriously though, in these discussions, I haven't *really* been talking about the Mass being celebrated within these new-fangled meeting halls. I'm talking about those opportunites one has to pay a private visit. I'm talking about walking into a Catholic church to pray and visit...and not knowing where to find Our Lord in His Tabernacle so that one may visit with Him intimately.

It's like this. Mary Magdalene went to anoint Our Lord's Body on Easter morning. Not knowing He had risen, she became sad and frightened when she couldn't find Her Lord. "Where have they taken Him?" Going on your logic, she should have been content to visit the place where He *had* been. She should have been content that He was somewhere else. She should have been content with the knowledge that He loved her and kept that love and His *spiritual presence* in her heart. No. She wanted to *see* Him, to be *near* Him. She wanted to know where He could be found.

You deny that we are in the House of God? Of course you do.

You mystify me with your ability to read my heart, Gene. I never said that yours isn't the House of God, that only my parish is. I really wish you could discuss and debate things based on what you read instead of relying on your sometimes irrational imagination.

He is with His people every day, and not just His people over at your rock-candy church where nobody calls a priest by first names. It would be a ''sacrilege'' wouldn't it? You get more absurd by the post! I have to pity you, Regina.

"Monstrosity" is "blasphemous" but "rock-candy" is ok?

I'll tell you what's "absurd", Gene. Your projections into my opinions. Projections which have no basis whatsoever. Where did I ever say it was "sacrilege" to call a priest by his first name? My *opinion* is that using Fr. Lastname is more respectful. If a priest asks me to call him Fr. Firstname, I will.

Regina ''can't find'' Jesus Christ our Blessed Sacrament-- unless He's positioned out on the altar-top and dead-center blocking everything else from view!

Is there something better going on that Our Lord is "blocking" that I need to see? Remember, I'm not talking about Mass. Just visits.

(I also said yesterday; why not inquire for His whereabouts?)

How sad one should have to ask.

The part about receiving Him without bitterness in her heart or PRIDE-- is basic ''state of grace.''

I really hope you're not charging me. The bill will be astronomical.

I hope she confesses her sins? Maybe she thinks there's no sin in judging her neighbor falsely, or a Pharisaic self-righteousness.

Who the heck have I judged falsely or otherwise? I've lent my opinion on church-buildings which have stripped the sacred atmosphere away. All I've basically said is that a House of God should feature God. It should be a shelter and refuge from this world, not look like the world outside. You're the one who's "absurd", Gene. You're taking these crazy ideas you dream up which have no basis and are running hog wild with them.

Regina would have us believe the Catholic Church is doing her damndest to discourage us from kneeling.

As a whole? No. Many, many individual parishes? Yup. Why can't you kneel for Holy Communion anymore even if you wanted to?

-------

Emerald

I didn't want to call Regina a loser.

Oh, by all means! Please pray for me that I will become more of a loser every day!

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 17, 2003.

Well, I guess it's back to "fun with Schismatics" here at the forum:

Jake,

1. I didn't see a tabernacle. Did you? Must be they wanted to save a few cents on the model

I didn't see any exit signs (legally required), windows, air conditioning ducts, light fixtures, etc. either. This is a MODEL, only large structures are included. Unless your church has a tabernacle the size of a Buick, it wouldn't be there. Not that it matters to you, your goal is to try and degrade the Catholic church, even if it means slandering her by putting up episcopalian masses and claiming they are Catholic, etc. You quit caring whether your accusations were true or not a long, long, time ago.

Christ is the Head of His Church, not a peer with His creatures. It makes theological sense for Him to be front and center; elevated, and separate from anyone who would dare drag Him down to their level. He's your God, not your pal.

This is *exactly* the response a Jew would give explaining why Christ *cannot* be divine! Sorry Jake, try again. Christ is both divine (and infinitely worthy of our most profound reverence, fear and awe) AND "our Pal". It's o.k. if you can't understand that, but don't insult the church with more wisdom than you. That's probably your real trouble Jake, you don't understand what it MEANS to be Catholic. I don't mean you can't quote sayings you find on schismatic websites, but the internal JOY of being Catholic. It just seems to be missing from you.

3. If there's an "old Church," then there must be a "new church." Interesting point. Go with that. Tell me more

A final pathetic attempt to claim you are in the "true" church. There is one Catholic church. It can change styles of buildings, or the rite of mass as it wills. Would you prefer I said "the Catholic church under the Tridentine rite" versus "the Catholic church under the current rite of mass"? It's a lot more typing, but that's o.k. You, Jeanie, et. al. can try all you want to bring down the Catholic church, Christ promised to be with her, so you will fail. All you WILL do is condemn your soul (as Pope Eugene said so many years ago).

I want a crucifix, and so does the GIRM. At this point, though, I think it's safe to say that plopping a crucifix into that barren metting hall would be like putting a silk hat on a pig.

Thankfully, our salvation through Christ and the Catholic church doesn't depend on anything you "think". Again, the only person you are *really* condemning is yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

your goal is to try and degrade the Catholic church, even if it means slandering her by putting up episcopalian masses and claiming they are Catholic, etc.

He apologized for his *mistake* and has not repeated it. Not in the habit of forgiveness, Frank? Try it and maybe you'll discover the "interior joy" which you think jake is lacking.

This ability of you neos to read minds, hearts and what their interior being seems to lack is truly astounding, I must say. Even more so is your gift of preaching without having to put anything you say into practice.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 17, 2003.

He apologized for his *mistake* and has not repeated it.

No he did not. He refused to apologize for a long time, and only *said* he apologized when in the same post he published a similar picture of some Catholic priest doing a similar thing. This isn't an apology Regina, and you should be (but apparently aren't) honest enough to admit that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

I apologize, Frank.

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

Thank you for proving me correct. Remember that you are held to the same standards you hold others to.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

The plain fact seems nothing makes Regina or Jake sorry. They are never sorry; and she places qualifiers, *________* around MISTAKE. That means, why apologise anyway; it's only a mistake!

Why doesn't she place them around the word ''neo''--? ? ? Because it's meant to insult and place blame. Again, nothing to be sorry about.

Regina can say, without any scruples-- I can't FIND a tabernacle whenever I go to a regular Catholic church. (A plain lie.) Is she speaking *figuratively*--? No, she means it isn't even THERE, it's invisible. Yet, I always FIND our tabernacle. I just see where the red lamp is hanging; never fails to show me where Our Lord is; the shrine of His holy Tabernacle.

That makes Regina upset. Why isn't He in His *rightful* place, where I say He should be?

Because He is *reserved* Regina, for private meetings with souls who love Him. Whereas, the holy altar is reserved for the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery; Holy Mass. The ALTAR should be front & center, because the Mass has always been the central event of our Catholic faith. --And, GUESS WHAT--? Jesus Christ is priest and offering. He is at the very CENTER of all Christian awareness and adoration, right on the holy altar. So; nobody has ''set Him out'' of His rightful place. On the contrary, His Holiest Sacrament is right before Regina's face and mine. What has she got to kick about?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

No he did not. He refused to apologize for a long time, and only *said* he apologized when in the same post he published a similar picture of some Catholic priest doing a similar thing.

He apologized. If his apology wasn't the sort you'd offer had you done what he did, why don't you be the better Catholic, forgive him anyway and just drop it? I believe you gave me the same wise advice sometime ago with regard to John G.

Yes, he came back with a picture of a *Catholic* priest doing something similar as the episcopalian was doing. But would you be kind enough to explain why you hold *jake* in contempt for his posting of the picture? Why have you no disappointment for the priest who was offering such an irreverent Mass? Seems to me one of two things: You are angered by jake's actions because he exposes things you wish to pretend don't exsist. Or, insulting jake is easier than airing your greviences out where they rightfully belong - to the perpetrators of the irreverent things we've shown. -----

Gene

The plain fact seems nothing makes Regina or Jake sorry. They are never sorry; and she places qualifiers, *________* around MISTAKE. That means, why apologise anyway; it's only a mistake!

I placed them around the word mistake because Frank is still trying to create the impression that jake willfully and knowingly placed a picture of an Episcopalian service and tried to pass it off as Catholic. Both he and I explained that we believed it *was* Catholic.

Why doesn't she place them around the word ''neo''--? ? ? Because it's meant to insult and place blame.

You mean like Frank did with his "fun with the schismatics" jab?

Regina can say, without any scruples-- I can't FIND a tabernacle whenever I go to a regular Catholic church. (A plain lie.)

You're right. It is a "plain lie." I never said I couldn't find a tabernacle whenever I go to a regular Catholic Church. I've been to churches where I found it quite easily. I've been to some which I had to ask where It was.

Is she speaking *figuratively*--? No, she means it isn't even THERE, it's invisible.

Are you alright?

Because He is *reserved* Regina, for private meetings with souls who love Him. Whereas, the holy altar is reserved for the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery; Holy Mass. The ALTAR should be front & center,

What was that you said the other day about putting more emphasis on objects and how doing so borders on idolatry?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 17, 2003.

Thank you for proving me correct. Remember that you are held to the same standards you hold others to.

Relax, Frank.

Don't say I never apologized, either. If you don't accept it, that's not my problem.

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

I'll put up with your games, Regina. You know what holy altar means. We know Who is present on the holy altar, and He isn't an object. The only ''emphasis'' is your irreverence about our holy altar. You like to say, ''Nothing but a dining table, Hm!'' And yet, I forgive you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

Regina,

Yes, he came back with a picture of a *Catholic* priest doing something similar as the episcopalian was doing. But would you be kind enough to explain why you hold *jake* in contempt for his posting of the picture?

Not the posting of the picture, who cares about that? The point is he would NOT apologize for his actions, and only *decided* to when he figured he could slam the church again. It's not an apology, Regina. That is what bothers me, not the inane pictures he posts.

In the big picture, who cares WHAT you guys post, or what I post? No one probably.

placed them around the word mistake because Frank is still trying to create the impression that jake willfully and knowingly placed a picture of an Episcopalian service and tried to pass it off as Catholic. Both he and I explained that we believed it *was* Catholic.

But when it was pointed out it WASN'T Catholic, he didn't say "oh, sorry for attempting to degrade the church", he just continued on his merry way. Only when he figured he *could* slam the church did he say "I'm sorry".

You mean like Frank did with his "fun with the schismatics

You guys ARE schismatics. If you want to call me a Catholic, go right ahead, I won't consider it a jab.

Jake,

Don't say I never apologized, either. If you don't accept it, that's not my problem.

Perhaps I misjudged you Jake. Are you saying you are heartily sorry for any harm caused by your attributing that Episcopalian service to the Catholic church, and that you regret having posted it, and regret your intent for doing so?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

I'll put up with your games, Regina.

Games? I'm not playing games, Gene. You're the one trying to bend and twist my words, insert your...really, really weird ideas into the things I've said. I've answered your arguments based solely on the things you've said - not what I *think* you meant or what's *probably* in your heart. You've taken nearly everything I've said, and if you haven't ignored my questions and points, you've turned my points into something strange that you think I believe (I think the Tabernacle is "invisable" or that *all* Catholic churches hide the tabernacle, or that God's only present at my parish, that I'm here to play "games"..I could go on, but I think I've made my point.)

You know what holy altar means. We know Who is present on the holy altar, and He isn't an object.

In Catholic churches He's present on the Altar during the Mass. Afterwards He's shuttled off to the side. Sometimes to another room. He most certainly isn't an object, but the Altar is. Why not just keep Him reserved on His Altar? Oh, that's right. He'd be "blocking" something. You haven't explained what that "something" is and why it's more important to see that than Our Lord in His Tabernacle.

The only ''emphasis'' is your irreverence about our holy altar. You like to say, ''Nothing but a dining table, Hm!'' And yet, I forgive you.

Again, a product of your imagination. I said in many churches the Altar *looks* like a dining table and I think that's a dangerous image. People associate Altars with sacrifice, and they associate tables with meals.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 17, 2003.

Not the posting of the picture, who cares about that? The point is he would NOT apologize for his actions, and only *decided* to when he figured he could slam the church again. It's not an apology, Regina. That is what bothers me, not the inane pictures he posts.

Again with the reading of minds and hearts. You have no idea at all what motivated jake to apologize, and you've no right to make such assumptions.

Again you accuse jake of "slamming the church" because of the *Catholic* photo, instead of being outraged at those the photo depicts who are truly "slamming" it by their scandalous actions.

But when it was pointed out it WASN'T Catholic, he didn't say "oh, sorry for attempting to degrade the church", he just continued on his merry way. Only when he figured he *could* slam the church did he say "I'm sorry".

Why not be the better man, forgive regardless, and drop it?

You guys ARE schismatics.

So says you. Rome says otherwise. Sorry.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 17, 2003.

You guys ARE schismatics.

So says you. Rome says otherwise. Sorry.

What, did one of Lefebvre's excommunicated minions build a church there? You don't need to apologize to me, but to the Lord for turning your back on His church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

Dear Regina:
You refuse to go in peace. Instead we're fed another gem from your collection.

''People associate altars with sacrifice, and they associate tables with meals.''

That points a finger right at you, Dear. YOU are the only person here who says ''table'', when you could say holy altar. Therefore, you must be associating the Eucharist with meals. Not I-- not good Catholics!

You claim they sometimes ''look like'' just tables. So, it's your own eyes you believe; not the faith of your Church. When did the Church set up a dining table, and say Mass was a ''meal''--? She hasn't. We know it's an altar, even in those ocassions when it's a plainer one. The reason we KNOW is because of the divine Victim immolated for us upon that altar.

Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament hidden in a tabernacle is no less that Victim. He possesses ALL our Church. Not just a spot on the altar. Every inch of the place, and the grounds, and the vessels and holy relics --ALL is strictly HIS. No matter where a tabernacle is given Him. He KNOWS it, He's aware! Not deaf & dumb. Not shuffled off, as you like to say.

It is HE who gives authority to His bishop. The faithful abide by Christ's Will when they confide faithfully in the bishop. Obey and revere him, as the authority over Our Lord's people.

You aren't supposed to correct him. It's not your vocation, Regina. You and I are called to be faithful. Not crabby and critical about everything morning and night. And NOT fanatical. Fanatics worship in mosques, Dear. Jesus doesn't dwell in a mosque.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

Gene, in your response to Regina you say: "YOU are the only person here who says ''table'', when you could say holy altar."

I don't think so. Read this earlier post:

Paul M: "The second picture projects freedom, openness, light, intimacy. Jesus is clearly the predominant image (I'm sure His image appears somewhere in the first picture too). Jesus, becoming present for me on the table, just as He did for the Apostles, no ostentatious distractions, just Him and me, Him and us. Beautiful." (emphasis mine)

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.

So, Nick:
This means the holy altar and your ''table'' must be interchangeable? To Regina, this must be a big relief. To Jesus Christ it's news. To our Church it makes little difference, since the only ones objecting are Golly Gee Traditionalists. I saw the altar OK without Regina interpreting it for me. I must be crazy.

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

Frank

What, did one of Lefebvre's excommunicated minions build a church there?

Cute.

On a similar topic, an Italian bishop allows the SSPX to celebrate one Mass a month at his Cathedral. Is this bishop a schismatic?

Look, I'd really like to stick with the subject of this thread. I'm not going to get into this "schism" thing with you again. I've already posted some of the scores of statements from Rome with regard to the SSPX and how my assistance or support for them isn't "schismatic." I've raised these points several times over the last two years, you've dodged them each and every time but kept up the wrongful labeling nonetheless. Fine. Think what you will, ignore what's been said and enjoy the false witnessing. If you want to lend your opinion on new-styled churches and the impact it can have on the faith, I'd be interested to read it and discuss it with you.

------

Gene

You refuse to go in peace.

I've already said I will when I'm ready.

Therefore, you must be associating the Eucharist with meals. Not I- - not good Catholics!

Look, Gene, if you don't want to discuss this anymore either just say so, or stop posting. But pulling these ideas out of the air and applying them to my beliefs is getting us no where. If I associated the Holy Eucharist with meals, I'd have no problem with the new- styled altars. It's because I regard It to be something infinitly more that I believe an Altar shouldn't *look* like a table.

When did the Church set up a dining table, and say Mass was a ''meal''--? She hasn't.

Gene, you need to keep something in mind. You had the pleasure and privilage of spending the majority of your life educated with the Traditional Catechism, the Traditional Mass. When the changes came, the changing of the rite, the changing of the atmosphere of many churches, you still had your solid education and experience as a strong foundation.

I, on the other hand, was educated poorly at a very liberal, progressive Catholic grammar school and highschool. My mom, God bless her, tried to correct some of the wrong things I was being taught. She and my Dad felt it was important to keep me in Catholics schools anyway, since the public schools won't even let you *talk* about God. When you have your parish priest telling you one thing, the school another, and your folks something else, everything begins to seem inconsistent. Who do you believe? Who's telling you the truth? The very first time I learned that the Mass is a Sacrificial offering was at the Traditional Mass. I had been taught that it was a community meal overseen by Jesus. I had no problem believing this because my parish *reflected* an atmosphere of a grand meal, nothing more. I heard much about spiritual food and drink, communal banquets, and sharing, but not much about the Real Presence, the re-enactment of Calvary, or sacrifice. What I learned and the atmosphere which fostered those teachings went hand in hand.

I know you're going to accuse me of lying. Have at it. I can't prove this was my experience anymore than you can prove it *wasn't.* If you come back with the typical accusations of dishonesty, I'm not even going to dignify them with any response. If you'd like to return to the subject of new-styled churches and have more to say about them, I'd be happy to continue that with you.

We know it's an altar, even in those ocassions when it's a plainer one. The reason we KNOW is because of the divine Victim immolated for us upon that altar.

I know that *now.* I didn't always.

You aren't supposed to correct him. It's not your vocation, Regina. You and I are called to be faithful.

You seem to think the faithful exsist to provide the bishops with obedience. I say the bishops exsist to provide the faithful with the means to salvation. A man is only worthy of obedience when he does this.

Not crabby and critical about everything morning and night.

I may be critical, but I'm hardly crabby. I enjoy these discussions and I love talking about my faith.

And NOT fanatical. Fanatics worship in mosques, Dear. Jesus doesn't dwell in a mosque.

Agreed.

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

"So, Nick: This means the holy altar and your ''table'' must be interchangeable?"

Gene, I don't think we're all that far apart on this issue. I believe that Mass can be celebrated using the hood of a jeep as an altar during war time. I suppose that in village churches during the Middle Ages, altars were probably simple wooden tables. My problem lies in the purposeful destruction of pre-existing altars and their replacement by tables (or if you prefer, table-like altars). This makes no sense on many levels, nor was it mandated by Vatican II. This helped cause some people (I'm not saying you) to regard Mass as more of a meal and less of a sacrifice. If so many altars were smashed and replaced with table-like altars, it's only natural that people start thinking of them as tables (that's why I quoted Paul M). Note also those awful 1970's era hymns with their "come to the table" references.

My religious education background was similar to Regina's. The sacrificial aspect just was not taught to me.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.

Hi, Nick.

I sure wish I could have explained myself as good as you did in your above post. You summed up everything I've been trying to say.

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

Over these many years, all over the U.S, in Mexico, England, Spain, etc., I have never seen a single ''marble'' altar undergo purposeful destruction, or, as Regina likes to say, get ''ripped out''. A great many churches retain that older stone altar in the form of backdrop; with whatever altar piece it once had, or some newer type. It happens every old altar was against the WALL, where priests were wont to face; their backs to the congregation.

This altar was the place upon which old churches stood their holy tabernacles. Now of course, this is removed from that place, and for a very practical reason; so the priest will not be celebrating with his back to the tabernacle.

You see, these arrangements everybody finds so sacrilegious now, are done precisely BECAUSE of our great love and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

Get back to the ''new'' altar or ''table''. This is usually NOT something which has REPLACED the older one. It's almost always an ADDED altar, situated in a central section of the sanctuary space, not up against the wall, as previously. This is so that the priest faces us, the congregation. We now PARTICIPATE, together with him, in the Mass.

In those years before the Council, it was priest and acolytes who participated. We simply listened and watched. These, then were roles the Council intended to ENLARGE, make more personal, as spiritual experience for us, the faithful. There are serious reasons for the difference in that older altar and today's. Personal and active participation on the part of all the faithful being the major one.

But try telling that to fanatics! Like these; who state forthrightly the Bishop is there to obey THEM, not vice-versa. That REALLY takes nerve.

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

With all due respect, to both of you:
The actual reason you couldn't ''explained myself as good as you did in your above post. You summed up everything I've been trying to say;'' Regina, is because you haven't any substantial thing to explain.

Nick claims the sacrificial significance of Holy Mass was ''never taught''-- as you do.

Tha's funny; becaus anybody who just reads the scriptural narrative of Christ's last supper can uncover the significance immediately. I guess neither Nick or you read these things.

As for an aspect related to taking a ''meal'' it's definitely legitimate on sufficient contemplation. Our Lord said without elaboration, ''Take this and EAT it, and Drink it;'' That means we eat and drink: in a holy banquet known as the Eucharist.

That is perfectly understandable, without denying in any way the sacrificial aspect WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS! Give us a break !

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

I have never seen a single ''marble'' altar undergo purposeful destruction, or, as Regina likes to say, get ''ripped out''.

So, you didn't even look at the before and after pictures of the *same* Cathedral I posted upthread?

where priests were wont to face; their backs to the congregation.

So that *all* of us *together* could look at God.

This altar was the place upon which old churches stood their holy tabernacles. Now of course, this is removed from that place, and for a very practical reason; so the priest will not be celebrating with his back to the tabernacle.

Maybe it would be better then to just face God? What need does the priest have to see my ugly mug?

You see, these arrangements everybody finds so sacrilegious now, are done precisely BECAUSE of our great love and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

Uh, ok. Put Him off to the side so we can look at each other and that shows how much we love Christ? With all due respect, Gene, I'm not going to Mass to see you or Fr. First/Last name. I'm going to see Our Lord.

This is so that the priest faces us, the congregation. We now PARTICIPATE, together with him, in the Mass.

Again, I think the old way shows unity. We stand/sit/kneel before Him with the priest at the head offering prayers on our behalf. The new way, I'm looking at the priest, he's looking back at me. Much like the same set up one would see at a seminar.

As far as "participation" goes, it is only now that we can hear the sound of our own voices that we are truly participating?

In those years before the Council, it was priest and acolytes who participated. We simply listened and watched.

Speak for yourself. I'm not a mere listener and watcher at Mass.

There are serious reasons for the difference in that older altar and today's. Personal and active participation on the part of all the faithful being the major one.

People sing hynm and say responses aloud now. Those who wish to remain silent - are they *not* personally and actively participating? I ask because you seem to equate the silence of the faithful at the old Mass with the inability to participate.

But try telling that to fanatics! Like these; who state forthrightly the Bishop is there to obey THEM, not vice-versa.

I never said a bishop is there to obey me. I said a bishop is required to lead according to the rules laid down by Our Lord. If he's not doing that, who do I follow - the Bishop or Christ? There's no virtue in obeying disobedience.

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

Gene, I said "never taught". I didn't say I never learned it on my own. Read more carefully next time.

We were too busy doing arts and crafts in my religious education classes (in the 1970's). My teachers never taught anything about the Mass.

I also never said that it wasn't also a meal. Read more carefully next time.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.

Nick: OK, I will. You should have read the Last Supper narrative more carefully too. That way, some sacrificial aspect of our Mass would have ocurred to you sooner.

/ / / /

Regina: --Your simplistic rationale is showing: ''Uh, ok. Put Him off to the side so we can look at each other and that shows how much we love Christ? With all due respect, Gene, I'm not going to Mass to see you or Fr. First/Last name. I'm going to see Our Lord.''

If Our Lord were truly ''off to the side'' in His Presence, I'd sympathise with you. He isn't; you deal too much in dumb caricatures. Even if I'm at the last row in church, His divine Presence is as palpable and definite as if I were INSIDE His tabernacle with Him. You, of course are just fighting mad at Vatican II, and any stick will do you to hurt the Council, or deride it.

''I think the old way shows unity. We stand/sit/kneel before Him,'' can't be so. You won't ever have ''unity'' as long as you dispute with priests (Fr Firstname) bishops and your Pope. What you figure as unity is; ''Everybody get behind ME. I'm ''traditional''. You're not behind the Holy Spirit. I mean that seriously; you are opposing Him.

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

-

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

Regina,

On a similar topic, an Italian bishop allows the SSPX to celebrate one Mass a month at his Cathedral. Is this bishop a schismatic?

If someone else wrote this, I'd think they were being ironic, but from you, you're serious, aren't you?

Regina, you have spend countless hours here Asserting that priests and Bishops are NOT following Tradition, and now you use a Bishop's letting schismatics use a cathedral as *justification* for the schismatics? Since this is the action of a CATHOLIC Bishop, I'm suprised you didn't jump all over him for letting excommunicated people use the cathedral.

Of course I expect you to change your tune now. If one bishop doing something makes it o.k., whenever a bishop recommends demolishing an alter, etc. you are going to think that's great, right? OR, are you just being a hypocrite, saying THIS horrible action is o.k. because you agree with it, but denying the bishops their authority to do other possibly horrible actions when you disagree?

And you are quite right, we've shown you schismatic enough times. For anyone else who may be reading, regardless of what a few canon lawyers think (they all can have their own opinions, after all), it is the Pope who is the final authority on whether or not these people are excommunicated. He wrote that they were excommunicated by name, as well as anyone who formally adheres to their schism. Case... closed.

Frank

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

"Nick: OK, I will. You should have read the Last Supper narrative more carefully too. That way, some sacrificial aspect of our Mass would have ocurred to you sooner."

You're right. I just didn't care much back then. I refuse to take all of the blame though. I was a dumb kid, and I should have had better teachers. Now that I'm an adult, I'm trying to learn, but I pretty much had to start from scratch.

Compare a 1962 (or earlier) missal with a new one, and let me know which one teaches the sacrificial aspect more explicitly. Even the original New Order GIRM didn't include the word sacrifice in the definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." Yes, I know it was ammended later (after protests were made), but how tragic that this definition was even considered! And you criticize kids for not knowing the Mass is a sacrifice? There are some clergy who don't know it!

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.

alter = altar

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

"Over these many years, all over the U.S, in Mexico, England, Spain, etc., I have never seen a single ''marble'' altar undergo purposeful destruction, or, as Regina likes to say, get ''ripped out''."

You can see an example if you scroll up. For another example, visit the cathedral in Cheyenne, WY and ask to see photographs of what the altar used to look like. Or, type "church wreckovation" in a search engine. I'm sure you'll see and read about many examples.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.

Dear Nick,
I hesitate to argue with you, really; because every individual meets with the circumstances particular to him. Who am I to belittle your spiritual awareness, past or present?

I will only tell you what my own circumstance was. True, I didn't turn out a great example to others, but I learned my catechism.

This despite having attended catholic school exactly ONE year, in order to make first holy Communion preparation. The true spiritual depth I've reached is owed more to my parents and grandparents. Mind you, this was in the reign of Pius XII. The sisters who taught us in 3rd grade were vey hard-nosed and serious.

I could have turned out a malcontent catholic after the 2nd Vatican Council, but I didn't. WHY?

I have faith, that's why. Faith is what forms the Catholic survivor. It makes me understand our church because my Church isn't ''organised religion'' or GIRM, or an ivory tower I want to climb into. She is Christ's ordained WILL for me. I know there is no other way to fulfill my Christian obligations. I will never accept the possibility that the Church can mislead me. So, very early on I made it my business to study her doctrines and my role as a faithful Catholic. Today, despite only a sparse school year of experience, it seems absurd to me, when somebody puts the blame on his teachers for not learning his catholic faith.

I'm pleased to know you're making up for lost time now. And I hope I can somehow help you; assuming you'll accept my help.

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

P.S.
I just saw your subsequent posting.

You answer my other objection saying: ''to what the altar used to look like'' as if that was a correction.

It doesn't matter one bit what a previous altar looked like. We worship together before the NEW new one. If it's good enough for the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it must absolutely suit you and me. If it did NOT please Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit will not have allowed it. But He did, and that's the faith.

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

"it seems absurd to me, when somebody puts the blame on his teachers for not learning his catholic faith." ... "Mind you, this was in the reign of Pius XII. The sisters who taught us in 3rd grade were vey hard-nosed and serious."

I think you're illustrating my point. You were educated during the reign of Pope Pius XII. My religious education occurred during a period when no one seemed to know what the truth was. Darn right I think my teachers deserve part of the blame for their warm-fuzzy curriculum. I'm a teacher, and I take my responsibility seriously. I would never dream of having students make clay figures of how they "feel" about math, and then tell them, "Your calculus final exam is tomorrow - it's your responsibility to learn it all on your own!"

"If it did NOT please Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit will not have allowed it. But He did, and that's the faith." (the "it" referring to destruction of altars)

I'm not so sure we have to accept everything that occurs in a church on the theory that the Holy Ghost would have prevented it if it were wrong.

"And I hope I can somehow help you; assuming you'll accept my help."

That's a gracious offer, and I will probably take you up on it. I need all the help I can get.

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

I hear You: --''I'm not so sure we have to accept everything that occurs in a church on the theory that the Holy Ghost would have prevented it if it were wrong.''

Well, I didn't say ''anything that occurs in a church.'' My remark has to do with what you see as just awful; taking out the old altar and placing another one in. Do you think the Holy Spirirt should have prevented that?

I don't. It isn't a change affecting the truth, or justice, or validity of the Holy Mass. If in fact it were I'm sure the Holy Spirit would intervene. That's no theory, it's true. We aren't going to fail in matters of faith and/or morals as long as the Holy Spirit has anything to say about it.

An altar is something material. I've stated my belief several times now; externals aren't something crucial to the holiness of the Church. The holy altar is holy because of the Eucharist, not because it's marble, or ''traditional''. The newer altars are to be considered truly HOLY, whether or not some Catholic loved the older, marble ones. They're equally holy, because Christ is holy and He makes an altar holy. Not marble, or style or any other thing.

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

Regina, Jake, and Emerald:
Thank you for doing such a wonderful job defending the faith.
May God bless you all.
Have a very Merry Christmass.
FGC

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

Since this is the action of a CATHOLIC Bishop, I'm suprised you didn't jump all over him for letting excommunicated people use the cathedral.

I'd really like to keep this thread on topic, but since you raise this point, I think it deserves some attention.

Yes, I've demonstrated many examples over the past two years on bishops turning their backs on Tradition, and I've been bashed for it. I post some good news about a Bishop allowing Tradition to be given a voice in the Church...and I'm getting bashed for it. I don't get it. If I speak unfavorably about a bishop, I'm an unfaithful, disobedient schismatic. If I show the good works of a bishop, I'm a disobedient schismatic. You'll have to explain that to me.

Secondly, this Italian bishop has not received any punishment (as far as I know) for allowing the SSPX to celebrate Mass. You've called his actions "terrible." Tell me, are you ready to publicly announce here and now that he, too, is a "schismatic"?

OR, are you just being a hypocrite, saying THIS horrible action is o.k. because you agree with it, but denying the bishops their authority to do other possibly horrible actions when you disagree?

Allowing Tradition is *certainly* "ok." And any action which seeks to destroy it, isn't. What's so hypocritical about that? There are some things Card. Ratzinger, for example, has said which I applaud. There are some things he's said that I disagree with. How is that or what I've posted here about the Italian bishop "hypocritical?" If I was truly "out of the church" or a "schimatic," I'd hardly care - good or bad - *what* the clergy was up to.

This is probably the very first time I've heard you say that something a Bishop is doing is "terrible." Considering the plethora of scandals currently going on (such as Bishop Dolan's spineless reaction and *in*action to that feminist free-for-all in one one of his churches), how sad (and very telling) that it is the allowing of a Traditional Mass which brings the word "terrible" out of you in regard to a bishop.

He wrote that they were excommunicated by name, as well as anyone who formally adheres to their schism. Case... closed.

You never answered me - How does one "formally adhere" to schism?

As long as we have the examples of Saints who continued Tradition in times of error, even though they had received similar declarations (suspensions, excommunications) from the Pope - and in the end we're shown that they (those saints) were champions of the faith - that's all I need to know that seeking refuge at a Traditional venue to weather this current storm isn't wrong or "schismatic."

There. *Now* the case is closed. At least for me it is. I'm not going to discuss this on this thread again. I'd like to stick with the topic of new-styled churches. If you want to start a new thread, I suppose I might reply, but I really don't see any reason for it. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. We've both presented our arguements dozens of times and neither one of us has budged from our positions. I think we both need to accept that about each other.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 19, 2003.

Thank you, FGC!

And a very merry and Blessed Christmas to you and your loved ones!

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 19, 2003.

Sorry, Frank. I quoted you as using the word "terrible" when you used the word "horrible." Same difference I suppose...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 19, 2003.

"An altar is something material. I've stated my belief several times now; externals aren't something crucial to the holiness of the Church. The holy altar is holy because of the Eucharist, not because it's marble, or ''traditional''. The newer altars are to be considered truly HOLY, whether or not some Catholic loved the older, marble ones. They're equally holy, because Christ is holy and He makes an altar holy. Not marble, or style or any other thing."

I agree competely, as I stated in my jeep-hood-altar comment earlier. I keep coming back to WHY. OK, put plain table-like altars in new churches as they are built. But why rip out the pre-existing old ones? So many of them were paid for by the sweat and sacrifices of immigrants who donated their much-needed pennies to their churches. To go to great expense to eliminate the old ones and replace them with something plain makes no sense (just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done). As you pointed out earlier, instead of demolition, the old altars could be simply altered (altered altars!) a little to allow for the priest to face the people. If anyone can give me a reason for demolition I am very interested.

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

Nick:
Most new alatrs are set forward and in ''front'' of the existing altar; unless the remodeling of a sanctuary was very extensive. In new churches there's nothing to ''rip out,'' in the first place.

I'll venture to say to those who complain endlessly; --has anybody ''ripped out'' the altar of Saint Peter's Basilica? Or of ten thousand of our other historic churches? HARDLY. It might be done from case to case, but I think this is a straw dog set up by so called ''trads'' to incite the average catholic's displeasure against authority. When there's no actual ''ripping'' it's some other incendiary description; demolition, wreckovation of church buildings, ''ugly churches''--

All calculated to make the new LITURGY seem a waste of time and a dirty shame!

I personally am tired of your repeating all those accusations. Go to church somewhere else, when you dislike one church or the other. Go to Spain, or to France. Go to Mont Saint Michel or Chartres or Notre Dame and stop the griping!

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

Regina,

Yes, I've demonstrated many examples over the past two years on bishops turning their backs on Tradition, and I've been bashed for it. I post some good news about a Bishop allowing Tradition to be given a voice in the Church...and I'm getting bashed for it. I don't get it. If I speak unfavorably about a bishop, I'm an unfaithful, disobedient schismatic. If I show the good works of a bishop, I'm a disobedient schismatic. You'll have to explain that to me.

Again, I'd say someone else is being *deliberately* obtuse, but with you... This bishop is NOT doing "good works" letting an excommunicated cleric say mass in his cathedral. This is just showing your bias, that you would commend him and not others performing other illicit acts. This does not make you a schismatic, just wrong.

Tell me, are you ready to publicly announce here and now that he, too, is a "schismatic"?

If you can post somewhere that he says he formally adheres to Lefebvre's schism, then he is a schismatic. If you can post enough of his writings that make it appear that he adhere's to Lefebvre's schism, we could agree to that too. OTOH, at this time there is NO evidence he agrees with Lefebvre at all, for all I know he lets left- wing dissidents say mass there too (which is just as wrong). We can NOT say that he personally is schismatic at this point, only that he has poor judgement. (Think about Cardinal Law, he wasn't schismatic, but used poor judgement, the two are not synonyms).

Allowing Tradition is *certainly* "ok." And any action which seeks to destroy it, isn't. What's so hypocritical about that?

Nothing. Catholics follow Tradition, pseudo-Catholic schismatics do NOT, and this is wrong, and has been covered copiously in the past.

This is probably the very first time I've heard you say that something a Bishop is doing is "terrible."

You don't read closely then, but then you only see what you want to. For example, the church's handling of the sexual abuse situation was Terrible, and actually started when the church was practicing the Tridentine rite, as you know, or should know. (of course you would never blame the Tridentine rite for that, but never stop blaming the current rite of mass for all the problems of the church today)

You never answered me - How does one "formally adhere" to schism?

Read the old threads.

As long as we have the examples of Saints who continued Tradition in times of error, even though they had received similar declarations (suspensions, excommunications) from the Pope - and in the end we're shown that they (those saints) were champions of the faith - that's all I need to know that seeking refuge at a Traditional venue to weather this current storm isn't wrong or "schismatic."

This has been covered before too. When the Arians were around, this was resolved pretty soon, especially considering the lack of mass communication. It was over an article of faith. Today we have a debate over the *rite of mass*, and an errant clerics refusal to submit to legitimate Papal authority. There is no comparison between the two, and no Saint has EVER done what you imply they did over a *rite of mass*.

Now* the case is closed. At least for me it is. I'm not going to discuss this on this thread again

If you'd change that to where you'd quit spreading schism on the forum altogether, and not just on this thread, that would be something useful.

Frank

P.S. You know, you should ask your local Lefebvrite "Bishop" if he'll ordain your husband as a bishop, then you could say mass whenever and wherever you want, and ordain whoever you want, and have them be valid (good) but illicit priests too (bad, but you don't care). You see, once a bishop loses communion with Rome, well, I don't know what else needs to be said.

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

If you can post somewhere that he says he formally adheres to Lefebvre's schism, then he is a schismatic.

What is "formal adherence?"

He thinks enough of the Society to allow them to use his church. I think enough of them to assist at their Masses (or have in the past and will again when I go on retreat later this winter.). So, again, I ask, how does this bishop escape your accusations of schism?

For example, the church's handling of the sexual abuse situation was Terrible, and actually started when the church was practicing the Tridentine rite, as you know, or should know. (of course you would never blame the Tridentine rite for that, but never stop blaming the current rite of mass for all the problems of the church today)

I have never, ever, *ever* blamed the numerous cases of sexual abuse on any rite of the Mass! I've blamed the loss of faith and/or the cluelessness, confusion or disbelief of some basic tenents of our faith among many Catholics on the new rite.

You never answered me - How does one "formally adhere" to schism?

Read the old threads.

I did. You never answered me.

Today we have a debate over the *rite of mass*, and an errant clerics refusal to submit to legitimate Papal authority. There is no comparison between the two, and no Saint has EVER done what you imply they did over a *rite of mass*.

Oh? What about the *violent* (and successful) resistance of the people of Milan to *papal efforts* to eliminate the Ambrosian rite? These resisters are not viewed as schismatics by Church history. You can read all about it over at New Advent.

If you'd change that to where you'd quit spreading schism on the forum altogether, and not just on this thread, that would be something useful.

Hey, Frank, this very long thread managed to stay on topic until you came along...I've already said way more than I wanted to about this subject you are hell-bent on resurrecting. You'll have to take this up with someone else. I'm done.

What's your opinion on new-styled churches? You like the newer ones? The older ones?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 19, 2003.

Actually Regina, my first comments were on church design. Our conversation started when you butted in uninvited to my conversation.

Why not just quit posting, no one is forcing you to continue.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2003.

Gene, you don't have to get huffy. I've said several times that I agree with your basic premise. If you don't like the topic, there are other threads you can go to. If you read "Ugly as Sin" or "Renovation Manipulation" by Michael Rose or visit http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/renovation/discussion.html, you'll find that this isn't just a concern of "trads". A lot of non-traditional Catholics are upset about what's happening to their churches too. It's not just the isolated couple of cases, as you seem to think, either.

"Go to Spain, or to France. Go to Mont Saint Michel or Chartres or Notre Dame"

I agree that we often have to travel far to get away from the wreckage left behind by the progressives, but fortunately I don't have to go as far as Europe. I couldn't afford the weekly plane tickets. I notice you didn't mention England. If I went there, I would see examples of how, when the Protestants took over Catholic churches, the first thing they did was remove altars and replace them with tables, in line with their new theology (emphasize meal, de-emphasize sacrifice). Those Protestants with their tables, presiders facing the people, Communion in the hand, vernacular, etc. Good thing we Catholics avoided all these Protestant influences! Fast forward to 1989, where we see that Protestants were the ones protesting the demolition of the Catholic cathedral in Oakland because of its historical value. Pretty ironic that now Protestants are more interested in preserving Catholic heritage than most "conservative" Catholics are. Too many conservative Catholics are more willing to protest the demolition of a historic movie theater than their own heritage. What exactly have these conservative Catholics conserved, anyway? "quit griping"

The head in the sand approach? I might as well try it for awhile. I'm not making much difference by griping anyway.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

Actually Regina, my first comments were on church design. Our conversation started when you butted in uninvited to my conversation.

Pardon me, Frank. To the best of my knowledge no one has to wait to be invited to lend their opinion to a discussion going on in a thread. There is no "butting in" on a discussion forum. Of course, I suppose one could actually "but in" when they offer sarcastic jabs served to provoke arguments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I believe the word for that is "trolling."

What's your opinion on new-styled churches? Do you have a preference for the old style?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 20, 2003.

There's the hypocrisy. When the thread started these weren't ''new-style'' churches. They were simply ''ugly churches''.

Well, let's be very clear about one thing, Regina, et al: NOBODY calls ANY Catholic church ''UGLY'', not if they are good Catholics.

The House of God is the place where His glory dwells; and can never be ugly to me. Not if it's a Gothic cathedral, not if it's a hut. God makes it His HOLY church, and calling it ''ugly'' borders on blasphemy, IMO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2003.

Hugh,

They aren't deliberately making eyesores, you know. That *would* be an affront to God. However, what men think is the best way to please God changes. For example, in the early church there are writings where Gold wasn't to be used for the host as it was felt inferior to place it in a metal container as opposed to being held in the hand of a divinely created flesh. Later in the middle ages, it was considered wrong to touch the host with one's hand, and Gold was the repository for the host. Same thing with churches. You can tell the century a church was built just looking at it. There is no one church design that was determined to be the best and must be reproduced ad infinitum, as our culture changes, our churches can too, so long as we are always trying to do our best before God.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 22, 2003.

The problem is yours primarily. Then you project unwisely onto God, who is Lord over all Creation. You aren't aware of God's true glory, the glory Jesus Christ gives Him and we serve. It's your soul that serves God through Jesus Christ. Not your so-called creative powers.

In your Confirmation the Holy Spirit gave you greater faith, and the virtues and gifts to serve Him as a soldier of Christ.

This is what God loves on earth, before any temporal splendor. In fact, to God the temporal ''splendor'' protestants build may be pleasing indeed. You can't know. Because you speak only from false pride. Pride in only YOUR versions of what makes a fine offering. Then all else is just ''ghastly abomination''. It's precisely the same matter that preoccupied the Pharisees. Only THEIR worship gave glory to God. They said it every day to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

For instance, any resemblance in the building to protestant offerings, you reject automatically. It can't compete, in your estimation. But God never said it; you say it. As if to say, we anathemized them; and it will NEVER change, they'll stay anathema.

God might think otherwise. It's entirely possible He PREFERS a new aura around the faith of His Church. An aura of equality for me and my brethren who went away. He may well expect from me such a humility; and for me to confess: ''It's like some protestant places of worship, perhaps. Well, why not? They build beautiful churches as well. They love God. They are blessed too.''

These feelings are likely sacrilegious or evil in your sight. You only wish to condemn, not reunite. It isn't God's Holy Church at all, for some Catholics. It's THEIRS. You can tell by the ways they act.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 22, 2003.

>>>For instance, any resemblance in the building to protestant offerings, you reject automatically.

uh? where did I say that. Give me Westminster Abbey with a tabernacle any day over some of these ugly places

-- Hugh (hugh@aol.com), December 23, 2003.

With Saint Edward the Confessor in his tomb, right in the center. Yes; good Catholic building. Who said protestants built ugly churches? --Yet, here we squawk if the church concedes anything to protestantism; English language for starters.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 23, 2003.

"Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."

excerpt from "Mediator Dei", Pope Pius XII, 1947

Ripping out altars and replacing them with tables is a no-no.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), January 20, 2004.

We have a HOLY altar in my church; and the older altar is still standing attached to the wall where it was in 1947. We have Jesus Christ's Sacred Body and Precious Blood upon that altar. It's a fine altar, with the saint's relics stored within a slot. Our devout priest comes around it to face the people, bows to kiss the relic; and starts Holy Mass. We are very happy to celebrate with him, thank you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

And so, Eugene, because your priest is devout, it's a fine altar, has relics stored in it and you celebrate the Mass there, does that make it OK to reject the firm, serious warnings of a Pope? It makes you happy to reject his teaching?

Long time, no see, BTW? Have you missed me?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 20, 2004.

Welcome back Isabel!

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Let others reject, Regina. The Church of our day is inclusive and accomodating. The Church loves our Holy Father who is kind to outsiders. Learn to follow his leads. Our altars are still holy, they are God's truest altars. Don't come to our forum to denigrate them or laugh at them. They serve God, every bit as much as those under Rome's streets in 50 AD, and those in Chartres in the days of the Sun King.

I remind all of you once more: It pleased God to live alongside the Hebrews for forty years in a tent, out in a wilderness. It also pleased Him to have Solomon and later Herod erect glorious Temples. We know He's pleased to dwell in our hearts today. Don't allow materialism to influence you at this late stage. Offer what you have. He'll love you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2004.

Let others reject, Regina.

Hmmm...Not sure what you mean here, Gene. Did you mean "Let others reject" me? Or, "Let others reject [something you didn't mention], Regina." If it's the latter, what are you asking "others" to "reject?"

Also, I'm not sure why you started this up again with me. Did you actually mean to address Isabel, since she recently posted to this discussion? In any event, since you seem willing to still talk about this...

The Church of our day is inclusive and accomodating.

To whom? And what has She done to include and accomodate them (whoever they are) that She failed to do in the past?

Are you saying that the Church was once exclusive and unaccomodating? Who did She not include or accomodate?

The Church loves our Holy Father who is kind to outsiders.

The Pope and the Church of "our day" is showing kindness to "outsiders?" What steps are being taken to do this, in your opinion? Have past pope treated "outsiders" unkind? How so?

Learn to follow his leads. Our altars are still holy, they are God's truest altars.

Here's an interesting quote from St. Robert Bellermine - "when we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars, and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But, on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a wooden table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the house of God." --Octava Controversia Generalis, liber II, Controversia Quinta, caput XXXI.

Don't come to our forum to denigrate them or laugh at them.

The "denigration" of God's House isn't being done by me. And believe me, the images shown in this thread (and many of the parishes I've seen) are hardly the stuff of humor.

I remind all of you once more: It pleased God to live alongside the Hebrews for forty years in a tent, out in a wilderness. It also pleased Him to have Solomon and later Herod erect glorious Temples.

And through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost God's Homes through the centuries had become places reflecting the beauty and sacredness of our Faith and, most importantly, a place to give adoration, honor and glory to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament - a place which shows unambiguously that the church building is, first and foremost, a Home for Our Lord in the Tabernacle. From there it follows that everything should be centered around It. Just as the heart and the head cannot separate, neither should the tabernacle and altar.

We know He's pleased to dwell in our hearts today.

What does this have to do with anything? And why is it, whenever we discuss the *Real* Presence, you come back with bumpersticker-like platitudes about His *spiritual* presence? You do realize there is a distinct difference, right? Your insistant references and emphasis on Our Lord's spiritual presence at Mass smells a bit like Protestantism. I know it's unintentional, but I'm just trying to show you how you come across in discussions on the Real Presence...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 22, 2004.

"The Church of our day is inclusive and accomodating."

Especially of Regina and jake, so I've noticed. And Isabel too; I think Gene meant Isabel. It's a happy accident if it got you back in here to tell the truth though, Regina... just as good.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 22, 2004.

Thanks for correcting me, I did mean Isabel. Now I see. You say I started it up again? I say it was Nick. Nothing wrong, it's a free country.

Now you enter with a blanket accusation. Not just to dispute once more the urgency of better church design; but even saying I smell protestant. That's rich! How do protestants smell, Regina?

You don't agree Jesus can be spiritually present, amidst His holy people? Not unless the church we occupy is free of a ''protestant smell?'' You really don't understand how a man like me could adore the Real Presence, do you? Just because I don't hurl contempt at the Novus Ordo Missal and contemporary-style church buildings? But you see, I do love the Real Presence in our Blessed Sacrament. With or without a tabernacle at twelve o'clock high inside the church. But you won't love Him if the tabernacle stands off on a private altar. You ''feel pain'' for that great insult to His divinity. Why don't others?

You never even describe it as changing our altars. It has to be ''ripping out'' the real altar and placing a ''table'' in the sanctuary! Your taste is offended, so you say, ''ripping out''.

I think Jesus feels betrayed by your sophistication and elitism, Regina, --and Isabel. Jesus never owned a house. He had no place in the world to lay His head; but He lived in the tabernacles of our hearts always. From the first days of his life, straight out of the stable of Bethlehem. Naturally, you didn't figure protestants had a heart to offer him, did you?

To your holiness a protestant is like the Samaritan, when Pharisees ruled Jerusalem. That's why you denigrate a church for its vulgar protestant style. And why you hate ecumenism and reaching out to our separated brethren. They're not good enough for you.

that's why you scorn any idea of a true spiritual presence, as if this were false. But it's TRUE. No matter what elitists say.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Emerald's little chip on his shoulder:

''The Church of our day is inclusive and accomodating." Especially of Regina and jake, so I've noticed. And Isabel too;''

Ive helped them to understand the Church after Vatican II. What else can I do, to make them included?

It is they who exclude whomever they consider ''Neo'', and their entire parishes, as if we had no place in the Catholic Church! They will not be accomodating, even for love of Jesus Christ our mutual Lord ! /

Jake & Regina long since wore out their welcome in this forum, not for their religion, which is Catholic enough, (up to the verge of schism.) But for their constant carping and resistance to anybody else's views. The Church cannot be Catholic to them if their agenda isn't served up. --You also, believe in their idealized, severe traditionalism. Not in the tradition of the holy apostles, love and obedience under all the Popes. It never does any good to try to reason with you. You're too holy to be touched.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Ive helped them to understand the Church after Vatican II.

You certainly have; and we each owe you a debt of gratitude.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 22, 2004.

I'll take that as sarcasm and it's fine. But what other inclusion was I able to give you? You must take what's available, just as I always do. I know you trust in God. Let Him be the sole Judge of Vatican II; we won't do Him any favor cutting ourselves off from the rest of the faithful for love of a cathedral. I'm certain He can love us in an ''ugly church'' same as He loved His Holy Son, who rode a donkey. It didn't take anything away from His glory, IMO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Isabel,

does that make it OK to reject the firm, serious warnings of a Pope? It makes you happy to reject his teaching?

Kind of an ironic statement to be coming from someone who is studiously rejecting Ecclesia Dei in support of the excommunicated archbishop lefebvre, isn't it? Or is it o.k. to reject the Pope's clear warnings when YOU think it's indicated, just not when others do?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2004.

Frank:

You seem to have some sort of grim fascination w/ Abp. Lefebvre. Every time you need to do a quick subject-change, you dig the poor man up again.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 22, 2004.

Now I see. You say I started it up again?

I didn't mean it in a "Well, he staaaarted it" kind of way. I meant that you used my name (when you actually meant Isabel which I wasn't sure of) in your post. I didn't want to make assumptions so I wrote back just in case the post was intended for me and that you did want to visit this old discussion with me again. That's all.

How do protestants smell, Regina?

The protestant *faith* smells sort of the way a perfume does when it's trying to mimic the scent of a rose - Artificially manufactured. Man-made.

In case you didn't realize, in Protestant services - they deny the Real Presense, of course - they celebrate the spiritual presence among them and within them.

You don't agree Jesus can be spiritually present, amidst His holy people?

Of course I agree, Gene. But again you're taking this off course. We're talking about the location of the Tabernacle which houses Our Lord's Real Presence, and you're coming back with the spiritual. You seem to be saying They are one in the same. Are They?

Not unless the church we occupy is free of a ''protestant smell?''

Now, try and stay with me here - The Protestants place all the importance and emphasis on Our Lord's spiritual presence only. So do you whenever we've discussed the location of the Tabernacle or the Mass. Don't try and make it seem as though I'm lumping all Catholics and all Catholic parishes into this. I'm not. I'm talking about you alone. I say "The tabernacle should be front and center" and your rebuttal is "He lives in our hearts." - All fluff and no substance. What does it have to do with the subject at hand? And you haven't answered the questions I asked you in my last post, btw...

You really don't understand how a man like me could adore the Real Presence, do you?

That's for you to know and *Him* to understand. Not me.

if the tabernacle stands off on a private altar. You ''feel pain'' for that great insult to His divinity.

Yeah, I do. So?

Why don't others?

Indifference, I suppose.

Or perhaps flat-out denial that He *is* Truly present.

You never even describe it as changing our altars. It has to be ''ripping out'' the real altar and placing a ''table'' in the sanctuary! Your taste is offended, so you say, ''ripping out''.

So what word(s) should I use? Destroyed? Demolished? Dismantled? No matter how you say it, it still means the same. Beautiful structures which *clearly* demonstrated that a sacrificial act takes place upon them were...removed and in their place table-like structures which, IMO, conveys more emphasis on meal than sacrifice, now stand.

It has nothing to do with my "taste."

I think Jesus feels betrayed by your sophistication and elitism, Regina,

"Sophistication?" What does this mean? It's "sophisticated" to want to keep Our Lord and His Altar together? You'll have to explain.

"Elitism?" Hardly. Everyone is free to join the Catholic Church. That's exactly what Our Lord wants. Not just a select few.

Jesus never owned a house. He had no place in the world to lay His head; but He lived in the tabernacles of our hearts always.

You're doing it again. You're blurring the Real with the Spiritual.

But since it was Our Lord's express wish that He should remain with us always truly and physically, and if we have the means to do this, shouldn't we provide Him with a home where He is the center focal point of our atttention and adoration?

Naturally, you didn't figure protestants had a heart to offer him, did you?

Oh, I'm sure a great many of them do. But if they wish to sincerely offer Him their whole hearts they should become Catholics where they can adore Him in the Blessed Sacrament *and* celebrate His spiritual presense with us - as He wants it.

And why you hate ecumenism and reaching out to our separated brethren. They're not good enough for you.

Are we "reaching out to our separated brethren" in an effort to bring them back into the fold? Or are we just confirming them in their errors by glossing over those errors in favor of celebrating those few things we may have in common? If it's the latter, and that's what this "ecumenical movement" seems to be all about, I do believe it isn't "good enough" to Our Lord who never failed to admonish those in error.

that's why you scorn any idea of a true spiritual presence, as if this were false.

If it is to de-emphasize the Real Presence in order to "accomodate" Protestant belief, yeah. I've got a small problem with that.

Ive helped them to understand the Church after Vatican II.

You sure have!

You also, believe in their idealized, severe traditionalism.

My Catholicism is the same Catholicism of your youth, Gene. Was the Catholicism of your youth "idealized and severe?"

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 22, 2004.

One important difference, Regina: I've never come CLOSE to suggesting the old churches or the mass of Trent were passe, or not fulfilling, or difficult to love.

IT'S YOU, who call the Vatican II Mass a dog and a shame. You who divide others and are intolerant of all things protestant or 'neo''.

You are not so angry for Jesus Christ's sake. It's your PLEASURE in the Catholic Church you demand, as the only model.

Now you want to pull the ''Real Presence'' into adversarial position with TRUE spiritual presence, as if one cancelled the other for a Catholic. I know better, Regina.

When I receive Holy Communion, the experience is overwhelming to me. I would love to die on the spot. When I adore Jesus kneeling before the holy tabernacle, I love the experience; but it's totally SPIRITUAL. I do not consume Him, nor enter into the tabernacle as ONE with Him. There is a basic difference, but with EACH experience, I am made blessed and holy!

You ought to contemplate this; the placing of a tabernacle cannot matter as long as your heart is pure. Christ told His bishops it wasn't any different from standing front and center. He told them by the light of the Holy Spirit! I suppose you're wondering how come Jesus never asked your opinion?

I'll tell you why. You are not a bishop, you're supposed to be faithful and give your bishop the trust Christ gives him. Christ trusts in the Holy Spirit, and in the Church and in our bishops. That's truly what Tradition always was, and still is.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Jake,

You seem to have some sort of grim fascination w/ Abp. Lefebvre. Every time you need to do a quick subject-change, you dig the poor man up again.

Honestly Jake, I think he did the Devil's work. I love the Tridentine mass, but he knowingly and deliberately caused a schism in the church. I can't presume to judge his soul though, age or his mental state may have made him do things he wouldn't in his prime. I do wonder about the four guys that followed him though, they have much less of an excuse for their behavion in my book. The exCatholics who follow his tenets support him just as vehemently as a Lutheran defends theirs, and IMO are just as wrong. You've quoted Pope Eugene enough to know what being a Schismatic or heretic means -- damnation. This is a very good reason to avoid his path, yet some people are just as eager to jump on it as others jump on Protastantism or New Age spirituality.

That's an explanation for you, but don't feel like you've got to respond, I'm sure everyone here is groaning at the thought of rehashing all this, but it bothers me personally so you're right, it comes up now and then. LOL, it's kind of like bringing up Adolph Hitler or the Nazis in a secular argument as an example of evil. It just fits so well it's hard not to use.

Eugene,

There are some areas where we will never agree, but when you post on faith, you do one heck of a job!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2004.

One important difference, Regina: I've never come CLOSE to suggesting the old churches or the mass of Trent were passe, or not fulfilling, or difficult to love.

No, just "idealistic and severe." And I believe you said earlier today that the "church of our day is all inclusive and accomodating." I take that to mean you believe this wasn't always the case.

IT'S YOU, who call the Vatican II Mass a dog and a shame.

Me? I do?

You who divide others and are intolerant of all things protestant or 'neo''.

Who do I divide? If I travel to another Traditional Chapel there are things, essential things, I can count on: A Tabernacle atop an Altar, a Mass just like the one I always go to. If I travel to a neighboring NO church building, Heaven knows what I'll find...or *won't* find, as the case increases to be. Nope. It's not me doing the dividing.

You tolerate "all things Protestant?" How can you tolerate falsehood?

And what do we mean by "tolerate" anyway? I don't know who said this, "Tolerance is cowardice in disguise." Tolerance to me is smiling and nodding with someone you know doesn't have the Truth just so you don't offend him by speaking the *real* Truth.

Now you want to pull the ''Real Presence'' into adversarial position with TRUE spiritual presence, as if one cancelled the other for a Catholic. I know better, Regina.

You do? It doesn't seem that way. Whenever I discuss the Real Presense you come back with a "Smile! God Loves You" reply. You seem to think His Real Presense and the location of It is unimportant if you've got Him in your heart - How we treat Him in His own Church doesn't matter - as long as we are holy or "feel" holy.

You ought to contemplate this; the placing of a tabernacle cannot matter as long as your heart is pure.

You're not making any sense at all. What does the condition of anyone's "heart" pure or otherwise have to do with any of this? You seem to be saying "As long as you feel good and holy, it doesn't matter where the Tabernacle is." The problem with that is it doesn't matter how anyone "feels". It's about giving Our Lord the proper place in His very own House. Its about providing a place where anyone off the street coming in would know that they are in the most Sacred of places.

But if you want to talk personal holiness, I'll have to be honest - I haven't reached the level of holiness that you have. I'm very, very, very far from it. The Blessed Sacrament atop the Altar where His sacrifice continues, reminds me and admonishes me to strive for holiness so that I may be worthy to have Him dwell in my soul.

Christ told His bishops it wasn't any different from standing front and center. He told them by the light of the Holy Spirit!

"And they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces" Jeremias 32:33

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 22, 2004.

"You also, believe in their idealized, severe traditionalism."

I suppose, if you say so. It's a lot less complicated than Modernism. Modernism starts with doctrine and then trickles down into the very architecture; now it's in the walls... if there's anything I regret, it's not committing myself (pun intended) to the Traditional Mass a lot sooner, but when it comes to the Novus Ordo parishes, it's hard to leave when you can't find the door. I'm lucky where I am here, with what other options are available.

"It never does any good to try to reason with you. You're too holy to be touched."

Come on, man; you're not so blind. But how am I any different from you? Check it out:

"When I receive Holy Communion, the experience is overwhelming to me. I would love to die on the spot. When I adore Jesus kneeling before the holy tabernacle, I love the experience; but it's totally SPIRITUAL. I do not consume Him, nor enter into the tabernacle as ONE with Him. There is a basic difference, but with EACH experience, I am made blessed and holy!"

You make plugs for Catholic reality, and so do I. If that makes you holy, that's alright with me. By all means, keep it up.

You're just being a stodge; you play the grump to maintain a balance. haha! Personally, I think you're a traditionalist at heart and just afraid to admit it. You've got my respect for both being a traditionalist at heart and for being a grump, too. Lose the Neo, though.

Maybe I am getting too holy; maybe I should go out and do something sinful to keep things on an even keel. I'll blame it on the architecture.

It's simple; if I had to choose between going to Mass at your parish, or going with jake, Regina or Isabel, I would go with them. The new architecture, like the NeoMusic, doesn't make any Catholic sense. Anyone can see that. Can't they? Maybe I'm just invincibly ignorant.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 22, 2004.

Thank you Glib and Shallow. now you've put an old Catholic in his place. Yes, my love for Christ is quite the Traditional love. For cathedrals and stained glass too. And I haven't been ''afraid'' to admit it. I have the happiness of being true to Vatican II as well as the Mass in Latin. Without prejudice. I rejected nobody no how.

Regina gave it a try. her volume is lower since we told her she's elitist; did she grow a humble hump on her back? No. Imagine saying: ''You seem to be saying As long as you feel good and holy, it doesn't matter where the Tabernacle is''; --Because she can't allow another Catholic to have sincere faith. It has to be dull faith; rope-a-dope faith. Only her faith is good. Others can't match it.

Swell. She has me there. I'm not her match. So, my faith is just feely-faith; she opened my old eyes; Dang!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

Regina gave it a try. her volume is lower since we told her she's elitist;

Not really. I just see no use in responding to accusations that aren't true. As I said, I'm hardly an "elitist." Everyone is welcome; not just a select few.

Imagine saying: ''You seem to be saying As long as you feel good and holy, it doesn't matter where the Tabernacle is''; --Because she can't allow another Catholic to have sincere faith. It has to be dull faith; rope-a-dope faith.

???

Um... Gene? The point I was trying to make is that you come across as saying that because you delight in something or are impressed by something, it's your guarantee that Our Lord is delighted and impressed, too. That if its good enough for you, it's good enough for Him, too. That because the majority are doing things a certain way, that's evidence enough that Our Lord is pleased. I'm not saying that's your approach, but that is how you come across on your posts about this subject.

Only her faith is good. Others can't match it.

What are you talking about? It's you who boasted how holy and pure of heart you are. I'm extremely glad for you and I hope to attain that level of holiness and purity, but I'm not there yet - I'm very far from it.

Swell. She has me there. I'm not her match. So, my faith is just feely-faith; she opened my old eyes; Dang!

I didn't say your faith was "feely." I said you come across as one who believes Our Lord's pleasure can be measured by your pleasure. That if you're happy, He is too. That your indifference to the location of His Tabernacle is a good indication that Our Lord doesn't care much either. Again, I'm sure it's unintentional, but you come off that way nonetheless.

For me whenever I see a church where the Tabernacle is placed atop the altar it's a good indication that there is much belief in, devotion, adoration and emphasis on His Real presence. It's an outward testimonial of the Catholic belief that the church building is a home for Our Lord. I *need* that. You don't? Terrific, but some of us are still sinners who need Him, who need to focus on Him alone truly and physically for, well, everything in this life.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 23, 2004.

You are stuttering again, Regina. Firstly, don't call me indifferent to the placements of Our Lord's tabernacle; because you happen to be fanatical. Indifference is something unfaithful. I concurr with the bishops who have made the placements; since they have authority from Our Lord.

Secondly, as I said before, you aren't a bishop. You may lament whatever you think is unworthy of Jesus within the parish community. Whereas, I may lament your lack of faith as I see it. Nothing I've said to you has penetrated your defenses. Why continue hopelessly lending false dignity to the lame objections you make here?

As I say to Jake, we ought to leave the judgments to God. I follow my bishop, and he follows the spirit of a duly convened holy Council. He has authority to say stand, kneel, abstain, pray, and REMODEL. I don't have your indifference to his leadership.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

I follow my bishop, and he follows the spirit of a duly convened holy Council.

The "Spirit of Vatican II"? Is that what you mean?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 23, 2004.

Jake:
Don't try to set me up for another attack. You can see what I've written. I'm not parsing those words on account of any need to satisfy you. If I said something wrong, get your rebuttal in order and tell us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

You are stuttering again, Regina. Firstly, don't call me indifferent to the placements of Our Lord's tabernacle;

Why not? You yourself said in so many words that that the placement of the Tabernacle matters little so as long as one has a "pure heart." I assume from that statement that 1. Your heart is pure and, therefore 2. the placement of the Tabernacle matters little (i.e. you are "indifferent" to its location.)

because you happen to be fanatical.

So the Catholicism of your youth was not only "idealistic" and "severe", but also "fanatical"? Until the Church began placing Him off to the side or in another room, She was "fanatical?" Why did the Church - for centuries - keep the two together anyway?

Indifference is something unfaithful.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I concurr with the bishops who have made the placements; since they have authority from Our Lord.

And they are prevented from *abusing* that authority?

Whereas, I may lament your lack of faith as I see it.

In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned...At times one encounters an extremely reducive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrifical meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet...How can we not express profound grief at all this?

Was the above written by a cranky, "fanatical" traditionalist? No. It was written by our Holy Father in his Encyclical Letter 'Ecclesia de Eucharistia'. I guess the Pope just lacks faith, huh? Maybe you'd like to help him out...

As I say to Jake, we ought to leave the judgments to God.

Remember that the next time you're judging one of us to be "schismos" "dishonest" "fanatical" "shallow" "unfaithful" etc., etc...

I follow my bishop, and he follows the spirit of a duly convened holy Council.

Ah, the "spirit of Vatican II." That explains a lot...

He has authority to say stand, kneel, abstain, pray, and REMODEL.

Yes, he has that authority. But does his authority guarantee that any decisions he makes will be good ones? Is there virtue to be found in obeying a bad law, regulation or decision?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 23, 2004.

If I said something wrong, get your rebuttal in order and tell us.

My rebuttal is that there's no such thing as "The Spirit of Vatican II." Since you believe there is, why not start by defining it, and we'll go from there.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 23, 2004.

Really, Regina!
let your soul relax. You're beginning to sound hysterical.

''Don't call me indifferent to the placements of Our Lord's tabernacle'' MEANS: the placement is unimportant to Jesus, so what's important to us is Himself. To HIM I'm never indifferent. Back-track, please & delete indifferent, OK?

''I assume from that statement that 1. Your heart is pure and, therefore;--'' Yes, you assume rightly. My heart is pure as regards a church's fixtures; and I concentrate on HIM. Not the architect or yesterday's darling altars.

'' 'idealistic and severe', but also fanatical''? - -YOU, not a church I was ever in. --You are that way. Now do you follow?

''They have authority from Our Lord. And they are prevented from *abusing* that authority?'' --Regina certainly can't prevent something like that, if it's true. Just pray; and God will see the need for reform. Ugly churches aren't abuses, only a test of our faith. If you depend on ivory towers for your faith, it's a fragile faith. Go on; PRAY!

[Mass, in some cases] ''Stripped of its sacrifical meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet...'' REGINA! Come on! --Does this jibe with what we observe every day in Mass:

''Pray, brethren, that the lord may accept this sacrifice;'' and answered by the faithful: ''May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for our good and the good of His Holy Church,''--? ? ? Maybe you never heard that before?

'' . . .you're judging one of us to be "schismos" "dishonest" "fanatical" "shallow" "unfaithful" etc., etc...'' From me, just these: ''Elitist, Pharisaical, fanatical.''

Not as all-knowing judgments, the way YOU judge. As admonitions to love one another and your Catholic and non-Catholic brethren. I've also said you stray from the truth. I can prove that in your last post. (But, no matter; we understand.) Finally:

''Ah, the "spirit of Vatican II." --That explains a lot.'' --Remember we must acknowledge the Holy Spirit. I'm not disparaging the 2nd Vatican Council for your sake, Regina. I'm a faithful Catholic with no axe to grind.------------------------- ------------- ''He has authority to say stand, kneel, abstain, pray, and REMODEL.'' You reply,
''Yes, he has that authority.'' Excellent! That will settle it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

Frank,

Kind of an ironic statement to be coming from someone who is studiously rejecting Ecclesia Dei in support of the excommunicated archbishop lefebvre, isn't it? Or is it o.k. to reject the Pope's clear warnings when YOU think it's indicated, just not when others do?

You know what I laugh at the most?? That you constantly avoid the question by asking another question meant to steer others into a different mode of thinking. It's kind of like a child trying to divert blame and attention. Mother comes in and catches a child doing something he's not supposed to be doing; brother is now standing off a small distance watching and lamenting. So mother comes down on the one she caught. But of course the child can't stand the thought that he is the only one caught in the act, so he stands up and he shouts, "Well, last week my brother did such and such!"

If you're not careful, the accusations you point, Frank, can come back and smack you dead center in the forehead, possibly even knocking you off your feet. Wouldn't that be humiliating?

Besides, there's a heck of a huge difference between and encyclical and a disciplinary action. Given the Pope is open to it, the former carries more probability of the protection of the Holy Spirit, because it is meant to teach.

Eugene,

I concurr with the bishops who have made the placements; since they have authority from Our Lord.

Having authority doesn't mean one cannot abuse their authority. Can you think of no cases where a bishop has abused his authority or made bad decisions? Would you like me to help you out?

Gene, please try and understand. It's not about how much one loves God, it's about giving Him the proper place in His home. Would you dare to just go and sit at the head of the table as someone's dinner guest? I think not, because you have enough sense to know that is not your place. It their's. Just as God's place is the head of His home. And, for the record, I, as Regina, "feel pain" when when He is shoved to the side or in another room. I "feel pain" when something is an affront to His Divinity. Shouldn't we? Don't you?

BTW, Thank you Nick.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 23, 2004.

No, Chavela; you have it all wrong. Because faith hasn't all that much to do with your problems, your objections.

If you were calling somebody, even a Catholic, to be aware of temptation; to denounce sin, to reform his/her life and come to Jesus Christ; I'd be on your side. You don't say much about faith, however. You and others have even suggested that unless the tabernacle is ''where it's supposed to be'' we don't believe in the True Presence of Our Lord. Which is ridiculous.

Why should any faithful Catholic not tell you some hard facts?

Fact: Catholics in my Church love Jesus Christ. I am positive about it.
Fact: My Church is beautiful. We have a fine altar (not a crummy table.)
Fact: My Church is faithful and holy. Truly so.
Fact: God is in our Holy Church because He loves us all.
Fact: We give God the ENTIRE Church, from floor to ceiling, as well as His altar and tabernacle. You won't see any place within it where God is not at home. Including a tabernacle upon the OLD altar, behind the new one!.
Fact: In some sanctuaries, His tabernacle has a different placement. It is nevertheless HOLY, and the placement is holy because He's there, not vice versa.
Fact: The altar is where we hold Eucharistic celebrations; the MASS. Jesus Christ is in TOTAL POSSESSION of His altar. He doesn't ''borrow'' a space. If He really wanted His tabernacle set on it, He would say so, you can be sure. How do I know? Because it's self-evident. We love Him and we give Him anything He wants. Faith, above all!

Fact: We somehow believe that nothing at all is denied Our Lord in His house. If you imagined He was denied a ''proper place'' it's only due to your subjective sensitivity. That's all it is.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

You're beginning to sound hysterical.

Given all the caps and bold in your last post I have to say it isn't *me* who sounds "hysterical."

''Don't call me indifferent to the placements of Our Lord's tabernacle'' MEANS: the placement is unimportant to Jesus, so what's important to us is Himself.

How do you know? Did He tell you it's unimportant? Face it Gene, you only assume its unimportant to Our Lord, because it's unimportant to you. I told you this already: Our Lord's pleasure and/or satisfaction cannot be measured by yours. Please try to remember that.

To HIM I'm never indifferent. Back-track, please & delete indifferent, OK?

No, because you *are* indifferent to the location of His Real Presense in the Tabernacle. If you weren't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You get piping mad when I say that I believe He deserves to be front and center so that all coming to Mass (or coming for a private visit) may focus on Him and He alone. Why does it bother you so much that I feel this way?

Yes, you assume rightly. My heart is pure as regards a church's fixtures; and I concentrate on HIM.

Um, are we required to be pure of heart with regard to architecture or a church's fixtures?

Back when this discussion started you insisted on blurring my points regarding "ugliness" vs. "stripping the church building of appearences of Catholicism" and you're doing it again. (And *I'm* dishonest with the truth?)

I said before and I'll say it again: It's not about plush carpeting, ornate altars, "ivory towers", or silver and gold gilded things. It's about turning obviously Catholic churches into either barren meeting halls, or protestant-looking faith centers (which is redundant, but oh well...)

Not the architect or yesterday's darling altars.

Your sarcasm with regard to those altars is very telling about how you really feel about "yesterday."

'' 'idealistic and severe', but also fanatical''? - -YOU, not a church I was ever in. --You are that way. Now do you follow?

What have I said that Catholics for centuries never said? Were they fanatical? If a priest (or bishop) wants to place our Lord front and center because he believes it's the proper place for Him, is he fanatical? Of course not, and neither am I.

[Mass, in some cases] ''Stripped of its sacrifical meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet...'' REGINA! Come on! --Does this jibe with what we observe every day in Mass:

You'd better write the Pope and tell him how his observations don't "jibe" with yours. I'm sure he'd be really interested.

I've also said you stray from the truth. I can prove that in your last post.

So, go ahead...

To Isabel you declared: Fact: We give God the ENTIRE Church...Including a tabernacle upon the OLD altar, behind the new one!.

You said the Tabernacle in your parish was off to the side...

You and others have even suggested that unless the tabernacle is ''where it's supposed to be'' we don't believe in the True Presence of Our Lord. Which is ridiculous.

Not to mention a bold-faced lie. No one ever said or "suggested" such a thing.

What was that you said about *me* straying from the truth....?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 23, 2004.

''Don't call me indifferent to the placements of Our Lord's tabernacle'' MEANS: the placement is unimportant to Jesus, so what's important to us is Himself.'' Is correct.

''How do you know? Did He tell you it's unimportant? you only assume its unimportant to Our Lord, because it's unimportant to you. I told you this already: Our Lord's pleasure and/or satisfaction cannot be measured by yours.'' (Is it measured by your feelings? The placement is important, yes; but not relevant to our adoration, Reg. He hasn't complained, YOU have! That much I know from common sense.

To HIM I'm never indifferent. Back-track, please & delete indifferent, OK?

''No, because you *are* indifferent to the location of His Real Presense in the Tabernacle. (I would be commiting a sin if I were. I'm not. i just believe it's external and has nothing to do with Christ's ''needs'' in your quaint litle universe, Regina.) You get piping mad when I say that I believe He deserves to be front and center so that all coming to Mass (or coming for a private visit) may focus on Him and He alone.(No I don't. I'm not mad; and I'm repeatedly forced to calm YOU down.) Why does it bother you so much that I feel this way?'' (You may ''feel'' anything you please. Just don't correct others, please. You haven't any authority. Go speak to your bishop if it's urgent to you; to me, there's no problem. i trust in God.

Yes, you assume rightly. My heart is pure as regards a church's fixtures; and I concentrate on HIM.

''Um, are we required to be pure of heart with regard to architecture or a church's fixtures?'' --UM, No / Nor to an elitist's demands where nobody's asked for agreement or arguments.

Back when this discussion started you insisted on blurring my points regarding "ugliness" vs. "stripping the church building of appearences of Catholicism" and you're doing it again. I said before and I'll say it again: It's not about plush carpeting, ornate altars, "ivory towers", or silver and gold gilded things. It's about turning obviously Catholic churches into either barren meeting halls, or protestant-looking faith centers (which is redundant, but oh well...) --Yes, you ARE hopelessly redundant. You also sound more & more like the Pharisees.

''Not the architect or yesterday's darling altars.'' Your sarcasm with regard to those altars is very telling about how you really feel about "yesterday."

Actually, my sarcasm is with regards to your crying about them, Regina. And-- to put it in context (which you ignored) it's better to concentrate on Jesus in the tabernacle or upon the altar. Any problem with that?

'' 'idealistic and severe', but also fanatical''? - -YOU, not a church I was ever in. --You are that way. Now do you follow?

What have I said that Catholics for centuries never said? OK< I'll bite-- WHAT?

[Mass, in some cases] ''Stripped of its sacrifical meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet...'' REGINA! Come on! --Does this jibe with what we observe every day in Mass: You'd better write the Pope and tell him how his observations don't "jibe" with yours. I'm sure he'd be really interested. (Have you seen a Novus Ordo Mass? There is pleanty of sacrificial emphasis in the prayers. i'm sorry if you have a witness to the contrary. Maybe he didn't understand English? ''Pray, brethren, that Our lord may accept this sacrifice;'' -- answered by the faithful: ''May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for our good and the good of all His Holy Church,'' sounds plainly a sacrifice to me and faithful catholics. It must've been a language barrier.

I've also said you stray from the truth. I can prove that in your last post. So, go ahead... (YES; For instance ''You tolerate all things Protestant? How can you tolerate falsehood?'' That's hardly ''true''. You have a strange way with the truth, Regina.)

To Isabel you declared: Fact: We give God the ENTIRE Church...Including a tabernacle upon the OLD altar, behind the new one!

You said the Tabernacle in your parish was off to the side...(Did NOT. Show us where I ever said it.)

''You and others have even suggested that unless the tabernacle is 'where it's supposed to be' we don't believe in the True Presence of Our Lord. Which is ridiculous.''

Not to mention a bold-faced lie. No one ever said or "suggested" such a thing. Oh, yes! In fact one of you said the tabernacles had been removed in order to discourage belief in the Real Presence! As well as reception of Communion in the hand! It was in a series of these threads, from a so- called traditionalist Catholic. Ugh! There are other witnesses, Regina. Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

Isabel,

I think the Pope's teachings should be obeyed. Pretty easy, so I don't know what your rant is all about. Regarding your last statement, that might be true if the disciplinary action doesn't apply to you, then it would really be an abstract sort of warning. However, if the action DOES apply to you, you'd be a fool to not heed it. But that's your problem.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2004.

Hugh, Thank you,
You've quoted perfectly. It is the very same wording in our Church, unfortunately, I garbled the phrase. Yes, and there is no difference between us. Neither any ''blurring''. I should have gone to the Missal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

May I ask just where you're posting from?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

I find this is less of a blurring of clergy and laity.

It's also a faithful translation from the Traditional Latin Mass:

Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium...

"Pray , bretheren, that my sacrifice and yours..."

-- jake (j@k.e), January 24, 2004.

Gene, I said to you in my last post "You said the Tabernacle in your parish was off to the side..."

I've made a mistake and I'm sorry. I remembered it as you who said that the Tabernacle was to the left of the sanctuary in your parish. I remember someone saying that's how it was in their parish in some other thread and I recalled incorrectly it was you. I'm sorry about applying something someone else said to you. Please know it wasn't deliberate.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

We have a Mary Chapel on the left and to the back, where Holy Hour devotion is held once a week, along with with Rosary & Benediction. Maybe I mentioned something like that. Memory is fleeting; I ought to know. I would never try deliberately to deceive you, and I don't think you do that either. It's emotions speaking.

That might explain our basic differences, Regina. It's rare when I give in to emotion about the faith. I believe the Catholic faith equals the Holy Gospel and Christ. When that faith has been your whole life's background, it becomes like spring steel. Nothing can make you cry. It follows that I won't be as sentimental about externals as some others are.

It isn't easy for me to call another Catholic a ''fanatic.'' I would rather be good to you.

Even so; when you are demanding and irreconcilable, I become even more unsentimental. You must forgive me for it, I'm a sinner too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

The placement is important, yes;

You said it was unimportant as long as one's heart was pure.

but not relevant to our adoration, Reg. He hasn't complained, YOU have!

I believe adoration, or the importantance of adoration is de- emphasized when He is placed away from the congregants of His House.

i just believe it's external

This Real Presence is *essential* as I'm sure you agree. If you do how can He inside His Tabernacle and where He is placed *possibly* be an "external?" Your arguments are starting to sound desperate.

No I don't. I'm not mad; and I'm repeatedly forced to calm YOU down.

No one is "forcing" you to do anything. And if your only purpose of discussing this with me is to "calm me down" then I'm sorry to tell you you're wasting your time. Its no secret that I enjoy discussions/debates about the Faith. It makes me happy to talk about the Real Presence, and all the other things we talk about from time to time. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm angry or in some need to calm down, but I know you have trouble keeping what people really say and what you imagine them to think separate, so I understand.

Go speak to your bishop if it's urgent to you; to me, there's no problem. i trust in God.

Every desicion a bishop makes is directed by God?

Actually, my sarcasm is with regards to your crying about them, Regina.

No tears here.

What have I said that Catholics for centuries never said? OK< I'll bite-- WHAT?

For centuries the Church believed that the proper place for Our Lord was front and center upon His altar. I still hold that belief. You don't.

I've also said you stray from the truth. I can prove that in your last post. So, go ahead... (YES; For instance ''You tolerate all things Protestant? How can you tolerate falsehood?'' That's hardly ''true''.

You accused me of "intolerance for all things protestant." I took that to mean that you tolerate "all things protestant."

You have a strange way with the truth, Regina.

And you have a hard time keeping up with your own words.

In fact one of you said the tabernacles had been removed in order to discourage belief in the Real Presence!

That's not what you accused us of above. You accused us of "suggesting" that wherever the Tabernacle is placed off to the side or another room, it shows folks don't believe in the Real Presence.

I believe the Real Presense has been placed off to the side as an..."ecumenical" move to pander to Protestants who don't accept our doctrine.

As well as reception of Communion in the hand!

Same deal.

I believe inconspicuous location of the Tabernacle + Communion in the hand = (or will eventually equal) dimished belief in the Real Presense. I believe that those two practices, especially when combined, are dangerous. Maybe not so much for older folks who grew up with solid Catholicism, but more so young Catholics.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

Your problems are purely subjective and don't reflect any hard reality. The only reply worthy of these is nothing. Stay in the watch-dog role; when the bishops come around to your way of seeing things, I'll congratulate you.

''I believe that those two practices, especially when combined, are dangerous.'' --Tell it to the holy Spirit, Regina. Pray, Dear.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

Your problems are purely subjective and don't reflect any hard reality.

Would you say the same with regard to the Holy Father's observations? He seems to believe that there is a "problem." Is he out of touch with "hard reality?"

Statistics don't lie, either. According to Kenneth C. Jones, in his book 'Index of Leading Catholic Indicators', 70% of Catholics between the ages of 18-44 polled believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Christ. Is it merely a coincidence that denial of our doctrine falls into the same age bracket of those who grew up knowing only of off-to-the-side and/or side-chapel Tabernacle locations and Communion in the hand? Doesn't the Pope's remarks I quoted above and those staggering statistics demonstrate that there's some "problem" somewhere? And if so, what's wrong with me pointing out that maybe, just *maybe* while the inconspicuous location and Communion in the hand, together or separate, may not be solely responsible, but possibly might bear *some* amount of responsibility for the current situation among so many Catholics?

The only reply worthy of these is nothing.

OK, then. If you want to drop it, fine.

when the bishops come around to your way of seeing things, I'll congratulate you.

When the bishops come around to the Church's way of doing things as She has done "always and everywhere" that will be cause for both of us to celebrate.

Pray, Dear.

You can count on it.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

Here's a saying for you to remember:

Statistics will confess to anything if you torture them enough.

Your problems are purely subjective and don't reflect any hard reality. Would you say the same with regard to the Holy Father's observations?

Not at all. He and you eat out of the same bowl? It's doubtful. He never posts here, Regina. I don't often worry about 3rd party quotes.

Ciao, keep on praying !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

Oh, one last thing I left out...

Think of it like this. You befriend a non-Catholic and you explain to him that the Real Presense of Our Lord can be found in the Tabernacle. For Catholics, the Real Presence is central to the Faith.

You invite him to accompany you to your parish. In your parish, like you said, the Tabernacle can be found atop the old altar. Your friend, while he still might not believe Our Lord is really and truly present, might be delighted with how Our Lord's Real Presense is treated in this parish of yours among those who believe He is really there. Wanting to learn more, your friend strikes out on his own and visits another parish where the Tabernacle is off to the side. Already he notices a difference: "Why is the Tabernacle given pride of place in Gene's parish, but here it is less evident?"

He then goes to a third parish where he can't even *find* the Tabernacle. After asking someone, he's told in can be found in a side room.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The non-Catholic will begin to spot inconsistancy, and inconsistancy will never have good results. He won't be able to see any unity within the same faith...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

Here's a saying for you to remember: Statistics will confess to anything if you torture them enough.

And one for you, "Liars may figure, but figures don't lie."

I don't often worry about 3rd party quotes.

Read his Encyclical letter for yourself, then.

Ciao, keep on praying

Adieu, you too!

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

I know you feel justified by a Pope, Regina. It doesn't have much to do with the style of sanctuary you deplore, nor does it matter what you say about the sacrificial character of a Novus Ordo Mass, since you saw what I printed above. The language is clear. It's the sacrifice we have offered for 2,000 years. The encyclical didn't challenge our Mass in the vernacular. You aren't justified.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

The encyclical didn't challenge our Mass in the vernacular. You aren't justified.

What the heck are you talking about? We were talking about diminished belief in the Real Presence and earlier on in this thread we touched on how today's sanctuaries -based on appearance- place more emphasis on the communal meal aspect of the Mass than on the sacrifical. I used a portion of the Holy Father's Encyclical to demonstrate that diminshed belief in the Real Presense is a reality and that there is a problem with many priests and faithful regarding Mass as "simply a fraternal banquet."

Where are you pulling this "mass in the vernacular" business from? We weren't even talking about that. We weren't even talking about the Mass itself. If you've nothing else to say, fine, but please don't insert things into this which I never commented on in this thread just to keep your desperate arguments from sinking.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 24, 2004.

Parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus.

Let Jake translate it foru you, Reg. Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

The mouse came forth from the mountain?

Here's a translation assignment for you; non-bizzare and even on- topic:

Graves mutationes in liturgia introducunt graves mutationes in dogmata.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2004.

Gene doesn't see a mystical conflict in the architecture of modern churches... thinks it's cool, thinks we belabor the point, moan and groan that we don't have what he calls externals. I trust Gene's heart and intent but on this topic, not his awareness.

The new churches are big on externals, imhk.

Taken from the website of the new Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in Los Angeles, otherwise known as the Roj Mahal: Symobolism found in the great Bronze doors:

______________

Left Inner Door, beginning first row on left, top to bottom)

1. Goose 2. Southwest Indian Flying Serpent 3. Chumash Man 4. Peacock Barge 5. Griffin 6. Chinese Turtle 7. Ibis 8. Griffin 9. Fish 10. Hand of God 11. Eagle (St. John the Evangelist) 12. Dove 13. Bee 14. Celtic Serpents 15. Stag 16. Croatian Cross 17. Chumash Condor 18. Peacock 19. Falling Man 20. Tree of Jesse

(Right Inner Door, beginning first row, top to bottom)

21. Energy (soul) 22. Lion 23. Water 24. Lamb 25. Hand (listening symbol) 26. Chinese/Japanese Heaven Symbol 27. Pair of Ostriches 28. Rooster 29. Bull (St. Luke the Evangelist) 30. Trefoil (Celtic Trinity) 31. Dog 32. Sicilian Legs (regeneration symbol) 33. Bull 34. Serpent/Dragon 35. I Ching/Ti Chi 36. Samoan Kava Bowl 37. Foot 38. Celtic Monster 39. Raven Eating Man's Liver 40. Dolphin

______________

About the artist who designed these bronze doors:

"Following studies at San Jose State College and the San Francisco Art Institute in the early 1960s, Graham began to sculpt female figures, often grouped inside architectural settings and rendered with clinical accuracy. In doing so, the artist turned his back on the prevailing critical interest in abstraction and established a strong reputation for his unwavering dedication to naturalism. While he has experimented with fragmentation and scale over the years, and has occasionally sculpted male nudes, the idealized female body has been his primary subject."

But check it: from Humanum Genus, encyclical condemning Freemasonry and Naturalism by Pope Leo XIII, author of the St. Michael prayer:

"For, no matter how great may be men's cleverness in concealing and their experience in lying, it is impossible to prevent the effects of any cause from showing, in some way, the intrinsic nature of the cause whence they come. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit." Now, the masonic sect produces fruits that are pernicious and of the bitterest savour. For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view-namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism."

Dust off the old intuition cap and go poking around the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels website.

They forgot to ask the Blessed Mother for help building this one; there couldn't have possibly been one saint or angel helping out in the construction of it.

Am I off track Gene?

From the Akathistos: "Hail, for you gave sense to those who had lost it!"

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

I respect you, Gene, but I can't for the life of me understand why everyone's compass is spinning and why nobody can see things for what they are, and their origin; that's where I draw a complete blank.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

Hi Emerald,

I'm just popping in long enough to comment on this little conspiracy theory of "naturalism" you've proposed.

Your quote from the Roj Mahal website:

"...and established a strong reputation for his unwavering dedication to naturalism."

And then you mention a papal encyclical condemning naturalism. For fun, I looked up naturalism and saw these entries:

1. Factual or realistic representation, especially: The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

4. Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

Now, are you suggesting that this not-so-starving artist made a name for himself by his unwavering dedication to "the doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation"? Or maybe (just maybe) he creates works of art that "reproduce subjects as precisely as possible" (contrasted with abstract artists like Picasso). I've got my own theory on the answer...

The Truth is out there.

Now get praying!

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 25, 2004.

I don't think there was any conspiracy theory set forth. I'd call it "conflict," or maybe "contradiction," but I'd most likely settle on "as an artist, he stinks."

Bad art - bad theology

Strike that. There's a conspiracy in there somewhere. I don't c@re wh@t you s@y.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2004.

I also looked up the term modernism:

"Modern thought, character, or practice. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards."

Using the same logic as the "naturalist" conspiracy, using the internet makes you a modernist, J@ke. It proves that the Internet was condemned in Pascendi by Pope Saint Pius X. Bad communication medium...bad theology.

Don't even get me going on Americanism...we're all condemned for that one until we leave the country!

As far as artistic naturalism, I prefer it much more than abstract art. I don't think it makes sense to claim that this artist advocates a nature-based theology simply because he isn't an abstract artist. In fact, the "about the author" document actual prefaces the comment on his "dedication to naturalism" by stating that he "turned his back on the prevailing critical interest in abstraction."

If you have a problem with the art or artists, there's plenty of ammunition for you at this L.A Cathedral. The fact that it was built by and for Californians should be the first red flag. But, I don't understand why you start making wild accusations (like this artist advocating the theology of naturalism) that are so easily proven incorrect. How long will you defend this particular conspiracy?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 25, 2004.

If you have a problem with the art or artists, there's plenty of ammunition for you at this L.A Cathedral.

It's hideous? Agreed. My point is that it should be beautiful. It should look like a Catholic cathedral. BTW, there are plenty of monstrously ugly churches out here, too; just not on such a grand scale. Bad taste is not a Californian phenomenon.

I don't understand why you start making wild accusations (like this artist advocating the theology of naturalism)

My accusation is that the artist is advocating something other than Catholicism, which in itself is fine, but he's using a Catholic church to do it, which borders on outright evil. I do give him credit for splashing it right there on the doors to the place. It would give any right-thinking Catholic pause before going any further. A sort of artistic "Viewer discretion advised." It's just pushing the envelope on Gene's mantra of God being present in ugly churches, too. The whole place screams "If lightning hasn't struck this place & burned it to the ground yet, God obviously doesn't mind that it looks like crap."

How long will you defend this particular conspiracy?

It's a non-issue for me, thank God, just like altar girls and the rest of the nonsense. It's not a pet issue or anything. It's more like just slowing down while passing a really bad car accident.

Is it the baby who has you up this late? How's she doing?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2004.

Eugene

I am posting from the UK. Why?

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), January 25, 2004.

Mateo! Good to see you back.

"But, I don't understand why you start making wild accusations (like this artist advocating the theology of naturalism) that are so easily proven incorrect. How long will you defend this particular conspiracy?"

The first thing you need to do is to highlight the actual statement where I made this wild claim that of the artist advocating the theology of naturalism in the post above.

It's not there. You will find is that I laid them out side by side with each other, highlighting the same word. In that sense you are correct in that I do believe the art and the sort of theological deviance it's meant to represent have their origins in the same vein of ideas and philosophies.

I think everybody would be aware that the term naturalism is going used differently when applied to art and to theology, as well as to other things, but there may be reasons why the terms are the same based on the essence to the word itself. That's not a ridiculous assumption at all. That, combined with jake's healthy observation it ain't Catholic, should be enough to indicate a problem. I think it should require any faithful Catholic to reflect on it a bit to try to discern what the problem is. That's hardly conspiracy theory, Mateo.

If you don't see a problem, then defend this art. I would like to hear your defense of it. Can you do this?

I'll even hand you your objection on a silver platter:

Emerald is a conspiracy theorist.

There. Now, tell me how this art compliments the Catholic Faith; swing your objection into positive territory for me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

who did that?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

Emmy:
Does it ever occur to you I'm a friend to all Catholic churches, be they old, new or old-fashioned yet new?It's you the elite who insist the building and interior conform to your standards. Repeat, YOURS. Because Our Lord is not on record about His preference. Except for the one I keep stressing over & over: our HEARTS --our hearts must come to Him with holy faith and no reservations. Do our Popes have any ideas how this must be achieved? (I'll be back in a while, my wife demands I come to breakfast now.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2004.

"Does it ever occur to you I'm a friend to all Catholic churches, be they old, new or old-fashioned yet new?"

Yeah.

"It's you the elite who insist the building and interior conform to your standards. Repeat, YOURS."

Mine. My standards. Wrong, Gene, building and art should reflect the Church's theology. The Church, Gene, not me. You know I'm not saying my standards; you know that I'm pointing straight to the truths of the Catholic Church and saying that this art doesn't reflect that, by reflects the New Age. New Age, esoteric things that take truths and twist them into a deceptive, parallel to reality. It's not going to do any good to say their my standards because it isn't true and you know I'm not doing that.

You and Mateo are both like that... trying to explain the problem with the malcontent, whining observer instead of trying to explain the origins of the deviant objective reality that the malcontent, whining observer is whining about. Don't kill the messengers. That's messed up in it's own right; both of you seem to be people of noble aspirations, so I just figure that you both see abnormalities all around you which are inconsistant with the faith and respond in your own way to it. What your ways seem to consist of is shrinking back and desperating trying to make some sense of it. Most likely there's a fear involved that if you try to confront all the deviations you see, there's a crowd around you that will shout you down, so you stay silent. Why don't you fight instead of fighting those who are actually doing the fighting for you?

Unless you agree that all these things are alright. I don't really believe either of you think they are ok. That's why I want Mateo to explain to me how this art is good instead of why I'm bad for saying it isn't.

"Because Our Lord is not on record about His preference."

The heck He isn't.

"Except for the one I keep stressing over & over: our HEARTS --our hearts must come to Him with holy faith and no reservations."

There it is right there. I agree it's not spiritually mature to get stressed over these things, but your kind and Mateo's kind of not stressing comes from a different source: denial. Authentic not stressing comes from a better understanding what's going on; that's different. Yours isn't going to help too many people, and in a way, imho it perpetuates the confusion.

Denial is a phony tranquility. There is a real tranquility, though:

*******

"I think that at the end of the world the Blessed Virgin will be very tranquil; but while the world lasts, we drag her in all directions... The Holy Virgin is like a mother who has a great many children--she is continually occupied in going from one to the other." --St. John Vianney.

*******

Read that over and over and over, and then read it again.

Mateo can pretend that seeing the connections between things comes from an obsession with conspiracy theory if he wants to. That's his choice. You can call it hysteria if one points out a conflict between doctrine and symbolism. That's your choice.

It's all choices, Gene, and there are a few people out there that choose to see a problem instead of hiding their denial behind a mask of false tranquility. Out of those people that make the right choice, some actually respond correctly to it. But how can one who is denial possibly be responding as best he can?

"Do our Popes have any ideas how this must be achieved?"

They aren't saying anything about it. I guess it's up to us to defend the Church until we get some help from them; it'll come eventually.

"(I'll be back in a while, my wife demands I come to breakfast now.)"

That's what I like about you, Gene. Don't get me in trouble too, on your account.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

Mateo, I looked up the definition of Modernism from that link you posted above.

You pulled out this one:

"Modern thought, character, or practice. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards."

But it also contains this:

"often Modernism A Roman Catholic movement, officially condemned in 1907, that attempted to examine traditional belief according to contemporary philosophy, criticism, and historiography."

Has a traditional Catholic's whining and bantering been refuted or help out here? I don't think that the pursuit of a word's meaning stops cold after it's found in a dictionary. But in this case, definition number seems to make my point for me. If not, why not?

Am I missing something? If so, what is it?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

''Wrong, Gene, building and art should reflect the Church's theology. The Church, Gene, not me. You know I'm not saying my standards; you know that I'm pointing straight to the truths of the Catholic Church and saying that this art doesn't reflect that, by reflects the New Age. New Age, esoteric things that take truths and twist them into a deceptive, parallel to reality.''

If the buildings, sanctuaries, trappings & should reflect the Church's theology. (The Church, Gene, not me.) why do we not worship from the mountaintops? I consider the Church's theology blessed beyond all the visible works of men.

That you should decide for God what the fitting design for Catholic houses of worship, or placements of the sacred things of God within them, ARE-- is presumptuous. On account of your arbitrary decision that only what ''reflects'' theology is fit for God.

I maintain that our hearts and souls must reflect that theology. Not the bricks & mortar associated with an assembly. By now I have repeated it a dozen times. The EXTERNAL appearance of a church may please men or displease them. It hasn't disleased God. Notwithstanding that evil tendency you call modernism. The assurance I have is altogether dependable: I trust the Holy Spirit. He guides the Church, not some public relations firm searching for the best-looking but NOT modernist building plan.

I hasten to add that my appreciation for traditional churches isn't cancelled or diminished either. I'm comfortable in each setting, old and new. I have nothing but praise and admiration for historical Catholic churches.

One of the most wonderful cathedrals I have ever entered is in Seville. It is gloriously dedicated to God, on such a lavish scale that you could place three buildings like Saint Patrick's NYC inside it. It was built by medieval Catholic lunatics! A blooming marvel of a church!

Yet, if you asked me, did it give Jesus Christ His due? I'd reply no way! We'll never approach it. Only the highest mountain top could offer a majestic enough setting, IMO. (Just MINE, not the Church's.)

I trust that isn't too New Age for you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2004.

"Because Our Lord is not on record about His preference."

Just in case you missed it the first time I quoted this -

"And they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces" Jeremias 32:33

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 25, 2004.

Maybe you can explain the relevance of that OT verse to churches of today, Reg. Don't invent something, give us the Catholic interpretation if there is one. --?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2004.

Emerald writes: "That's why I want Mateo to explain to me how this art is good instead of why I'm bad for saying it isn't."

I find no reason in arguing whether the art is "good" or "bad." And my opinion isn't germane to my previous posts' point. You are free to your opinion of the art, and I don't think you're "bad" if you decide you don't like the art.

Emerald, maybe you should read my post again:

"If you have a problem with the art or artists, there's plenty of ammunition for you at this L.A Cathedral. But, I don't understand why you start making wild accusations (like this artist advocating the theology of naturalism) that are so easily proven incorrect."

You made the connection between the condemnation of the theology of naturalism and this artist's style of naturalism. One has nothing to do with the other. If you are denying that you made the connection, would you please explain why you felt the need to quote a papal encyclical with the word "naturalism" in bold after quoting his biography that had the term "naturalism" included in it?

Emerald writes: "Mateo can pretend that seeing the connections between things comes from an obsession with conspiracy theory if he wants to."

I "pretend" that you are stubbornly holding onto a dumb theory that concludes that this artist is advocating a theology of naturalism. Neither his biography nor his art have anything to do with the papal encyclical you quoted.

Emerald writes: "I'll even hand you your objection on a silver platter: Emerald is a conspiracy theorist. There.

This reminds me of some of my first postings on the forum. At that time, some conspiracy theorist (I think he was some flavor of Seventh Day Adventist) posted a list of attacks on the Catholic Church's art, to prove that it was corrupted by paganism, and other influences foreign to "true Christianity." In fact, I suspect that traveling to Italy, a pilgrim might find an endless list of pagan symbols and gods in Catholic churches and museums. How, as a "traditionalist" does this affect you? I suspect you would laugh them off, even as you do the same thing in your hunt to expose "naturalist artists."

The fact that you are a conspiracy theorist isn't really the point, though. The problem is that most of the conspiracies you post seem to point to the Vatican. Maybe you've read one too many Malichi Martin books? ;-)

Emerald writes: "Now, tell me how this art compliments the Catholic Faith; swing your objection into positive territory for me."

Well, if you're still talking about the artist who did the bronze doors, the description page shows that the doors' art focus on Marian themes. Though, I haven't seen the doors in person and am relying on photos and text on their website.

Emerald writes: "I don't think that the pursuit of a word's meaning stops cold after it's found in a dictionary. But in this case, definition number seems to make my point for me. If not, why not?"

Well, hopefully, we can agree that words can have multiple meanings, depending on the context. And that was my point. I didn't "stop cold" after I found the definitions. I showed that the clear meaning of the word (in its context) was that this artist is not an abstract artist (even though there is a "prevailing critical interest in abstraction"). That's the context. He is a naturalist artist, and thank goodness for that.

Emerald writes: "You can call it hysteria if one points out a conflict between doctrine and symbolism."

Emerald, I called you on a flimsy attack based on faulty logic. Respond to my words and prove me wrong. Don't read into what I didn't write. Just respond to what I wrote. Don't let your pride get in the way of admitting that you were wrong. As Nike says, "Just do it."

Eugene writes: "One of the most wonderful cathedrals I have ever entered is in Seville."

I'd love to spend some time in Spain and see the great Catholic heritage of the Iberian Peninsula. Especially Loyola, Spain! One day...

AMDG,

Mateo

PS--the baby's doing great.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 25, 2004.

"You made the connection between the condemnation of the theology of naturalism and this artist's style of naturalism."

Right.

"One has nothing to do with the other."

I don't believe that. I think they do have something to do with each other; I think what drives each is something of the same or similar principle.

"If you are denying that you made the connection, would you please explain why you felt the need to quote a papal encyclical with the word "naturalism" in bold after quoting his biography that had the term "naturalism" included in it?"

You drew the connection. Go look upthread and see for yourself. That's how ambiguity works with words, and in art, that's the power of the arrangement of things for public consumption. It's not so hard to construct a sentence in such a way as while not actually committing to a particular thesis, to lead the reader to conclude for himself what he or she wants to hear. You should be familiar with this way of speaking and writing; if you've read the conciliar and post conciliar documents for yourself, it should be old hat by now.

That being said, you drew the intended connection; I do see a similarity between the two. I think that the origins of the two can be traced back to a common source.

But Mateo, make no mistake, you concluded it, not me. If that's the case, what are people concluding when they see bad art in a Catholic Church, and is bad art really as inconsequential as Gene believes? What are people concluding in the course of imbibing bad liturgy and bad art?

"I "pretend" that you are stubbornly holding onto a dumb theory that concludes that this artist is advocating a theology of naturalism."

Not that the artist is advocating a theology of naturalism; rather, that both the art and the theology are suffering from the same disease. If you want to take aim and this and disagree, fine... but make sure you state it accurately. Don't blame me for what I didn't say.

"Neither his biography nor his art have anything to do with the papal encyclical you quoted."

Right; but the perversion of each compliments the other and is of the same principle, I believe.

How, as a "traditionalist" does this affect you [regarding similiar? I suspect you would laugh them off, even as you do the same thing in your hunt to expose "naturalist artists."

I believe I understand it well enough; I'm comfortable with what I know, and don't know.

"The fact that you are a conspiracy theorist isn't really the point, though."

You have a dizzying intellect. You know what though, CT really actually has very little to do with anything the traditional Catholics are getting at in this thread. I think for you it's more of a handy strawman, this obsession with conspiracy theory. Certainly, you yourself could never explain why we are seeing these things in our Churches... the abuses, the bad art, the walking uncatechised, the godless clergy, the spiritually vacuous. It's much easier to have indignation for those who attempt to understand than it is to actually shed light on our crisis. Either that, or deny it; that's always the easiest path to take.

"The problem is that most of the conspiracies you post seem to point to the Vatican."

Such as...?

"Maybe you've read one too many Malichi Martin books? ;-)"

I've only really read a good deal of Windswept House, but that's about it from him. You're getting colder.

Perhaps in using the conspiracy strawman, you really just don't have a point.

"Emerald writes: "Now, tell me how this art compliments the Catholic Faith; swing your objection into positive territory for me." Well, if you're still talking about the artist who did the bronze doors, the description page shows that the doors' art focus on Marian themes. Though, I haven't seen the doors in person and am relying on photos and text on their website."

That's it? That's all you have to say in defense of the this art? That's all? I was expecting something profound here. Dang it, I never get what I want.

"Emerald, I called you on a flimsy attack based on faulty logic."

If that's what you see, then you see more than I even intended to put out there; there was no logic in what I posted; I laid out two things side by side in order to illustrate a similarity of origin between the two, between the art and the bad theology it's supposed to represent. There was no logic presented; no syllogisms were produced. It's actually on the level of knowing by association, and that's exactly how I presented it.

"Respond to my words and prove me wrong. Don't read into what I didn't write. Just respond to what I wrote. Don't let your pride get in the way of admitting that you were wrong. As Nike says, "Just do it.""

I don't think I'm wrong. I think the art has suffered from the same sort of perversion that doctrine has suffered from, as well as liturgy, as well as the understanding and practice of the Faith among the faithful. Art has something to do with liturgy. Liturgy has something to do with doctrine. If I see a perversion one of these, it only makes sense to me to see it pop up in another; and it has.

What's that have to do with pride? I do believe that if I were to take on an in depth look at how the word naturalism is used to relation to theology, art, or anything else for that matter, that there's probably something of a common thread that runs through all of them. Pretty much the same way in which I believe that if I ever do actually get around to undertaking an in depth study of St. Ignatius of Loyola, that I won't really find that he single handedly gives credence to everything of the post-conciliar Church like you think he does. Maybe I lack the motivation to look into this because I pretty much don't think you're on to something, if you don't mind my being blunt.

Instead of finding that this Saint makes sense of the conciliar disaster like you might posit, I would most likely find yet another traditional Catholic Saint lending support to traditional Catholic thought and practice.

You have yet to provide me light and understanding. I'm sorry, Mateo, I just don't really consider you to be this formidable logical defeater of naughty Catholic's mental machinations such as mine. I trust my gut instincts over your supposed expose.

After all, it's not the traditional Catholics that are caught in the spotlight holding icky art and trying to explain themselves away... it's the conciliar Church that is.

Prideaside, Bad art and bad theology and bad liturgy all go together, and about this, I'm right. All the traditional Catholics are right.

When any traditional Catholic looks at Mahoney's disasterpiece and say it's perverted, they're right. I'm also right when I say that Mateo doesn't have the answers to Emerald's questions.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

This forum is enlightening by way of negation more than anything else, but other than that it's on average more amusing than irritating.

Someone like Frank will stay silent until someone conjures up the name Archbishop Lefebvre, and suddenly he'll pop out of his foxhole, fire off a few rounds, then duck down again for a while. Mateo does the same thing over his own conspiracy theories regarding phantom schisms.

Gene likes to play volleyball with the holy hand-grenade of Antioch; lob one over to him and his goal is to throw it back before it explodes.

It's all great fun, but eventually we have to fight the enemy, which is obviously easier said than done, especially when he's using guerilla tactics.

Now get praying!

Spiritual paintball is fun, but I need something specific to aim at. Can you round off this admonishment with a particular request? Who's feast day is it today, anyways? I wouldn't want to accidentally pray for the wrong thing and rain down disorientation upon myself.

Good night and God bless you and your family anyways, Mateo. When I heard today's gospel reading at the traditional Masses I thought about this conversation. My only apology is for being long winded above.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

Bizarre posts, Emerald. With all the ad hominems (against me, Frank, Eugene, etc), you're all over the place. It's a good diversion; but not worth replying to.

"...there was no logic in what I posted..."

Well, I've got to agree with you on this statement.

I wrote: "If you are denying that you made the connection, would you please explain why you felt the need to quote a papal encyclical with the word "naturalism" in bold after quoting his biography that had the term "naturalism" included in it?"

To which you replied: "You drew the connection."

And: "That being said, you drew the intended connection; I do see a similarity between the two. I think that the origins of the two can be traced back to a common source."

OK, so you intended to make the reader see a connection-- kinda Socratic of you, I suppose. AND you admit you yourself see a connection--oh, but at the same time you didn't make a connection ("no logic")...even though you did...even though you didn't. Dizzying logic. I guess you can't decide whether you drew a connection.

I saw the term "naturalism" in bold in two unrelated texts that you quoted. I merely "drew a connection" that you were highlighting the same word--wow! The "similarity" connection (which at this moment you are admitting to) is fallacious. Other than the fact that the two texts contain a common word, there is no connection to draw. The bottom line: the guy is not an abstract artist; he is an artist who reproduces his subjects as precisely as possible...that's it! You are educated: this shouldn't be difficult.

You wrote: "When I heard today's gospel reading..."

You linked an Epistle (Romans) passage, not a gospel. Was this a mistake?

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

By the way, after seeing all the complaining about Santiago Calatrava's design for the Christ the Light Cathedral, I'd like to add a little bit of "light" to the original topic:

1) The link to Santiago Calatrava's design was dated June 2001.

2) The "Christ the Light Cathedral" Architectural Design Committee selected an architect in the Spring of 2003.

3) Craig Hartman was selected.

4) For the benefit of those who might be confused by the implications: that means that Santiago Calatrava's design lost and won't be built.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 26, 2004.

Emerald,

Someone like Frank will stay silent until someone conjures up the name Archbishop Lefebvre, and suddenly he'll pop out of his foxhole, fire off a few rounds, then duck down again for a while.

No, I just don't find much point in trying to discuss things with you. You enjoy writing for pages and pages, but I don't think you are honest enough to really say what you believe in clear terms (or maybe you have to yourself, but won't here because it looks foolish to you). I've just grown tired of wasting time on it.

You are right, occasionally I will post on something that's particularly odious, just like I occasionally get irritated with John's subtle sniping, but really the forum has dwindled a lot and I've kind of backed off. Who knows, it may improve.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2004.

You wrote: "When I heard today's gospel reading..." You linked an Epistle (Romans) passage, not a gospel. Was this a mistake?

Yes it was; I saw that too and I meant the reading, but I didn't want to post three times in a row and get accused of hysteria. Clearly, if there is even one error or inaccuracy in my post, the whole thesis unravels, right, and I'm condemned by my own stupidity. Gee, where have I seen this tactic used before on this forum.

Bizarre posts, Emerald. With all the ad hominems (against me, Frank, Eugene, etc), you're all over the place. It's a good diversion; but not worth replying to.

Actually, it is. You all need to stand up for a change and give your explanation as to why bad art in a Church promotes the Catholic Faith in the hearts and minds of the Catholic faithful. If it doesn't, you need to show why not, and where it comes from; preferably without taking a center road by splitting the difference between the good and bad influences within the Church, or without advocating silence on the matter.

There is in fact a connection between that art in that church and what's not sacred, and while my way of approaching things might be bizarre and I may not be up to speed on everything that relates into the matter, the thesis stands, and it's true:

Bad art, bad liturgy, and bad theology all work hand in hand.

This is bad art and architecture at the Roj Mahal, and Roger commissioned it. There's nothing bizarre in this. What's bizarre is people who look at it and aren't puzzled, don't complain, and then shout down those who are and do. If I go your direction, I'm left sitting on my hands with no answers. I would much rather make a fool out of myself from time to time on the details and be right on the whole, instead of right about a detail and wrong about the whole thing.

Take your detail.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

"You enjoy writing for pages and pages, but I don't think you are honest enough to really say what you believe in clear terms."

Bad art is employed by bad people with bad theology and imho bad intentions that want to infuse bad ideas in the hearts and minds of the Faithful.

There.

True or not true?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

...and suddenly he'll pop out of his foxhole, fire off a few rounds, then duck down again for a while. Mateo does the same thing over his own conspiracy theories regarding phantom schisms.

In this battlefield scenario, I see myself as the pilot of the CIA plane, dropping propoganda leaflets by the thousands.

You cannot win.

Give yourselves up.

We're going to nuke your city. Pack up the kids & get out now.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2004.

A million messages falling, without closed tags.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

I'm going to try something different.

Jake, did I blow it on the naturalism thing and art? Apparently I'm somewhat dishonest, so you tell me the hard truth. I can take it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

"In this battlefield scenario, I see myself as the pilot of the CIA plane, dropping propoganda leaflets by the thousands."

Unfortunately, all of your leaflets would have bad HTML syntax in your imagined world. Not to mention, you're dropping them all in the middle of the Yukon Territory. Other than that...

I suppose in your scenerio, I'd be one of those Vatican-trained Jesuit assassins who hunts CIA operatives for a living. Hey, I took the secret oath! ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 26, 2004.

PS--Emerald, you would be Agent Fox Mulder. ;-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 26, 2004.

In all honesty, I don't know enough about the subject to make a judgement either way. Naturalism is expressed in art and in theology, but I'm not sure if the same principles apply to both. Ditto for Modernism.

I remember discussing it with Robert when he visited here (he's an artist), and he was of the very definite opinion that religious art has taken a beating because of Modernism, but I don't know if artistic Modernism/naturalism cross over into Modernism as we understand it from a theologocal perspective. They seem to be related, but I don't know if they're the same.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2004.

Unfortunately, all of your leaflets would have bad HTML syntax in your imagined world.

What you call bad syntax, I believe the government refers to as phychological operations.

Not to mention, you're dropping them all in the middle of the Yukon Territory.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness? I don't mind that at all.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2004.

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness? I don't mind that at all."

I second that one. If Robert were still here, as an artist he could have answered this question for me, but unfortunately, he went from not knowing about the Real Presence to committing himself to a Benedictine Monastery to dedicate his life to praying for the salvation of souls, all in as little time as about one year.

In that sense, he left us all in the dust.

Yeah, conspiracy theory used to be fun for me. The funny thing is, though, when I began to take my Catholicism more seriously, I became more traditional in it, and as that happened, believe it or not I've thought less and less about conspiracy.

That would include the conciliar conspiracy theories regarding traditional Catholics being heretics and schismatics.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness?"

Hmmm, interesting imagery. In the wilderness...looks like you might be a naturalist, too. Maybe Robert Graham's theology is rubbing off on you.

The truth is out there...Mr. CIA agent.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 26, 2004.

I'm stilling not hearing any solutions from your camp, Mateo.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

Hmmm, interesting imagery. In the wilderness...looks like you might be a naturalist, too.

Careful. Some of the mental images evoked by that comment are not at all pleasant.

Maybe Robert Graham's theology is rubbing off on you.

The guy who assasinated the King of Scotland in 1437? I'm not famiiar with his body of work, nor with the fact that he was a theologian. Please elaborate.

The truth is out there...Mr. CIA agent.

It sure is; and you might (or might not) be surprised at the people who are standing in its way, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2004.

We appreciate the heads up, Em: ''Bad art, bad liturgy, and bad theology all work hand in hand.'' We don't know bad art when we see it. You apparently do. We don't know a thing about Jesus Christ, the Church or the sacraments. You, OTOH, are an accomplished theologian.

''bad theology and imho bad intentions that want to infuse bad ideas in the hearts and minds of the Faithful.'' as a clincher? Of course. Would you bear false witness? NEVER!

Yes, my intentions are ''bad'', I'm faithful. I have embraced bad theology. That of Jesus Christ and His saints. I read the scriptures badly, and it's intentional. You have me on all three counts. Blame the bishops and Christ. Start a new reformation, with your trusted theology, your good intent, and your good ''art''. You can do it, Emms. Don't be bashful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2004.

We appreciate the heads up, Em: ''Bad art, bad liturgy, and bad theology all work hand in hand.'' We don't know bad art when we see it. You apparently do. We don't know a thing about Jesus Christ, the Church or the sacraments. You, OTOH, are an accomplished theologian.

Thus your condescension: ''This forum is enlightening by way of negation more than anything else, but other than that it's on average more amusing than irritating. (He's got it all together, Friends.) ''Bad theology and imho bad intentions that want to infuse bad ideas in the hearts and minds of the Faithful.'' as a clincher? Of course. Would you bear false witness? NEVER!

Yes, my intentions are ''bad'', I'm faithful. I have embraced bad theology. That of Jesus Christ and His saints. I read the scriptures badly, and it's intentional. You have me on all three counts. Blame the bishops and Christ. Start a new reformation, with your trusted theology, your good intent, and your good ''art''. You can do it, Emms. Don't be bashful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2004.

Emerald,

Bad art is employed by bad people with bad theology and imho bad intentions that want to infuse bad ideas in the hearts and minds of the Faithful.

There.

True or not true?

That could be true by someone somewhere, but I doubt if that's the case for the doors (the trouble is I don't care enough to look in to it. If you can post a statement where the artist said his goal was to subvert Catholicism I'll sure read it). Emerald, I've seen a lot of classic paintings, and they don't just have the Holy Family sitting on a blank background. There is always a setting: rural, middle ages, classical, something. These doors could be like that: "who should come in to this Cathedral? Everyone and Everything!" Think of the cathedral as a physcial artwork, then think of the doors as background for the main theme inside, Emerald, and see how you like it. After all, a work of art is supposed to be a *whole*, not just a ton of images crammed into the same space. I submit to you that if the Cathedral was nothing but the face of Jesus carved into every single surface, it would look like some nut made it, but would for sure pass your "holiness and centeredness" test. Would you want a cathedral like *that*? If not, try imagining that something else might be good.

Frank

P.S. You should go with an art museum with someone who hates art once. They can criticize everything, and I do mean everything. Does that make the art bad, or that person a fool?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2004.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think a beautiful church is one which is filled with prayerful, respectful, adoring people whose minds are centred on praising and thanking God and not on their surroundings.

I'm convinced that God isn't very concerned with the aesthetics of a building.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 26, 2004.

"I'm stilling not hearing any solutions from your camp, Mateo. "

That's OK. I still haven't seen you admit that your "naturalist" accusation was baseless. First you made the connection...then you said that I made the connection...then you said you meant to make the connection...then...well, it seems you're still undecided on what claim you made. So you abandoned your specific attack and tried to attack the church's art in general (and sling a little mud at me, Frank, and Eugene in the process).

Maybe this is part of Jake's phychological operations. Well, at least it's coming out that the only way to convert Catholics away from churchs in union with their bishops is by using disinformation.

Jake, Robert Graham is the artist that made the bronze doors at the Cathedral you guys hate so much.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 26, 2004.

"We can worship God acceptably in all plainness and simplicity, if it is the best that we have to offer Him. But if we are able to erect beautiful houses for our own use, we dare not refuse to do as much for Him. Whether it be great or small, God demands of us our best, and nothing less will satisfy Him. Since the church is God's House, and since it represents the devotion of so many people, it should be larger, more imposing, and more beautiful than any other building. Nothing is too good for it, nor too costly."

Author unknown

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

Nick:
We all have points of view. This unknown author is of that particular opinion, and it is certainly a worthy opinion. For God nothing is too good.

We've discussed this many times in the past. Nothing you & Jake & Emerald tell us is a revelation. I've belabored them not for wishing to give of our very best to God but for their spirit of condemnation. They aren't entitled to judge their brethren, or take a superior attitude.

We are all called by Jesus Christ to love one another. That love for Christ and neighbor is the highest and holiest offering we can make to Our Father in heaven. Material splendor comes in a distant second; and even in a nondescript-looking sanctuary we offer God our love in the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2004.

Until recently, I belonged to an older church that has a beautiful marble altar that was imported from Italy in the 1920's, stained glass windows, statuary, etc. Then I switched to a church that is made of logs, has a simple altar (which the priest faces), and a minimal amount of art and statuary. So it has a "nondescript-looking sanctuary." My gripe isn't with simple churches.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

"I still haven't seen you admit that your "naturalist" accusation was baseless."

And I'm not going to. I believe that this hideous art is of the same origin as deviant understandings of Catholicism which are popular today. I don't think it is baseless. I do think that you don't understand any of this either.

"First you made the connection...then you said that I made the connection...then you said you meant to make the connection...then...well, it seems you're still undecided on what claim you made."

Not really. And I'm not going to. I believe that this hideous art is of the same origin as deviant understandings of Catholicism which are popular today. I don't think it is baseless. I do think that you don't understand any of this either.

"So you abandoned your specific attack and tried to attack the church's art in general (and sling a little mud at me, Frank, and Eugene in the process)."

I don't abandon it. And I'm not going to. I believe that this hideous art is of the same origin as deviant understandings of Catholicism which are popular today. I don't think it is baseless. I do think that you don't understand any of this either.

"Maybe this is part of Jake's phychological operations."

Quit with the conspiracy theories. They get old after a while.

"Well, at least it's coming out that the only way to convert Catholics away from churchs in union with their bishops is by using disinformation."

So in other words, I started going to a bishop-approved Indult Mass because someone tried to convert me "away from churchs in union with their bishops is by using disinformation"? You have a dizzying intellect, Mateo. You've really got a deep grasp on these matters, and all put forth by you without a trace of pride or arrogance. Would that I could be like you. It's stunning.

"Jake, Robert Graham is the artist that made the bronze doors at the Cathedral you guys hate so much."

Yep. Hey, one of the things listed on those bronze doors was this:

I Ching/Ti Chi

Let's talk about I Ching/Ti Chi, Mateo. What's I Ching Ti Chi?

Frank and Gene, what's that doing on those doors?

Is it Catholic? Did the bishop commission this?

Let's go.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

You like definitions, so I did a quick search on I Ching/Ti Chi, which produced this link.

That's pretty much all I've looked at, really. I've got to tread carefully, though, because Mateo might call my bluff and show me a fraud. Let me provide the disclaimer that, hey, that's just a link from a search off google, that's all.

On that link:

"These two notions are the fundamental Taoist notions of yin and yang. The philosophy of Taoism understands everything in terms of these two opposing principles. Though these two principles are seen as opposites, the one necessarily merges into the other, creating the natural balance of self and world, hence the classic symbol of tai chi."

Gee, that sounds a lot like that thing where you have two opposing principles... what's that called again? The thing where you have a thesis, an antithesis... shoot, I forget.

I know how you like to strike a balance between things, Mateo. Kind of run things down the center. The truth is out there in the center, right?

What's I Ching and Ti Chi, and what's it doing on those doors? I'm sure it's just a matter of me being misinformed. Help me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2004.

My goodness. What if I've spelled it wrong.

Is it this?

What IS it? Is it Catholic?

I wonder if it has to do with Yoga or meditation such as they were talking about in the other thread. Yes/no/maybe? You tell me; I'm clueless here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Emerald,

I see you have no comment about viewing the cathedral as artwork, so I'll try something else.

Have you ever seen a Tridentine rite old-school cathedral such as Notre Dame? What do the gargoyles there have to do with Catholicism? I was told they evolved from Pagan grotesques that in some early churches were found inside the church as well, and were sort of a carry-over from their buildings to ours. Is Notre Dame another "novus ordo" Cathedral you rail against, or is it possible that what you think is a modernist error is really a church practice that has been occurring for over a millenia?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2004.

How about a pentegram to represent the Wiccan population that is part of the rich fabric of L.A. culture & heritage? Why not put that on the door to the catedral?

There are a lot of symbols that are connected with Freemasonry. How about one of those? I mean, the Faith does not exclude anyone, right? The "Church of today" is open and accommodating.

Is the answer along the lines of: "Just don't look at it and it won't offend you. As for me, it won't stop me from worshiping there. After all, we love God."

Take a moment & ask yourself if you're actually defending this, or just saying "yes" because it's me who's saying "no."

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

Jake,

You aren't answering the question though: Do you refuse to accept any of the pre-vat II cathedrals that have some non-Catholic symbolism on them somewhere, or is it just POST-vatII cathedrals you have a problem with?

My take is you guys' bias against the rite led to your gripe against the cathedral. If you have no complaint about OLD churches with pagan symbols on them (which the church hasn't seen fit to remove in a LONG number of years) then you really should have no gripe against this, even if it is as Emerald thinks it is.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2004.

You aren't answering the question though: Do you refuse to accept any of the pre-vat II cathedrals that have some non-Catholic symbolism on them somewhere,

Animals have been used in Catholic art for a long time, in all forms, both real and immagined. The key difference is that the architects and artists that employed them weren't trying to sell something, to push an agenda. I challenge the idea of them being "non-Catholic symbolism, as you'll read in the link I provided. An upside-down cross is a symbol of St. Peter (and the Papacy), and it's also used as a satanic symbol. Using the logic you've employed, I could go to some heavy metal concert, see an upside-down cross displayed, and conclude to you that the band was showing their love for the Pope.

But that would be, at a minimu, an insult to your intelligence...wouldn't it?

or is it just POST-vatII cathedrals you have a problem with?

Yes. It is. They're ugly. They're banal. They're profane. They are all about making people comfortable on Earth, whereas older churches point people towards heaven, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

My take is you guys' bias against the rite led to your gripe against

Your take is, as usual, wrong. I mean, I Ching? Are you kidding me?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

Jake:
What's your problem? Can't the Church baptise this emblem just as well as pagan feast days, any number of customs: the Easter egg, the Christmas tree? Yes, she can.

I'm afraid your fanaticism is out of control now. You are aping Savonarola. I had almost forgotten how mean-spirited you are. May Our Saviour bring you to repentence and light.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2004.

What's your problem? Can't the Church baptise this emblem just as well as pagan feast days, any number of customs: the Easter egg, the Christmas tree? Yes, she can.

I suppose so, but if you think that's what's happening here, you're either grossly deluded or it really is just me you have a problem with, even to the point where'd you'd defend something like this. Either way, you have my prayers, and my sympathy.

I had almost forgotten how mean-spirited you are.

We love God.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

"Have you ever seen a Tridentine rite old-school cathedral such as Notre Dame?"

When I was a teenager I toured this cathedral. One time I looked around a bit on this topic of the gargoyles, and I think I remember that what I read made sense, but I would have to go back and look at it again.

In a general answer to your question Frank, I think that Catholicism has been fighting with paganism over truth and symbolism since the very start... it's even in the Scriptures when Paul points to the "unknown god" to make a point.

I don't have a problem with symbolism, and certainly the Catholic Church doesn't either, and the Tridentine is packed full of it; even more than the West, the Eastern Rites are supercharged with it. If anything, it's the loss of symbolism that disappoints me.

So yes, I think you are right that we've been running a race for truth and symbolism with the pagans since the game started. Truth in philosophy and theology, symbolism in art, and in the prayers a little of both together in the words of the prayers. The game has always been to extract what Lumen the Gentium already have possession of, and to "plug in" their unpolished truths into the Light of Faith.

We've done a fantastic job of this for so long, but it's a dangerous game, and lately we're letting slip. What you see in the LA Cathedral is not the assimilation of secular mystical symbolism by the light of Faith, but secular symbolism standing on it's own merits on our doors. This is confusing, and my point is that it seeks to assimilate the faithful, not the pagan. We lost much of our symbolism in the West when we lost our traditional Mass; with the void in place, now comes countermove to fill it with pagan symbolism disconnected from any attempt, imho, to assimilate the pagan. It's left to just stand on it's own merits in such a way as to accomodate them, and that's confusing.

Likewise, I believe there is a real ecumenism, but what we've been doing is accomodating them and not assimilating them; whenever that happens, if we as the Catholic Church don't play this chess game well, the cost of failure is being assimilated by the enemies of the Church and not doing the assimilating. The other day I fell by accident into an ecumenical get together; I saw a lot of hand-shaking and back-slapping, but when it came to closing the deal, the nonCatholic participants have the attitude "thanks; we'll get back to you". In the meantime, the Catholics walked out of there thinking we had more in common with them then they did when they walked in. They walked out with a little less of their Faith intact.

The fight is always against the enemy of the Church, and his objective is mimic God and to deceive people; that's why we see such a tight weave between godly symbolism and pagan symbolism. Lately we are being taken down.

Here's the ultimate complaint: the bishop commissioned this. There's bishops like him all over the world supporting the same or similar things in the arenas of philosophy, art, theology, liturgy and morality. We are being poisoned by the New Age. It's a widespread problem that goes all the way up through the hierarchy.

There's three ways to react this:

1. Admit the problem

2. Deny the problem

3. Support the problem

I admit the problem, so I ask myself what I can do about it. Nothing but pray about it, that's all I can do: pray for the priests, the bishops and the Pope. I myself have no authority. People shouldn't be denying the problem or supporting it; they should be praying about it and fighting it; this shouldn't be scoffed at or called into question; it just ought to be done.

Have patience with the longwindedness, Frank. But does that make sense to you?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Gene says to jake:

"I'm afraid your fanaticism is out of control now. You are aping Savonarola. I had almost forgotten how mean-spirited you are. May Our Saviour bring you to repentence and light."

I believe this to be nothing more than a reaction to jake hitting a nerve.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you gave the matter some serious reflection instead of pushing away any consideration of jake's points with a knee-jerk reaction, that when someone like poster "faith" or someone else makes the accusation that Catholics are pagan worshippers, that you would be better equipped to answer her objections?

I think traditional Catholics are better at this.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

''But when it came to closing the deal, the nonCatholic participants have ___the attitude___ "Thanks; we'll get back to you". In the meantime, the Catholics walked out of there thinking we had more in common with them then they did when they walked in. They walked ___out with a little less of their Faith____ intact.''

--Would you please tell me how God qualifies you to make these discernments? I won't question your right to a guess, and you might even guess rightly. It isn't anything but Pharisaism, though; when you presume to evaluate the faith of another Catholic. I wonder why you persist in showing this sophist's streak all the time, Emerald? Not to mean you haven't a right to dislike back-slaps with non-Catholics, Tai Ching, or whatever you please.

But coming here to condemn the bishops for something YOU disagree with is no virtue. You're merely exercising your ego.

All the above will serve to show I have no knee-jerk reactions. Jake has nothing to say will touch a nerve in me; and speaking of discernment- -

The more I contest with you & Jake and his wife, the greater the sense I get of this charism; how easily I see through your sophistry. It seems as if you show the cloven hoof almost immediately; when you most presume to instruct others. I really AM amazed! How has this grace been afforded me? Not because I feel proud, let me assure you. I will glorify the most Sacred Heart of Jesus; He alone!! What a wonderful thing it is, to stand on one's faith! Thank you, Beloved Saviour! Help your servants Jake, Regina and Emerald to deepen their love for our holy mother Church; Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2004.

Help your servants Jake, Regina and Emerald to deepen their love for our holy mother Church; Amen!

We love God.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

"Would you please tell me how God qualifies you to make these discernments?"

Baptism and Confirmation, I suppose. Besides it being an obligation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Baptised and confirmed a Pharisee, Emm? Wow!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2004.

Yeah, it's cool.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Emerald writes: "And I'm not going to. I believe that this hideous art is of the same origin as deviant understandings of Catholicism which are popular today. I don't think it is baseless."

Apparently calumny is OK if the you don't like his art. Most sinners try to justify their sin. Lust, pride, gluttony, averice...there's always an excuse. Emerald, you've got yours. But it's still calumny, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Admit your calumny, and we can discuss the merit of this guy's art and the Catholic art of ages past. You're on step one of your twelve-step program.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"So in other words, I started going to a bishop-approved Indult Mass because someone tried to convert me "away from churchs in union with their bishops is by using disinformation"? "

No "in other words." I'm not interested in seeing you put words in my mouth. Is this more "trad-disinformation"? These are my words:

While this part of your attempt to avoid your calumny, I can reply to it. I don't know the exact words you used; but when you admitted that you would travel hundreds of miles to avoid attending mass at my church (or any Catholic Church), I have to expect that you're not too far away from the "mass is an abomination" position of those here who attend SSPX-like churches that are not in union with their local bishop or the Pope.

If you "go to an indult," that's fine. If you claim that people should start attending "mass" at some protestant sect like the SSPX, then that's a problem...at least according to the Vatican and the bishops in union with Rome.

Now back to admitting that you are guilty of calumny, Mr. Naturalist.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"The fight is always against the enemy of the Church, and his objective is mimic God and to deceive people"

I wish all people who have left the Catholic Church understood this. The SSPX, SSPV, and similar organizations are inspired by the devil to trick people out of the true Catholic Church. Tempted by smells and bells, these poor sheep are enslaved especially by the vices of pride, calumny, anger, and factionalism.

Lord, please bring your people out of these instruments of the devil.

Amen.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

Jake,

Animals have been used in Catholic art for a long time, in all forms, both real and immagined. The key difference is that the architects and artists that employed them weren't trying to sell something, to push an agenda. I challenge the idea of them being "non-Catholic symbolism, as you'll read in the link I provided.

I read your link. Please show me where YOU think it shows gargoyles as being *Catholic* creations. It doesn't exist, btw. I was holding off using the "Christmas Tree", but since Eugene brought it up LOL the church most definitely HAS incorporated other symbols or times for its own use from other faiths. This didn't start in the 1960's.

or is it just POST-vatII cathedrals you have a problem with?

Yes. It is

Thank you for being honest. If you don't care that the church's position hasn't changed, there's really not much else to say.

Your take is, as usual, wrong. I mean, I Ching? Are you kidding me?

See below.

Emerald,

So yes, I think you are right that we've been running a race for truth and symbolism with the pagans since the game started.

This and the part above it is much appreciated. Straightforward, and I understand your position. Thanks.

We've done a fantastic job of this for so long, but it's a dangerous game, and lately we're letting slip. What you see in the LA Cathedral is not the assimilation of secular mystical symbolism by the light of Faith, but secular symbolism standing on it's own merits on our doors. This is confusing, and my point is that it seeks to assimilate the faithful, not the pagan.

Did you read WHY the artist used the symbols he did ? Link

Inner doors

Beginning at the bottom of the inner doors, Graham has sculpted in relief a grapevine, symbolizing the Church. Folded in the grapevine are 40 ancient symbols that represent pre-Christian images from Europe, Asia, Africa and North America. The images include the eagle, griffin, goose, Southwest Indian Flying Serpent, bee, hand, ostrich, dove, Chinese turtle, Samoan kava bowl, the Native American Chumash man, the dolphin, the Tree of Jesse, Tai Chi, and many others. The number 40 is a mystical number in Scripture from 40 years of the Israelites wandering in the desert, Jesus' 40 days in the desert, and His ascension 40 days after Easter, among others.

Numerology played an important part in the design of the doors in abstract connotations. He considers the most important being 3 for the Trinity in the triangle shape and 4 for the Gospels, and their combination equaling 7, also an important number in Scripture.

Progressing above the ancient part of the doors are different visions of the Virgin from images that are European in origin, but have been filtered through the indigenous cultures that the Europeans brought to Christianize the New World. They include such images as the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin of Guadalupe, the Pietá, the Mater Dolorosa, the Virgin of Pomata, Virgin of the Rosary of Chichinquira, Divine Shepherdess, Virgin of the Cave, Virgin of the Candlestick, Virgin of Mercy, and others.

The pre-christian faiths are reached out to by the vine, which absorbs their people who are led up the tree to the Virgin. Sounds o.k. to me. What's the problem? Now if you had the Virgin Mary in the soil, a tree, and these faiths on the BRANCHES, THAT would be a problem! (not the case though)

Also on the Virgin Mary's statue:

Mary does not wear the traditional veil. Her arms are bare, outstretched to welcome all. Her carriage is confident, and her hands are strong, the hands of a working woman. From the side can be seen a thick braid of hair down her back that summons thoughts of Native American or Latina women. Other characteristics, such as her eyes, lips and nose convey Asian, African and Caucasian features. Without the conventional regal trappings of jewels, crown or layers of clothing, she has a dignity that shines from within.

Originally, two bronzed angels were to be placed one on each side of Our Lady of the Angels. However, the first Spanish name for Los Angeles was El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora, Reina de los Angeles. Mary is Queen of Los Angeles, so the people in her city are her angels.

The guy's an artist with a vision of his own. You might not like it, but I don't think (reading this) that makes it bad. The Cathedral's literature doesn't make this look like a celebration of other faiths, only you guys do that. Perhaps an indication on your part of a larger schism with the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2004.

Oops, been awhile since I made a link. Probably still works though.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2004.

inspired by the devil to trick people out of the true Catholic Church.

You disappoint me.

You weren't doing too poorly up to that point.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

"You disappoint me."

Truth can be disappointing...there are so many who attack the Church for so many reasons. All of those attacks are inspired by the enemy of Christ, the devil.

Some people judge that the Catholic Church doesn't encourage the Bible enough. Others think that the Catholic Church doesn't foster Tradition. Others judge that the Catholic Church doesn't foster freedom for a woman to "choose." Others judge that the Church's leaders are corrupt. Others judge that the Church's art isn't good enough.

I judge that the Catholic Church is my mother, and I owe Her my life.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"Were not going to take it.... NO! Were not going to take it... anymorrrrreeee!"

Ha Mateo is on the charge! Look out!

Hi guys and gals hope everything is well, good to see nothing changes :).

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

"Were not going to take it.... NO! Were not going to take it... anymorrrrreeee!"

Twisted Sister!!!! Cool!

"Hi guys and gals hope everything is well, good to see nothing changes :)."

That's not true. In the last few monrths, I've changed a lot...

a lot of diapers. ;-)

God bless, Kiwi! I hope you're doing well. Maybe one day, my wife and I will take a second honeymoon and support the Frodo Economy...ah, I dream...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

SMeegle likes babies. Three cheers for the nappies, the joys of babies! I hope your little one is bringing you both other joys beside nappies, what a blessing you have. God bless the wonder and beauty of life!

I am feeling refreshed and fine after a long long holiday!Im certainly streching the Church teaching "work to live not live to work" to the limit! Smeegle hopes that Mateo and his "precious" escape Mt Doom for Hobitville sometime!

God Bless

ps Bring the ring.

-- Smeegle (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

Mateo:

"Apparently calumny is OK if the you don't like his art. Most sinners try to justify their sin. Lust, pride, gluttony, averice...there's always an excuse. Emerald, you've got yours. But it's still calumny, no matter how hard you try to spin it."

Sloth mostly, I would say. But you're accusing me of calumny? How so? I don't get it; I could be, you never know.

"Admit your calumny, and we can discuss the merit of this guy's art and the Catholic art of ages past. You're on step one of your twelve-step program."

But calumny, no sir. I don't think I'm guilty of any calumny here. Perhaps you need to show me exactly what you mean.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

"While this part of your attempt to avoid your calumny, I can reply to it. I don't know the exact words you used; but when you admitted that you would travel hundreds of miles to avoid attending mass at my church (or any Catholic Church), I have to expect that you're not too far away from the "mass is an abomination" position of those here who attend SSPX-like churches that are not in union with their local bishop or the Pope ... If you "go to an indult," that's fine. If you claim that people should start attending "mass" at some protestant sect like the SSPX, then that's a problem ... at least according to the Vatican and the bishops in union with Rome.

Now back to admitting that you are guilty of calumny, Mr. Naturalist.

You're starting to sound just like someone else you chewed out a while back. You forgot to put JMJ at the top, and God bless you at the bottom. So is he right, are you right, or are you both wrong in your approach to these things?

"I wish all people who have left the Catholic Church understood this. The SSPX, SSPV, and similar organizations are inspired by the devil to trick people out of the true Catholic Church. Tempted by smells and bells, these poor sheep are enslaved especially by the vices of pride, calumny, anger, and factionalism. Lord, please bring your people out of these instruments of the devil. Amen.

If you were wrong, would it be Calumny?

Let's talk about the Samoan Kava Bowl on those doors, Mateo.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Holy smoke of schismatic hellfire; sorry about that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

"Truth can be disappointing...there are so many who attack the Church for so many reasons. All of those attacks are inspired by the enemy of Christ, the devil. Some people judge that the Catholic Church doesn't encourage the Bible enough. Others think that the Catholic Church doesn't foster Tradition. Others judge that the Catholic Church doesn't foster freedom for a woman to "choose." Others judge that the Church's leaders are corrupt. Others judge that the Church's art isn't good enough. I judge that the Catholic Church is my mother, and I owe Her my life."

And on all those things you judge well.

What does that have to do with I Ching, Ti Chi, and the Samoan Kava Bowl Mateo?

I think you're dodging me with this argument by attitude thing you're doing. It's pretty cool, like Twisted Sister.

But you're not really addressing the question, are you? Is that art Catholic, did I really calumniate anyone, are the traditionalists inspired by the devil, and are all traditional Catholics arrogant and you're not?

You forgot to put JMJ at the top of your post, and at the bottom, God bless you.

Don't post angry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Emerald,

Between the your unwillingness to admit your calumny against the door maker (infering that his artistic style has anything to do with what is condemned in Humanum Genus) and the post from Smeegle, I just don't think I can go on...

It's not a perfect correlation; but it seems that there's a relationship between bad HTML and a gloom-and-doom view of the Catholic Church.

Frank, you'd better watch those "A HREF" tags! It's hurting my theory. ;-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"You forgot to put JMJ at the top of your post"

Man, I can't believe you don't like Bishop Sheen!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

Frank:

"Did you read WHY the artist used the symbols he did?"

Yes I did.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

"Man, I can't believe you don't like Bishop Sheen!"

I thought you didn't like calumny.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

"I think you're dodging me with this argument by attitude thing you're doing."

Emerald,

Read my posts. Don't change the subject. I have posted for one reason--you think that your dislike of the door-artist means that you can hurl calumny at him. That's it.

Oh, I also mentioned that the original church design that everyone complained about will never be built.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"I thought you didn't like calumny."

Sometimes I get the impression that you and Jake switched roles. You're now Mr. Serious, and he's the ligth-hearted comic. Weird...

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"Read my posts. Don't change the subject. I have posted for one reason--you think that your dislike of the door-artist means that you can hurl calumny at him. That's it. Oh, I also mentioned that the original church design that everyone complained about will never be built."

Of course you're dodging the point, Mateo. I'm saying the stuff on those doors isn't Catholic, but New Age in origin.

Let's talk about I Ching, Ti Chi, and the Samoan Kava Bowl, Mateo.

The Kava Bowl is particularly interesting, but then again, so are the Celtic Monster and the Sicilian Legs.

Hurry up before I die and go to Hell for not being just like you... lol.

"Sometimes I get the impression that you and Jake switched roles. You're now Mr. Serious, and he's the ligth-hearted comic. Weird..."

He is pretty funny. Seriously.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

You're now Mr. Serious, and he's the ligth-hearted comic.

I have always thought of myself as more of a dreamy-eyed weirdo than a light-hearted comic, but that's only when I'm not being a smartass.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 27, 2004.

"Between the your unwillingness to admit your calumny against the door maker (infering that his artistic style has anything to do with what is condemned in Humanum Genus) and the post from Smeegle, I just don't think I can go on..."

Like I said, I don't think I'm guilty of any calumny. It would have to been done with full awareness, you know, for it to qualify as a full-on sin, you know.

Let me say it again with full knowledge and intent: I think this art is symbolic in principle of the same sorts of things that are condemned in Humanum Genus. I suppose one could spend some time testing this and fleshing it out, but drawing the connection hardly amounts to calumny, and you've hardly done anything to explain why them symbols are all over our church door there.

Do you like the art, Mateo? Do you think it's good, and is a worthy reflection upon our Catholic Faith? Not suspect at all? Come on, commit yourself to something.

How's it coming along with the case that jake, Isabel and Regina are in schism, btw? The reason I ask is because Karl Keating couldn't do it with Gerry Matatics here in San Diego... show how he's a schismatic and a heretic that is, and ended up walking out.

If you can do better than him, hey! I would have to really hand it to you.

Would it be calumny to accuse someone of being a heretic and a schismatic if it weren't really true? I wonder about that. Far be it from me to draw a conclusion, especially with so much Sloth be be done... hahaha!

What do you think? You seem like such a charitable and well- intentioned person to me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

"Let me say it again with full knowledge and intent: I think this art is symbolic in principle of the same sorts of things that are condemned in Humanum Genus."

You made a connection between his the brief biographical text, not the subject of his art. The biography was clearly pointing out that his style of "naturalism" was contrasted against abstract art. And you bolded the word naturalism because you wanted to make a connection...even though you said you didn't make a connection...even though you later said you did make a connection...even though...whatever. Dizzying.

Step one of twelve. You can do it! ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

"How's it coming along with the case that jake, Isabel and Regina are in schism, btw?"

How many ways will you try to change the subject?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

I thought you brought it up. Am I wrong?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Actually, Emerald, nobody cares what you may turn out to be. Heretical? Schismatic? Stupid?

It's all the same. For myself, one way of looking at you is __unworthy of belief.__

Suppose you were a crusader for truth? Suppose you were going to save the Church for Christ? Would you be here mincing words with Mateo? Or bothering the Pope in Rome? --Christ has better plans for you, little Lad. Religion is His domain and we are servants.

Since you are so deluded as to think your taste matters to God, park over behind His kitchen and get busy there. --Both of us will wash up after the theologians and eat a scrap or two when the cooks have gone home. Everything you eat there is for free. Just don't try to cook up any truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2004.

"I thought you brought it up. Am I wrong? "

You brought up schism in your post yesterday, out of the blue. I lamented that people have left the Catholic Church and attended worship services at churches that are not in union with their local bishop.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 27, 2004.

PS--Maybe that's not obvious enough. My lament came after your "schism" post. Anyway...

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

He can't say that isn't true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

"You made a connection between his the brief biographical text, not the subject of his art. The biography was clearly pointing out that his style of "naturalism" was contrasted against abstract art. And you bolded the word naturalism because you wanted to make a connection...even though you said you didn't make a connection...even though you later said you did make a connection...even though...whatever. Dizzying."

What in the world could this be?

You see how hard it is for someone like me to get confused? Mateo, you've got to help me, man.

The "Raven Eating a Man's Liver"...what do you supposed that is? Certainly it couldn't have anything to do with that link. Can you help me to figure out exactly how this symbol would fit into our Catholic theology?

The Chumash Condor seems pretty cool. Check out what it says on that link:

"The first Chumash people were created on Santa Cruz Island. They made from seeds of a Magic Plant by the Earth Goddess, whose name was Hutash. Hutash was married to the Sky Snake (the Milky Way). He could make lightning bolts with his tongue."

That's pretty good, but I heard that Braveheart could consume the English with bolts of lightening from... well, I digress. Mateo, does that link above have anything at all whatsoever to do with the Chumash thing on those doors, or am I calumniating again?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

"Mateo, you've got to help me, man."

Believe me, I thought we had agreed that a word could have more than one meaning; and that context could be used to discern which meaning was meant by the author. But, apparently that concept still hasn't sunk in for you...either that or you're doing using more "trad-psych- ops" against me.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

I just always had you pegged for someone that didn't go for New Age stuff.

Don't know why, I just kind of thought that.

It's alright if I don't like the art on these doors, right? Do I have to like them to be in full communion with the Church?

Wouldn't I do just fine if I decided to keep the Faith whole and entire, or is that a schismatical thing to do, or worse yet heresy?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

"Mateo, you've got to help me, man." Believe me, I thought we had agreed that a word could have more than one meaning; and that context could be used to discern which meaning was meant by the author.

What do you mean here? I don't get it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

"What do you mean here? I don't get it."

Well, if you aligned your inner chakras, you would get it. My priest and his boyfriend (the church's Yoga instructor) taught us all about our bodies' energy centers last Sunday at NewChurch.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

What?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

Who?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

Apparently, it's not me that's been getting into the Samoan Kava Bowl after all.

You know what, Mateo. I think anybody out there who is honestly trying to pursue their Catholicism is going to see right through this conversation we've had, despite the denial of obvious New Age influences and the false insinuations regarding the character of traditional Catholic forum participants. I can only assume that's what the last remark was all about, but I can't be sure so I'll let it go.

I think people will also realize that they don't have to buy everything that's being forced upon them in the name of a false obedience, and I think they will realize that they aren't fallen away nonCatholic Protestants for not buying into every new twist and turn in art, doctrine, liturgy, theology that's being continually foisted upon them.

They will realize that if they don't like these doors, and don't like the New Age symbolism on them, that it doesn't mean that they are attacking Christ and His Church. They will know they haven't left the fold for rejecting this art and this symbolism.

I think that it will be clear to some that there really is a problem, but that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it, the Church, and that all they really have to do is what has always been asked of them as good Catholics, which is to pray and sacrifice for the salvation of souls.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

One of my links above under the sentence "What in the world could this be?" contains some stuff further into the website that maybe the moderators don't want on the forum. Delete that if you think it is inappropriate; I had only looked at the front page.

At any rate. The Catholic Church is the New Israel; we are God's holy people, or at least we're supposed to be. The Israelites from time to time would suffer from hardheartedness, coldheartedness and problems related to idols.

We'll get over this eventually; the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church. From the Akathistos Hymm:

FIFTH CHANT

The Sons of Chaldaea saw in the Virgin's hands the One whose hands had fashioned men: and acknowledging Him as the Master, although He had taken the form of a servant, they hastened to honor Him with their gifts and cried out to the Blessed One:

Hail, O Mother of the Star Without Setting!
Hail, O Radiance of the Mystical Day!
Hail, O you who quenched the flame of error!
Hail, O Light of those who search the Trinity!
Hail, O you who unthroned the Enemy of Men!
Hail, O you who showed forth Christ the Lord, Lover of Mankind!
Hail, O you who cleansed us from the stain of pagan worship!
Hail, O you who saved us from the mire of evil deeds!
Hail, O you who made cease the cult of fire!
Hail, O you who guide the faithful toward wisdom!
Hail, O you, Delight of all the Nations!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

[RESPONSE]: Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

KONTAKION

The Magi, become God-bearing heralds, returned to Babylon, conforming to your command, announcing You, the Christ, to all, and leaving Herod as a fool who did not know how to sing: "Alleluia!"

[RESPONSE]: Alleluia!

SIXTH CHANT

Illuminating Egypt with the Light of Truth, you cast away the darkness of error. For the idols, unable to stand your might, fell down, and those who had been delivered from them cried out to the Mother of God:

Hail, O Resurrection of mankind!
Hail, O Downfall of the Demons!
Hail, O you who crushed the error of deceit!
Hail, O you who exposed the fraud of idols!
Hail, O Sea who drowned the symbolic Pharaoh!
Hail, O Rock who quenched those who thirst for Life!
Hail, O Pillar of Fire who guided those in darkness!
Hail, O Shelter of the World, wider than the clouds!
Hail, O Food who took the place of Manna!
Hail, O Handmaid of holy delight!
Hail, O Land of the promised good!
Hail, O you who flow with milk and honey!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

[RESPONSE]: Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

So, there you have it. All Hail to the Mother of God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

Emerald,

Look over the thread again, and you'll understand what I'm talking about (hopefully). You started out posting a straightforward post that was clear in thought, and expressed your point of view and addressed the questions asked of you. When this was challenged by others, however, you switched into posting multiple times with short, nonsensical posts and more importantly don't really address the posts directed towards you at all. I used to think this was deliberate evasion, but I'm not really sure now. Do YOU notice a difference in how you are posting, or not?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 28, 2004.

Well, if you aligned your inner chakras, you would get it. My priest and his boyfriend (the church's Yoga instructor) taught us all about our bodies' energy centers last Sunday at NewChurch.

Did you move to Cleveland, or does your priest have similarly infected cronies in the Arlington diocese? Either way, you can look at the bright side: He may have been stoned at the time.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 28, 2004.

"You know what, Mateo. I think anybody out there who is honestly trying to pursue their Catholicism is going to see right through this conversation we've had, despite the denial of obvious New Age influences and the false insinuations regarding the character of traditional Catholic forum participants. I can only assume that's what the last remark was all about, but I can't be sure so I'll let it go. "

I'm sorry if you couldn't notice the sarcasm. FYI, I haven't "denied" anything except for you to walk away from your false accusation. Find some integrity and admit your error.

I don't know what's happened to you since you switched to the dark side, but I've noticed a variety of things in your posts:

1) An ignorance or feigning of ignorance of the English language.

2) An ignorance or feigning of ignorance of basic Catholic teachings (for example, existance of sin vs. culpability).

3) A tendency to constantly change the subject (and then blaming me?).

4) Putting words into my mouth.

Now, honestly, I don't know whether this is part of Jake's psychological operations or if you are just ignorant that this is what you're doing. But, in either case, it's really not worth my time to argue with someone who either doesn't have a basic knowledge (of Catholicism, logic, and English) or someone who pretends not to in order to annoy his opponent into submission. I feel like I'm talking to Kaiser Soze.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

I don't know what's happened to you since you switched to the dark side

"Vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum ponentes tenebras lucem et lucem tenebras ponentes amarum in dulce et dulce in amarum."

"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."

Isaiah 5:20

I don't imagine there's very much light down at the bottom of that Samoan kava bowl.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 28, 2004.

I'll try my best here, Frank.

First: Mateo isn't really interested in pursuing the truth of this matter imho. I think he sees something problematic in the Church, and it's confusing. Instead of taking the time and effort necessary to get to the root of it and what to do and think about it, it's much easier for him to relegate everything to a traditionalist disinformation campaign with a wave of the hand and get on with his day and his peace of mind.

If he wants to play that game, I say let's play it then. What he wants to do is to try to catch a traditionalist on a technicality. If he can do that, find an error in a portion or part of anything said, then he can make the whole of traditional Catholicism out to be a fraud... stupid, evil traditionalist is the picture he wants painted. I'm not going to let him do it, because that's dishonesty on his part.

So I took a few of these symbols and did a quick google search, looking for the first few on any list, grabbing them out and linking to them. They're all the same, Frank. All of them are soaked in New Age mysticism. Do you think that my skimming a few links and seeing that much laid bare in the same vein of the New Age is shotgun reasoning on my part?

Maybe so, except that considerations of these things isn't completely new to me. I already know what I'm going to get when I go to look up the Somoan Kava Bowl and the Celtic Monster and the like. I'm familiar with one side of this equation, and with the other, and how they intertwine with one another and where they clash. I have made reference before to this passage from Canticles 6:

"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and young maidens without number. One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?"

The game that's being played is not lost on me. Look again at the description of the art you linked to above. Does it have any relation to this passage? Sure; there is in fact a game on in the Church of assimilation, with a divine relevation put forth, a mimicry and imitation proposed by the enemy of God and His Church, and then a counter move to that, and so on and so forth. That being said, while a thread of truth cuts through all of this imagery, it's important to an individual person where he resolves these things. What do they resolve into, an abandonment of this world for the sake of the next, or is it the glorification of the beauty of our present existence? Is it a love that rests in the celebration of the creature and the created, or does it resolve itself in the abandonment of creatures and the created for the sake of the ultimate love of the Creator? The LA Cathedral art proposes some genuine reality in symbolism, but like so much of what is going on the Church, it's confused and unresolved. It's not being taken home to it's origin in God Himself, and wherever it does do seem arguably so, it does so in a blurred fashion.

That's my complaint. Do you understand my complaint and find it unreasonable?

Among what I what call Nuvo Catholics,, we have some who on the one hand treat traditional Catholicism as being condemned by the Church when they are in fact not, while at the same time flocking to Medjugorie to aquaint themselves with a false Virgin Mary which has in fact been condemned by the Church, and they say it isn't. This is inconsistancy. On the New Age front, we have this sort of a pagan Earth Goddess that's contending for the rank of Mother of God. This goddess is dripping with self interest and vain power and beauty, completely and wholly contradictory to the authentic power and beauty that is graced upon the true Mother of God by means of her humility and willingness to suffer and serve. Each place you turn, wherever there's something Godly and real, there exists this attempt to mimic it and draw the heart and mind towards self and man, and not God.

We need clarity; we have confused messages in this art in that it proposes a somewhat valid symbolic reality without bringing it all the way home and resolving itself in God. The signs of having brought it home properly is The Cross: service through suffering for truth, and the forsaking of this world for the next. I don't see that in the LA Cathedral, and if I don't see that kind of resolution, I'm going to be on my guard.

It's there, though, and the Church is undergoing what it is undergoing right now, so God must have permitted it. I don't find it completely untenable that after all this false ecumenism is promoted throughout the Church, that the Blessed Virgin could arrange it the even that is turned around to the benefit of God not because it was a good idea, but in spite of it. God holds the ultimate trump on Satan no matter what inroads the devil will make into the Church.

Am I evading you, or am I participating in a wholesome discussion?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

"If he wants to play that game, I say let's play it then. What he wants to do is to try to catch a traditionalist on a technicality."

Now calumny is a "technicality?" Admit your fault, and don't blame me for it.

Emerald, people defend leaving the Catholic Church for so many reasons. They slander priests. They slander the Pope and bishops in union with him. You've done it, Jake's done it, Joan has done it, VOTF has done it, SSPX has done it, Catholics for a Free Choice have done it, Women's Ordination Conference has done it. And every last one of you believes yourself to be in line with "authentic" Church teachings, and couldn't be convinced otherwise. True believers, the lot of you...or maybe not.

Where is the intellectual integrity in attacking the Catholic Church's post-Vatican II symbols as being influenced by pagan symbols, while ignoring anything pre-Vatican II. Apparently, only similarities that occur after the 1960s are a problem...or maybe it's just that that's how you guys defend those who leave the Catholic faith for SSPX and its clones.

AMDG,

Mateo

PS--Jake, I think that's the first time I've seen you quote the Holy Bible. I'm glad you read Scriptures, too. May they lead you back to Christ's Church one day.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

They slander priests. They slander the Pope and bishops in union with him. You've done it, Jake's done it, Joan has done it, VOTF has done it, SSPX has done it, Catholics for a Free Choice have done it, Women's Ordination Conference has done it.

Mateo has done it. JFG has done it. Gene Chavez has done it. Skoo has done it. Kiwi has done it. paul has done it. Leon has done it. Vink has done it. Joe Stong has done it.

Slander makes strange bedfellows.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 28, 2004.

Jake,

Maybe you're confused. Of those who you listed, which of us defended leaving the Catholic Church by using slander (among other things)? Last I checked, none of us left the Catholic Faith, nor have we made it our mission to attack the Catholic Church's pope, bishops, or priests.

Most all anti-Catholics us calumny, slander, deception (a la CIA agent), pride, to defend their leaving the Church. Some call the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" because of perceived pagan influences...

Again, if you want to go off on a tangent, go ahead and show us how we've abandoned the Catholic Church and attacked Her with slander. "We're ready to believe you."

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

I knew Matt could handle you two, so I desisted from adding any leverage to his rebuttal. Good work, Mateo!

Maybe I commit slander in my sleep or something. But not over this forum, I don't think.

So here's a neW slant on Jake's M.O.--he'll slander me with no scruples at all. That's calumny too, Jake. So Matt has proof only one paragraph away from here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

Don't sit there & try to tell us that you are not guilty of slandering priests. You are. Don't try to squeeze through the backpedal/loophole of inserting "The Church's" priests... in a later post, leaving enough wiggle room to say that your calumny is justified since you priest victims are cruelly and falsely judged by you to not be in the Church.

Your stance crumbled to dust waaaay upthread, and now you're chasing shadows. Jousting at windmills. Attacking strawmen.

...and you think we're the ones who use deception?

I see right through you. I call your bluff.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 28, 2004.

There haven't been any ''priest victims,'' Jake. Who calumnized them? All that's been said here is that some of them are ex-communicates and false Catholics. That would be calumny if you could prove the charge is unfounded. but when did you?

If the shoe fits them it's not calumny. It's a sad fact.

I never slandered you OR them. I accused you of elitism and of acting like Pharisees. Another accurate enough evaluation by any standards. Prove it's slander if you can, Mr. Victim.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

Emerald,

So I took a few of these symbols and did a quick google search, looking for the first few on any list, grabbing them out and linking to them. They're all the same, Frank. All of them are soaked in New Age mysticism. Do you think that my skimming a few links and seeing that much laid bare in the same vein of the New Age is shotgun reasoning on my part?

The Cathdedral's literature states that the artist put in 40 symbols of pre-Christian faiths that were encompased by the vine representing the church. This is not some sneak attack, they were put there deliberately as the theme for the door. I *know* that these symbols are there, but don't think they mean the church is endorsing them, any more than a painting of Saint Michael stepping on the head of a dragon means the church is *endorsing or accepting of* the dragon. Do you disagree? Do you think that *anything* shown in an artwork means that the author *approves* of it?

The game that's being played is not lost on me. Look again at the description of the art you linked to above. Does it have any relation to this passage? Sure; there is in fact a game on in the Church of assimilation, with a divine relevation put forth, a mimicry and imitation proposed by the enemy of God and His Church, and then a counter move to that, and so on and so forth. That being said, while a thread of truth cuts through all of this imagery, it's important to an individual person where he resolves these things. What do they resolve into, an abandonment of this world for the sake of the next, or is it the glorification of the beauty of our present existence?

LOTS of Middle Ages art shows various depictions of sin, we (I don't at least) say this mean the church is *accepting* of them or trying to *accomodate* them, do you? If not, what do you think the difference is in THIS piece of art, other than the fact that it's in a post VatII cathedral?

Each place you turn, wherever there's something Godly and real, there exists this attempt to mimic it and draw the heart and mind towards self and man, and not God.

This I agree with completely, especially the EACH part, by which I believe you mean "every" place. The Devil just doesn't sit near the left wing of the church trying to catch potential new-agers Emerald, he sits on the right too, looking for "traditionalist" schismatics. It's no fair pointing out that liberal Catholics have drifted off into schism without accepting that some right wingers did too! Would you agree?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 28, 2004.

If the shoe fits them it's not calumny.

Exactly. Now you've got it. Get where I'm going with this?

It's not slander when it's true. It's exposing the truth, which all faithful need to be aware of. (And, pleeeeaaase, don't bring up the beach incident again. That's been overdone.)

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 28, 2004.

Of course, it could still be slander even if it's the truth, but not a truth that needs to be known. But we need to know of gross misconduct out of our leaders, and make a stand against it.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 28, 2004.

You have some strange ideas about slander. Slander is spreading a falsehood, false witness against another. Not much to do with any truth in your stances. If there were any, and I doubt it. For one thing wrapping yourselves in the mantel of Tradition; as if no one else believed the Tradition of the Church.

The oldest and most elevated tradition is that the Church is abided in by the Holy Spirit and guides His people. That means followers of the apostles. We traditionally support the Pope and all the Councils.

You, on the other hand are opposed to Vatican II; so you deny the Holy Spirit is with us. So that makes me Traditional and faithful. I'm also orthodox in the holy faith. I believe Vatican II is orthodox. You condemn it as modernist, I believe Emerald said. Yet he calls himself traditional. There's a contradiction here, I say.

My crime here has been calling you all dividers. You can't deny it. There is one Church; not a Traditional Church separate for lovers of the Tridentine Rite. How is saying so ''slander?''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

...but you digress.

Foret for a moment that the Taj Mahoney is a monstrous eyesore. Is it even compatable with the requirements of the current GIRM? Of the Bishops' instructions on "worship space?" Is this?

They may very well be, I've no use for either of either of those two documents, and I haven't read them. Perhaps some of you have. SO how about it? Do they pass muster?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 28, 2004.

Actually, I did use slander incorrectly. I should have used the word detraction. My apologies.

But then you turn around and accuse us of pride, arrogance, slander, calumny, etc. without backing it up with anything more than your personal opinion. That is also against the eighth commandment.

Actually, Gene, even more traditional than blindly following the Pope and the Cardinals is to adhere to the Deposit of Faith, first and foremost. And I never said that I don't think the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church. I just don't use the protection of the Holy Ghost out of the context it was meant for. The Holy Ghost is very active, probably just in ways you or I can't see. He will cleanse and refortify the Church in His time, not ours.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 28, 2004.

I see we've left the building.

better a church in an abandoned school than no church at all.

The Holy Spirit doesn't stop trying to cleanse the church. There will always be people inside her trying to destroy her, and others who prevent it. Leaving the church because of perceived errors is a joke.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 28, 2004.

"Don't sit there & try to tell us that you are not guilty of slandering priests. You are. Don't try to squeeze through the backpedal/loophole of inserting "The Church's" priests... in a later post, leaving enough wiggle room to say that your calumny is justified since you priest victims are cruelly and falsely judged by you to not be in the Church."

An interesting theory--I didn't commit nor did I justify calumny against any priest. Calumny is bearing false withness-- something you haven't even accused me of until now.

The worst thing I've said about any priests is the SSPX priests, by referencing Vatican documents that excommunicate them. That's not an opinion. That's not spin or even slander. That's just a fact. Then, there is the Canon Law that states that priests may not administer the Sacrament of Confession without the diocese's bishop granting such power to the priest (it's illicit and invalid!) But that's just me quoting documents...no opinion, no slander, no calumny. Just the facts, ma'am.

Now, Jake, you state that you don't belong to an SSPX parish (though an excommunicated SSPX bishop "confirmed" your child(ren) if I remember correctly). You do make it seem as if you attend worship services that are not approved by your bishop. But, in all these things, you're pretty furtive about revealing things that must be too personal to be posted on the 'net.

"...and you think we're the ones who use deception?"

I really don't know if your using deception or are just ignorant (I tend to think the former); but you did say that you see yourself as a CIA agent, spreading gloom-and-doom messages to Catholics. An unfortunate choice of imagery, in my book.

If we're staying on the tangent of priests, I suspect that if one surveyed "trads" who aren't in union with the Catholic Church and asked them about Michael Rose, they probably all ignored his second book about priests. The first one (Goodbye, Good Men) seems to have been popular with them (and other Protestant sects who want to attack the Catholic Church); but the second book (Priests) goes almost unnoticed. It's a book that proclaims a message of hope (that's a theological virtue), despite the problems we Catholics have today.

To me, the "gloom-and-doom trads" are the equivelant of the past centuries' anti-Catholic zealots who tried to paint a picture of Catholic priests who sold indulgences and impregnated nuns ("Why do you think the Catholic orphanages were always full?" they asked).

Self-criticism within the Catholic Church happens just fine without outsiders who have a vested interest in attacking the Church in order to justify their leaving the Church.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

"I see right through you. I call your bluff. "

Not many people bluff when they've got a royal flush. I'm certainly not...

;-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 28, 2004.

Isabel, Dear:-- What do you think ''the deposit of faith'' is? It's the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Did you think we're unfaithful to the ''deposit'' ? ? ? You mangle slander, apologise, then mangle deposit of faith!

In that faith is our belief in the inerrancy of the Catholic Church. We must believe in it because Jesus Christ told us so. Being faithful to the Popes, Councils, and the faith is being TRADITIONAL. Leaving out any of these we abandon our sacred Tradition. --Especially any act of rebellion against our bishops. Inciting others of our faithful to dispute the hierarchy and a Council of the Church is rebellion; a SIN. That's what Luther and the heretics and schismatics all did. They broke with that Tradition coming down to us from the apostles. Now many of you who are bragging about your 'traditionalism'' have done just that. Here, in a public forum, for months, you have instigated against the hierarchy and the 2nd Vatican Council.

How can this be acting in the Tradition of a Catholic? How is this being faithful in defense of the deposit of faith? It's a lie; you're UNFAITHFUL! That's not detraction, I'm telling you to your face. I'm assailing you for your lack of faith in the Holy Spirit! You promote DIVISION within the Body of Christ on earth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

"Emerald, people defend leaving the Catholic Church for so many reasons. They slander priests. They slander the Pope and bishops in union with him. You've done it, Jake's done it, Joan has done it, VOTF has done it, SSPX has done it, Catholics for a Free Choice have done it, Women's Ordination Conference has done it. And every last one of you believes yourself to be in line with "authentic" Church teachings, and couldn't be convinced otherwise. True believers, the lot of you...or maybe not."

Are you claiming that I have left the Church, Mateo?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

Mateo to jake:

"Calumny is bearing false withness-- something you haven't even accused me of until now."

Mateo to jake:

"Not many people bluff when they've got a royal flush. I'm certainly not..."

Let's flush, then. I believe you said that I've left the Church and that jake has as well, so I would like to call your bluff and flush it, once for each case.

What Gene should have said to you:

"You have some strange ideas about slander. Slander is spreading a falsehood, false witness against another. Not much to do with any truth in your stances."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

That's not slander, Emmy. He is challenging you to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. You aren't faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 28, 2004.

"The worst thing I've said about any priests is the SSPX priests, by referencing Vatican documents that excommunicate them. That's not an opinion. That's not spin or even slander. That's just a fact."

I would like you to publicly state for everyone that a person who attends an SSPX Mass is not in schism for doing so. Preferable would be the link to letter from the Vatican stating as much. I would like you to see this as soon as possible if you don't mind.

"If we're staying on the tangent of priests, I suspect that if one surveyed "trads" who aren't in union with the Catholic Church and asked them about Michael Rose, they probably all ignored his second book about priests. The first one (Goodbye, Good Men) seems to have been popular with them (and other Protestant sects who want to attack the Catholic Church); but the second book (Priests) goes almost unnoticed. It's a book that proclaims a message of hope (that's a theological virtue), despite the problems we Catholics have today."

Does Michael Rose speak from a position of magisterial authority, or is he just another layman?

At any rate, you say there's "trads" who aren't in union with the Catholic Church. I would like to have you lay out exactly which teachings of Vatican II are being rejected by these "trad" Catholics. That way we could get a clearer idea of where the trads stand, and where you stand.

"To me, the "gloom-and-doom trads" are the equivelant of the past centuries' anti-Catholic zealots who tried to paint a picture of Catholic priests who sold indulgences and impregnated nuns ("Why do you think the Catholic orphanages were always full?" they asked)."

But you're just a layman, and that's a layman's opinion. I don't like your opinion, and I don't think it's true. Either way, it makes no difference, because your opinion is no better than mine since I'm a layman too. But Gene states that my opinion is stupid. There's a couple premises in there. I'll let you syllogize the conclusion.

"Self-criticism within the Catholic Church happens just fine without outsiders who have a vested interest in attacking the Church in order to justify their leaving the Church."

Aha! Let's talk calumny. All I'm going to need is from you is to clarify that statement; I believe that what you are saying here is that traditional Catholics are outside the Church. I think that would be a false statement, if you ever get the guts to say it outright. You make a big deal about me skirting the truth, but I say you're doing it right here, right now.

Commit yourself, man. Stand up; be strong. Make a bold statement and defend it.

After that, we'll get back to dipping in the Samoan Kava Bowl, and talk a little about I Ching and Ti Chi and the Raven Eating a Man's Liver, the Celtic Monster, and the Chumash Condor. I think the Chumash Condor is my favorite pagan New Age thing so far; I like that one.

We'll talk about what's Catholic about all those things, and what's not. You'll defend it as good Catholic art, ok? That's sure a lot of pagan images to handle while still remaining true to the purity of Holy Mother Church. A little bit of Ka-va is all I need...

In the mean time, I'm going to dig around and see what else is out there that seems like a New Age influence on the Church, and take a break from time to time to thank my bishop for being obedient to the Pope and granting us Traditionalist Morons a Tridentine Mass to go to every Sunday.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

"You aren't faithful."

Gene, please. Don't say untrue things about me, alright? Thanks.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

Emerald,

Did you READ my post? Classic church art depicts out and out SIN, not just other faiths, that does NOT mean she endorses it! Spare yourself the time looking up new-age stuff. What is the point?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2004.

What do you think ''the deposit of faith'' is? It's the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Exactly. The same teachings, in the same sense, right? The unchanging deposit of faith as explained in Pascendi, right? Never to be changed under the pretext of a deeper understanding as laid out for us in Pascendi by Pope Saint Pius X, right?

You mangle slander, apologise, then mangle deposit of faith!

No, no mangle here. I understand perfectly, do you? Do you understand how the Deposit of Faith can never change? Can never even seem to be different? That it must be understood as it always has as Popes have said in the past? Do you understand that? In that faith is our belief in the inerrancy of the Catholic Church.

That's right, Gene. In making ex cathedra statements on matters of faith and morals.

We must believe in it because Jesus Christ told us so.

And I believe it wholeheartedly, as well. I just don't stretch it into oblivion to act as if it protects things, which in fact, are not necessarily protected.

Being faithful to the Popes, Councils, and the faith is being TRADITIONAL.

Absolutely. Being faithful to things which are not inspired by the Holy Ghost, is NOT traditional. Just sos you know. A title within the Church does not guarantee complete guideance from the Holy Ghost.

Especially any act of rebellion against our bishops.

I haven't rebelled against my bishop. I pray for him everyday, and during each Mass I attend. But I can tell you a few hair raising stories of how my bishop has rebelled against the Church. Would you like to hear them?

Inciting others of our faithful to dispute the hierarchy and a Council of the Church is rebellion; a SIN.

No, Gene, it's not. That's where your false sense of obedience comes into play, though, I guess. It is not a sin to dispute or rebuke our superiors, even in public, when they are wrong. Saints told us that.

That's what Luther and the heretics and schismatics all did.

I know, poor souls. Good thing I don't fit into that mold.

Now many of you who are bragging about your 'traditionalism'' have done just that. Here, in a public forum, for months, you have instigated against the hierarchy and the 2nd Vatican Council.

Instigated, huh? Wow. Did we mangle a word, Gene? Besides, I am not fighting against anyone. I am merely fighting/praying for something.

How can this be acting in the Tradition of a Catholic?

Because this is what the faithful are called to do. It is what I am called to do. It is what you are called to do. Preserve the Deposit of Faith, untainted, unspoiled, to your death.

It's a lie; you're UNFAITHFUL!

Says who? You? I'm supposed to take your word over Pope's and Saint's?

That's not detraction, I'm telling you to your face.

You're right, it's not. It's slander.

I'm assailing you for your lack of faith in the Holy Spirit!

I have complete faith in the Holy Spirit. We are being tested. I pray to Him daily to shorten the trials and sufferings upon His Church. (In English, of course.)

You promote DIVISION within the Body of Christ on earth.

I pray for unity.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), January 29, 2004.

''It is what I am called to do. It is what you are called to do. Preserve the Deposit of Faith, untainted, unspoiled, to your death.''

Not so: the Pope and our pastors preserve and pass on that faith. You are a recipient and beneficiary, not a teacher. So am I.

Whatsoever of their teaching appears inconsistent to the laity is absolutely NOT for us to negate or denounce. That's what Luther and other upstart theologians thought they should undertake. And you are in that same mold, for insisting you can be the bishops' guardian. You AREN'T; I'm not. It's the Holy Spirit who is. Our part is to be a flock, not shepherds. By daring to represent saints as precedents, you demonstrate only pride. Try humility; do not implicate a saint in your lack of obedience.

. ''not detraction, I'm telling you to your face; And you reply: You're right, it's not. It's slander.'' Correction! It would be slander if it weren't true.

My reference to your lack of faith hasn't anything to do with the deposit of faith. You are shown here to doubt or deny that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. What's so pathetic is the banality of your cause; to object about change from Pre-Vatican II to now, in external and irrelevant practices. No one can say the Creed has undergone change or corruption; nor holy orders & apostolic succession nor our veneration of the saints & the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our Church's sacramental life is, if anything, enhanced and cherished by all Catholics.

You, however, don't like modern interiors. Or modern architecture, or a vernacular Missal! For THAT you would lose faith in the Holy Spirit. For THAT you would denounce ''protestantism'' coming to the Church. Nickel and Dime theology, coming from sheep who dilike the shepherd; Just a farce! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 29, 2004.

You, however, don't like modern interiors. Or modern architecture, or a vernacular Missal! For THAT you would lose faith in the Holy Spirit.

So....ummm.....

Are decor and architecture meaningless esternals to which God is completely indifferent, or are they related to Faith directly in some way?

Honestly, I wish you people would pick one position and stick with it.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 29, 2004.

"Are you claiming that I have left the Church, Mateo?"

I'm claiming that you're position is not much different than pro- women's ordaination, pro-VOTF, or whatever. I think the "driving 200 miles to avoid a Catholic Church" statement says it all, though.

"Does Michael Rose speak from a position of magisterial authority, or is he just another layman?"

Totally irrelevant.

"At any rate, you say there's "trads" who aren't in union with the Catholic Church. I would like to have you lay out exactly which teachings of Vatican II are being rejected by these "trad" Catholics. That way we could get a clearer idea of where the trads stand, and where you stand."

Well, the Vatican cites Lumen Gentium, n.25. But you knew that. Just the facts...

Regarding "gloom-and-doom" trads, you write: "But you're just a layman, and that's a layman's opinion."

Emerald, if you though that I was somehow inferring that official documents on "gloom-and-doom trads" exist, I am sorry that you think that. In my opinion, "gloom-and-doom" news sources like "SeattleCatholic" are just like the "National Enquirer," but with a speciality in spreading dirt (true or untrue) about the Catholic Church.

I have an opinion. And when a statement I make is an opinion, I think that I make it quite clear that it is nothing more than an opinion, and I try to share my reasons for forming my opinion. You are free to accept or reject my reasoning. It may upset you, but I'll still share my opinions when I feel like it.

"I would like you to publicly state for everyone that a person who attends an SSPX Mass is not in schism for doing so. Preferable would be the link to letter from the Vatican stating as much. I would like you to see this as soon as possible if you don't mind."

Well, let's start with the priests who "attend" SSPX masses. They are excommunicated. Shall I continue?

I suppose I could attend an Orthodox Church and not be in schism (according to the Church). But, if I went to an Orthodox Church each week, would I be in schism?

"Aha! Let's talk calumny. All I'm going to need is from you is to clarify that statement; I believe that what you are saying here is that traditional Catholics are outside the Church. I think that would be a false statement, if you ever get the guts to say it outright. You make a big deal about me skirting the truth, but I say you're doing it right here, right now.

Commit yourself, man. Stand up; be strong. Make a bold statement and defend it."

Now, you're just getting emotional. I don't make a big deal about you "skirting the truth." I made a big deal about you foisting a lie.

"In the mean time, I'm going to dig around and see what else is out there that seems like a New Age influence on the Church, and take a break from time to time to thank my bishop for being obedient to the Pope and granting us Traditionalist Morons a Tridentine Mass to go to every Sunday."

I don't know where you're going with this. I correct you on something you wrote...and somehow your lie can be defended by posting random links to kava bowls, celtic monsters, and blaming me for not having enough Tridentine masses? I'm sorry, but once again, I fail to see the connection. Change the subject all day, and you still posted something that should be retracted (I think you're still standing by your "naturalist" assertion).

BTW, I was looking through my Vatican picture book (big pictures, few words), and couldn't help but notice all of the pagan art (Egyptian, Roman, Greek, etc) that fill the Vatican Museums. I also thought of all the Renaissance painters (like Botticelli) that were artists for the Church. Some of them were crazy about painting pagan gods...the scandal!

And there's the art critic Biagio de Cesena who said of Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" in the Sistene Chapel, it's "not a work for the chapel of a pope, but for a tavern." Michelangelo painted this critic into the scene as the judge of the damned, Minos. Minos (in Greek Mythology) is the son of Zeus (principle god of the Greek myths) and Europa (cute Phoenician princess). Now, here's a Catholic masterpiece with a bunch of nudes and characters out of the greek myths...a double-whammy for the faithful trad. Put that in your kava bowl. ;-)

Isabel: "I pray for unity."

I do to. I have faith that Our Lord will help fix all the needless divisions between us poor fools down here. ;-)

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 29, 2004.

Bravo, Matt!
There go the ''doors'' as a valid complaint. Maybe you have something in your bag to counter the ''Roj Mahal'' wag? Savonarola clones Emerald and Jake never give up. Thank God they can't be burned at the stake like their prototype! But, Wow; what a a cyber- flame you lit under Emerola, with your Sistine ceiling analogy. Hahaha !

He thought he had a bonfire of the New Age vanities burning in this thread. Now-- let him look at your posts, where not one sophism is to be seen. Will he ever learn to write like that?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 29, 2004.

Thanks, Eugene!

"Maybe you have something in your bag to counter the 'Roj Mahal' wag?"

I don't know...I just got a kick out of the name when I heard it. I just leave it as some trad's silliness. They're cleaver, you know? ;-)

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 29, 2004.

"Savonarola clones..."

I'd like to learn a little bit more about the Florentine history. Between the Medicis, Savonarola, and Botticelli, I think there's some really interesting history to be learned.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 29, 2004.

Now, here's a Catholic masterpiece with a bunch of nudes and characters out of the greek myths...a double-whammy for the faithful trad. Put that in your kava bowl.

Oh my that hurts my ribs, esp the "double whammy for the faithful trad" quote, oh man make it stop, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

Oh, to tell the truth, I'm all in favor of classic art. I can't deny a ceiling or altarpiece of Michelangelo's is vastly more impressive even six centuries later than any modern church's trappings. The same goes for music.

But love is the most potent spiritual value. And a wayside chapel in the city is just as holy as the Sistine Chapel, when God is worshipped inside. An unlovely cathedral in Los Angeles is worthy of our respect-- when the Body and Blood of our Saviour is adored there, even with modern hymns. (Ugh.)

Jake was asking, ''Are decor and architecture meaningless externals to which God is completely indifferent, or are they related to faith directly in some way?''

Nothing is meaningless to Him. But if He were being given more glory by stained-glass windows than by sinners on their knees before Him, I would question the New Testament. I would ask Jake which is better? Or-- which is external and which spiritual?

And when we think of it, all the treasures in the world already belong to Our Lord. There are countless beautiful churches around us. We offer the whole lot to His glory and we include an assortment of eyesores; nobody denies it. Just like our souls.

Jake's is likely magnificent as all get out! My soul isn't. But why can't I offer it UP to God, and devil take the hindmost? (A little profane laughter there.) Is Jake's the only one that deserves to worship?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 29, 2004.

"Are you claiming that I have left the Church, Mateo?" I asked, and then you say I'm claiming that you're position is not much different than pro- women's ordaination, pro-VOTF, or whatever. I think the "driving 200 miles to avoid a Catholic Church" statement says it all, though."

It's interesting that you haven't shown exactly how it that my position is like the pro-woman's ordination thing, or VOTF.

In other words, you dodge the question. Strawman, disinformation, whatever.

You can't show how. There is no corelation... you're just throwing that out there. I see no corelation whatsoever; perhaps you would like to flesh that out. Traditional Catholics have absolutely nothing in common with these people.

I ask "Does Michael Rose speak from a position of magisterial authority, or is he just another layman?" to which you respond that the question is Totally irrelevant."

It is relevant. I've noticed that all condemnation of traditional Catholics have come from lay people, or lay people have formed their opinions and attitudes regarding traditional Catholicism from lay people who claim to know. I have yet to hear Pope John Paul II or for that matter any one of the post-conciliar popes in any way, shape or form propose the kinds of sentiments you express regarding the status of traditional Catholics such as to set them apart from the Mystical Body like you do.

The only way you get by with it is but not having the guts to actually come out and say it.

I just wanted to point out that all your opining concerning the status of traditional Catholics and their full communion in the Mystical Body of Christ come by way of non-magisterial sources of which you are part. You do damage to the Mystical Body when you even imply that tradtional Catholics are outside it. The Church has never condemned those people known as traditionalist Catholics.

How does it relate to this discussion? Traditional Catholics don't like the new architecture and the art. We don't have to, and you can't make us. We can say we don't like it, and we'll still be part of the Mystical Body of Christ whether you like it or not. Try as you might to brush traditionalist Catholics aside, you won't be rid of them, ever.

"I think the "driving 200 miles to avoid a Catholic Church" statement says it all, though" you say, but it doesn't say it all, or even correctly. I would drive 200 miles if I had to to take my family to a Traditional Mass... not to avoid a Catholic Church. The first is the truth. You're version about twists the truth by making it look like it's the Catholic Church I'm avoiding. The latter is not the truth.

"At any rate, you say there's "trads" who aren't in union with the Catholic Church. I would like to have you lay out exactly which teachings of Vatican II are being rejected by these "trad" Catholics. That way we could get a clearer idea of where the trads stand, and where you stand." Well, the Vatican cites Lumen Gentium, n.25. But you knew that. Just the facts...

Here is the section of Lumen Gentium you refer to:

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

No matter how you slice it, Mateo, this section does not mean that there are no such things as bad bishops or that a bishop cannot mislead the faithful, or err, or that a bishop must be believed if he says something contrary to faith and morals. Or that if the bishop commissioned the art at Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles that we have to like, nor does it mean that the art is wholly devoid of error in accurate depiction of Catholic theology.

Citing this text tells no one anything about the status of traditionalist Catholics.

Nor does that passage necessitate my liking the art in Our Lady of Angels Cathedral. Nor does it bind me from saying that I think it is New Age and is an affront to the Faith. I can do that. I just did, and I'll do it again because I think it's true, and it is true. I'm still a Catholic whether you like it or not. Regarding "gloom-and-doom" trads, you write: "But you're just a layman, and that's a layman's opinion." Emerald, if you though that I was somehow inferring that official documents on "gloom-and-doom trads" exist, I am sorry that you think that. In my opinion, "gloom- and-doom" news sources like "SeattleCatholic" are just like the "National Enquirer," but with a speciality in spreading dirt (true or untrue) about the Catholic Church.

I don't think that. I just think your opinion on what motivates traditional Catholics is wrong, that's all. Guilty of the same thing you say you don't like from others, I see.

"I would like you to publicly state for everyone that a person who attends an SSPX Mass is not in schism for doing so. Preferable would be the link to letter from the Vatican stating as much. I would like you to see this as soon as possible if you don't mind." Well, let's start with the priests who "attend" SSPX masses. They are excommunicated. Shall I continue?

Yes, please do. What about those who attend them?

"I suppose I could attend an Orthodox Church and not be in schism (according to the Church). But, if I went to an Orthodox Church each week, would I be in schism?"

I wouldn't suppose that if I were you; I would investigate to find out if that's really the case or not.

I said "Aha! Let's talk calumny. All I'm going to need is from you is to clarify that statement; I believe that what you are saying here is that traditional Catholics are outside the Church.

You say "Now, you're just getting emotional. I don't make a big deal about you "skirting the truth." I made a big deal about you foisting a lie."

Actually, I just want you to answer the question.

Let's talk about me foisting a lie. From what I understand, you think I'm lying because I made a connection between the naturalism Pope Leo XIII spoke against, and naturalism in art, especially if what shows up on those doors is really an accurate representation of naturalism. I think there's a connection, and I stand by it. I stand by the claim that this art drives a New Age line of symbolism in an unresolved manner.

That's not a lie, Mateo, nor is it calumny. It's an observation that I believe to be true and supportable.

I said "In the mean time, I'm going to dig around and see what else is out there that seems like a New Age influence on the Church, and take a break from time to time to thank my bishop for being obedient to the Pope and granting us Traditionalist Morons a Tridentine Mass to go to every Sunday."

"I don't know where you're going with this."

It's simple: most the bishops have not been obedient to the Pope and have not provide the Traditional Mass to the Catholic Faithful as he had requested. Ours has. He doesn't like having to do it I don't think, he doesn't sympathize with the people that attend there I'm pretty sure, but at least he did it.

"I correct you on something you wrote...and somehow your lie can be defended by posting random links to kava bowls, celtic monsters, and blaming me for not having enough Tridentine masses? I'm sorry, but once again, I fail to see the connection."

You didn't correct me. I maintain the connection, linked to a couple random links that you wouldn't be able to explain for the life of you.

...and blaming me for not having enough Tridentine masses?"

Lie, Mateo. That's a lie. If you want to really see what one is, there's one.

"Change the subject all day, and you still posted something that should be retracted (I think you're still standing by your "naturalist" assertion)."

I've stood by the thing you call a lie, which is the claim that what the sort of naturalism that Leo XIII speaks of in connection with Freemasonry, and the kind of art which shows up on these church doors, is of the same origin. Even if I were dead wrong, it wouldn't qualify as calumny or lying; you should know that.

"I have faith that Our Lord will help fix all the needless divisions between us poor fools down here. ;-)"

Honestly, I think you're part of the problem, when you insist on attempting to characterize traditional Catholics as separated from the Church, as being urged on by the devil, and as people trying to get others to leave the Catholic Church, or making them out to be Protestants. All using all your own private self-styled reasonings, completely devoid of any magisterial authority or without referencing anything the Pope has said to make us believe that he thinks like you do over the matter.

BTW, I still have absolutely no explanation from you about the Samoan Kava Bowl and the Chumash Condor, and how they relate to Catholicism. None.

You know what, why don't you quit with the dodging and do what you know needs to be done, and explain the significance of the Chumash Condor and the Samoan Kava Bowl and some of that other New Age stuff on those bronze doors in that Cathedral.

What is so difficult about this? Please, just do it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 29, 2004.

Here, I even did your homework for you:

Condor thing

Kava bowl thing

I Ching thing

Will it be tougher, do you think, to explain what was in Michaelangelo's mind when he painted the Sistine chapel, or to reconcile any of the above with Catholicism.

It's telling that those demonic symbols are on the front door. It's sort of like tempting God into a kind of reverse-Passover.

Anyway, go ahead. Reconcile away. Lend us your acumen. I'll make popcorn.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 29, 2004.

Pop corn eh, strong kernels that self impode into fluffy lightweight junk ... how apt!. Im staying well out of the art debate lest I get struck by Mateos axe in the process. Just a note on SSPX...

God Bless gents

Yes, please do. What about those who attend them (SSPX masses)?

Q2 What is the status of all the priests, seminarians and "those who adhere" to the SSPX?

A. While the priests of the Society of St Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St Pius X.

Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary for The Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei. Vatican City EUROPE

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism"..."

Exactly. And...

"...such adherence can come over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church"

That teaching, kiwi, is what's in the Deposit of the Faith. Ditching the Deposit of the Faith is the last thing you'll catch a traditionalist doing.

As for these the teachings particular to the current Holy Father, which ones did you have in mind?

But you digress; back to the New Age symbols, and their explanation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 29, 2004.

(source: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/l-intro.htm)

The Holy Father explained that the schismatic act of the Lefebvrists was based on a radical misunderstanding of the essence of Sacred Tradition:

"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition ... But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church" (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 4).

Because of the danger the new schism posed to souls, the Pope issued a direct and solemn appeal to the faithful to stop any and all support for the SSPX:

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the ... duty ... of ceasing their support in any way for that movement" (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 5:c).

He also specifically warned against formally adhering to the Lefebvrist schism:

"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law" (ibid.).

This is the Church's definitive statement on the subject of the status of Lefebvre and his organization.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

"This is the Church's definitive statement on the subject of the status of Lefebvre and his organization."

But not traditional Catholicism, kiwi. Never have we had a condemnation of traditional Catholicism.

What's more, John Paul makes reference to a living tradition that is arguably juxtaposed to Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi. You seen in the latter document the passages where it says that all tradition is to be interpreted in the same sense as it always has been.

Besides that, most of what we see promoted as being "as of Vatican II" and "what's orthodox" doesn't come to us from the Pope anyways. It comes from lay people who have their own private interpretations on what the Pope says and thinks.

I could use the CCC alone to put a damper on most of what's pushed as orthodox 90% of the time. Yeah, that CCC.

Traditional Catholics, or even what I might call conciliar Catholics, are not obliged therefore to like this New Age art in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in LA, or to agree that this art or this archecture is adequately portrays our Faith. We can speak up against it in clean conscience. I say the art stinks, and I'm still a Catholic.

In fact, I know non-traditionalist Catholics, ones that I might call conciliar Catholics, who agree with me that this art at this Cathedral is bogus New Age imagery.

It's not solely a traditionalist Catholic's gripe, you know. That fact alone widens the needed efforts to deny the obvious.

So the question remains. Why is there that I need to understand about the Chumash Condor and the Samoan Kave Bowl that's going to deepen my knowledge, and appreciation for, the Catholic truths?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 30, 2004.

"It's sort of like tempting God into a kind of reverse- Passover."

lol! Although the thought of God striking down only a few people seems a bit odd.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 30, 2004.

Wow,

I'm impressed. The double whammy worked. I could actually hear crickets chirping as I read the responses...except from Kiwi who was laughing hard enough to scare off the crickets. Now that's entertainment!

Enough gloating. Anyway...

"It's interesting that you haven't shown exactly how it that my position is like the pro-woman's ordination thing, or VOTF. "

Let's see...

You ignore the Catholic Church when you don't agree with it. You take an "us vs. them" stance against the Vatican. You claim to be faithful to the Church, even as you slander it. You support your claim by believing that your position is orthodox because the Catholic Church hasn't excommunicated/sanctioned you yet. You claim to be the future of the Church. Same as VOTF. Same as pro-woman's conference. They're convinced that they are in line with every doctrine of the Church and will defy you to prove otherwise. And, oh by the way, all the stuff the Vatican says against you and your position (or them and theirs)? It's a "non-magisterial source"...how convenient. The Vatican letter excommunicating the women who got "ordained" as priestesses is also a "non-magisterial source."

Good correlation.

Regarding Michael Rose, you are just so far off on a tangent. The fact is, the guy wrote two books about priests: one stating a problem and the other showing hope for the future. I claimed that the "trads" are probably only interested in the former. If you think I'm off-base (I can't believe I am in this case), then I guess you can disagree with me; but don't give a "he's just a layman" argument. It isn't relevant to my point.

"Traditional Catholics don't like the new architecture and the art. We don't have to, and you can't make us."

Emerald, I tell you what. This is becoming a mantra for you. Quote me where I demand that you must "like the new architecture and the art." Or put a cork in it. I made one simple request: you take back your "the door artist's biography proves that he is condemned by such-and-such encyclical" accusation.

"...Or that if the bishop commissioned the art at Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles that we have to like [it]...

Citing this text tells no one anything about the status of traditionalist Catholics."

Regarding Lumen Gentium, I don't know why you're trying to argue its relevance to the LA Cathedral.

You asked a specific question: what teachings of Vatican II do the "trads" reject. The Vatican gave an answer. I reiterated the answer. If you have a problem with the answer, don't blame me, blame the Vatican. This is what SSPX wouldn't agree to submit to, for whatever reason. The SSPX priests and bishops are excommunicated; which is quite a fact considering that you claim that "The Church has never condemned those people known as traditionalist Catholics." Excommunication is a pretty strong condemnation, I would think. For the rest of "traditional Catholics," it's really not appropriate to use such a general term for such a heterogeneous group. There is no unity in the group you claim; and if there is, it is only because you only include a small subset of those who try to claim the title.

"What about those who attend [SSPX masses]?"

I think they're in the same boat as those who attend Orthodox services--that's why I drew the parallel. You know the relevant Vatican documents, and I find no reason to repeat what you've already read.

I'm more concerned about the Canon Law which seems to indicate (in clear language--something trads hold in high regard) that the SSPX priests are unable to administer the sacrament of confession without permission from the the bishop of the diocese.

"Let's talk about me foisting a lie. From what I understand, you think I'm lying because I made a connection between the naturalism Pope Leo XIII spoke against, and naturalism in art, especially if what shows up on those doors is really an accurate representation of naturalism. I think there's a connection, and I stand by it. I stand by the claim that this art drives a New Age line of symbolism in an unresolved manner."

You connected the artist's biography, not his art. And it was a dumb connection--and that's all I asked you to take back. If you want to assert that the bronze doors were a problem for you, then you should have stated that. You didn't. You're argument is a moving target. It was hard enough to get you to admit you were even making a connection. At first you tried blaming me for making the connection...weird.

"That's not a lie, Mateo, nor is it calumny. It's an observation that I believe to be true and supportable."

You cannot deny what I corrected you on. There is no connection between the term "naturalism" showing up in his biography and the same term with a different meaning showing up in an encyclical. At least be intellectually honest enough to accept this.

"It's simple: most the bishops have not been obedient to the Pope and have not provide the Traditional Mass to the Catholic Faithful as he had requested. Ours has. He doesn't like having to do it I don't think, he doesn't sympathize with the people that attend there I'm pretty sure, but at least he did it."

Great. This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. It's just a random opportunity for you to complain. And a useless diversion.

"You didn't correct me. I maintain the connection, linked to a couple random links that you wouldn't be able to explain for the life of you. "

You maintain the connection, I maintain the correction. Great. ;-)

"'...and blaming me for not having enough Tridentine masses?'

Lie, Mateo. That's a lie. If you want to really see what one is, there's one."

In this discussion, the number of Tridentine masses had nothing to do with anything. I suppose you were trying to win sympathy points by inserting the topic. You have articulated in the past that--in your world--I and others inside the Church are at some level guilty for problems you see in the Church because of our tacit approval. You may not blame me individually; but instead blame me as representative of a collective group of Catholics who (in your mind) are silent in the face of all of the problems you see. And your accusation of "lie" is dispelled. My favorite line after this line:

"Honestly, I think you're part of the problem."

Hey, I thought you weren't blaming me! That's pretty funny. :-0

"BTW, I still have absolutely no explanation from you about the Samoan Kava Bowl and the Chumash Condor, and how they relate to Catholicism. None."

I think that Frank gave a pretty good response. I don't know whether he was quoting the website; but it made sense to me. The Church (the grapevine) is reaching out to cultures all around the world, symbolized by various symbols of their cultures.

BTW, why don't you explain what the son of Zeus is doing in the Sistene Chapel. *** Insert chirping noises ***

"It's telling that those demonic symbols are on the front door. It's sort of like tempting God into a kind of reverse-Passover."

This really is déjà vu. You really sound like the guy pushing the RemnantOfGod flash show. He had all sorts of demonic, pagan symbols that he pointed out on pre-Vatican II churches. Just so you don't feel like you guys are the only ones who think that Catholic art pushes paganism, try some of this on for size. It's almost as if you guys stole the playbook from the protestants who came before you. Wait until you get the dirt on the pre-Vatican II art! Let's see...what other connections are there: Jesus-Apollo, Peter-Jupiter, Mary-Ishtar.

I don't know what a reverse-Passover is, but that guy was really scared of the pope's reverse (upside-down) cross--aparently, it's demonic, too.

It's amazing that pre-Vatican II pagan influences just don't seem to matter for you guys. Oh well.

"Why is there that I need to understand about the Chumash Condor and the Samoan Kave Bowl that's going to deepen my knowledge, and appreciation for, the Catholic truths?"

I would estimate that it's about as necessary as learning that Minos is the son of Zeus and the Phoenician maiden he kidnapped. Tell me, is that knowledge deepening your knowledge and appreciation for Catholic Truth?

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 30, 2004.

Mateo,

Yes, the accidentally-all-underlined portion of my post was quoting the cathedral's website on the doors' meaning, that of showing 40 pre-Christian faiths being reached out to by the church represented by the vine. (the reason it's all underlined is that it is a link *to* the cathedral's web page so Emerald could look at it himself).

IMO, these guys don't care that there were pagans and sin represented in pre-VatII art, this is just one more excuse for them to attack the Catholic Church. Therefore, they will say that this is horrible, but ignore the other. At least Jake was honest about this, but if you can pull a straight answer out of Emerald on it, my hat's off to you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 30, 2004.

IMO, these guys don't care that there were pagans and sin represented in pre-VatII art, this is just one more excuse for them to attack the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is under attack, but not by us. Go ahead and defend the demonic being plastered on the door to the Taj Mahoney. You're out of bullets, so you've hauled out your baseball bats.

Pray for Cardinal Mahoney. He'll have to answer for this despicable crime before the throne of God. Pray for him, the poor man.

I'll stand by my assertion, though: Pre Council=beauty, Post Council=ugly. You can apply that accurately to any aspect of the Church at all, not just art.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 30, 2004.

Hi Frank,

Well, it appears there's a selection process for deciding whether pagan references in Catholic art are acceptable or not: pre-1960-- OK; post-1960--bad. A double-standard...

Jake: "You're out of bullets, so you've hauled out your baseball bats."

"Chirp-chirp," says my pet cricket. LOL!

I suppose reason must feel like a bat on the hard head of paranoia. Jake, you're more fun when you don't play the victim card so quickly.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 30, 2004.

I suppose reason must feel like a bat on the hard head of paranoia. Jake, you're more fun when you don't play the victim card so quickly.

Oh, you haven't victimized me, but if it helps you sleep better, by all means go ahead & think so.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 30, 2004.

Let me do this, Mateo. What you are really after is my hunch that the Naturalism that Pope Leo XIII speaks of has any connection to the Naturalism used to describe certain kind of arts. If so, then I presume the next step would be to see if it's supportable that the art displayed at Our Lady of Angels in Los Angeles has any connection to such naturalism, based of course that there be any such expression of art which signifies the naturalism that Leo XIII talks about.

There are other issues on the table that have popped up, and I would like to treat each and every one of them if you are up to it, but let's do the above first.

If I am absolutely going down a dead end on this item, I will concede this portion of the discussion to you. If there seems a connection, I would hope you would admit that the hunch is not aimless, at a minimum.

In either case, resolution of the question either way would leave the rest of the items on the table for discussion, as a conclusion to the above, one way or another, does not constitute an argument for the rest of the debate topics on the table.

Let me look more closely at this, and when I'm finished I'll post up what I have found and put it on the table.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 31, 2004.

Ok, I'm still working on this in two arenas; in the first, I'm finding out that the hunch that there is in fact a root Naturalism which manifests itself similarly and connectedly in the various fields art, literature, philosophy and theology, and even architecture. In other words, it's not a dumb idea at all.

Secondly, I drove up to Our Lady of the Angels and took lots of pictures which I'm arranging into a slideshow that will hopefully make apparent a consistant theme of naturalism, syncretism and indifferentism.

But I'm not done yet. When I get up you can decide for yourself if there's something to it or not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 04, 2004.

''Working'' on it? Modernism. Naturalism. Feenyism. Pusillanimism. Plinth and Pedestalism. You covered so many, and never proved Much-ism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 04, 2004.

I'm not getting involved in the thread. I just had to say that I found Eugene's 'Much-ism' pretty witty.

Just a compliment, everyone please ignore me.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 04, 2004.

''Working'' on it? Modernism. Naturalism. Feenyism. Pusillanimism. Plinth and Pedestalism. You covered so many, and never proved Much- ism.

You forgot schism.

As far as proof goes, we're even.

Ha.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 04, 2004.

You have a ways yet to go. To even. Remember, I haven't accused anybody of schism. Nor of modernism, or pessimism. (Just Pharisaism and elitism.)

Leave us to our Catholicism, and spare us your sophism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 04, 2004.

"Leave us to our Catholicism, and spare us your sophism."

Hey, that's a traditional Catholic's mantra, but certainly not yours. What are you doing using it?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 04, 2004.

Hey, make a traditional post. Otherwise, suffer the consequences. If you fancy yourself more traditional than me, do something besides blabbibg your own mantra.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 04, 2004.

"Hey, make a traditional post. Otherwise, suffer the consequences."

Hey, I do believe that making a traditional post and suffering consequences are pretty much inseparable events. Post traditionally, suffer a consequence.

Meanwhile I'm learning so much about my Catholicism from all this blabbibg. You've been a tremendous help. In any case, I'll link up these pics soon, and you'll have a chance to correct my delusions and put me back on the track of Godliness.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 05, 2004.

Post traditionally, suffer a consequence.

Correction: "Post traditionally ... and earn a pat on the back from orthodox Catholics and a 'gold star' in God's 'Book of Life'. Post pseudo-traditionally ... and suffer the consequences -- refutation at the forum and a 'black star' in satan's 'Book of Death')."

-- (Nothing@ButThe.Truth), February 05, 2004.

Why assume that's John? --He's not the moron you think, anyway. All your camp is pseudo-traditional. He called it OK.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

"Post traditionally ... and earn a pat on the back from orthodox Catholics..."

Honors are worthless.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Emerald,

Honors are worthless.

Not really. For example, take sainthood. It doesn't really help the saint, but rather helps those who emulate them. Therefore the honor serves a useful purpose. Plus, if it makes you feel like you have something to live up to, it can help you as well.

Not much is truly worthless, even bad things can be a learning example to others.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 06, 2004.

In the context it is represented above, it's almost damnable in principle. We will stand individually before God on judgment day and face His justice and mercy; to equate that eventual reality with what takes place with a couple geezers on this forum is just plain arrogance. To presume to wield reward and punishment like that flies in the face of the Gospels.

So if they want to dole out reward, I'll reject it. That kind of reward is, and should be, worthless to any serious Catholic. If they want to dole out punishment, I'll gladly accept it. Either way, I'll be proceeding.

I understand what you mean about honor, Frank, like I understand what you are getting at upthread about the relationship between Catholic and pagan symbolism. The conversation will turn more serious soon enough.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

O.k.,

That will be nice. (the conversation becoming serious) A bit *shocking*, perhaps, but nice.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 06, 2004.

It shouldn't be that shocking, really.

In fact, I'll do better... when I finally get these pictures up, what I'll do is make a point of taking anything of an incendiary nature out of them as much as possible. I'll put my case forward about what I saw and what I think it means as dryly as possible, and you can tell me what you think.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Take the incendiary out of the any text of mine, I mean.

No, I'm not going to doctor the pics to make them look more Catholic. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Gee; Exactly what is more Catholic supposed to look like? Are you a make-over artist for the Catholic Church? Well, you're a few centuries too late. We already have a Chartres and a Saint Patrick's Cathedral in NYC. You wouldn't crib from the ancient architect's drawing boards would you? Describe what YOU call pretty, Emmy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2004.

I'm doing you a favor here, Gene. I'll be giving you something to complain about so as to keep you profitably occupied.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

I never complain; I only explain. Good luck!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2004.

That's awesome. Some of these pics will require your explanation. That's exactly what I was hoping for; I'll be looking forward to it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Emerald,

If you are going to post parts of a whole you believe are controversial, please remember to post the *whole* artwork as well. For example, in St. Michael stepping on the dragon, if you only posted the dragon, you could say, "see, the church supports Satan!" You need the whole to make sense of the parts.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 06, 2004.

You won't see anything of that nature at all. I would not post to deceive; you'll get clear, unambiguous pictures.

I love the Catholic Church, Frank. I feel lucky to be a Catholic; I wish everybody was Catholic, and good Catholics. My intent has never been to draw anyone away from the Church but into Her truths; these are tough times. Not many people see what's really happening.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

We already have a Chartres and a Saint Patrick's Cathedral in NYC.

Have you been to St. Patrick's, Gene? It's been years since I was there, but it is a magnificent cathedral, and it lends itself very easily to magnificent worship.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 08, 2004.

Stations of the Cross?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), May 11, 2004.

Stations of the Cross? - more like the dance of the relativist's aromatherapy candle!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Well ... there is art ... and then there is art ... and then there is ... Picasso

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 11, 2004.

Since I am a simple hick from the sticks and don't "get" modern art, can anyone explain these artistic depictions of the stations to me? Seriously. Are they appropriate for a catholic church?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 12, 2004.

Gene, way back when you said:

I'm not bound by ecclesiastical decree to negate your heart-felt problems with architecture in the 21st century. But I know of NO ugly churches. I know of bad architects, and of poor taste. But no Catholic church is ugly...

You have not seen my parent's church in Greenville SC, St. Mary Magdalene. It is a semi-circle that looks like a prison, with small windows high up off the ground, and an 8 ft. high priest's chair behind the altar made of marble that literally looks like a throne. The worst part is that while there is stained glass behind the altar in the shape of a cross, hanging right in front of it is a huge sculpture of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It is suspended from the ceiling by a cable, and, when the lights are on in the church, the cable has the effect of looking like Jesus is hanging by a noose. What an inspiration!!!

Pax et Bonum.

-- Thomas (psalm23@catholic.org), May 12, 2004.

There ARE traditional stations of the cross there too, here they are. It's not only the kid's paintbrush in church...

Yeah, I think modern "art" isn't the greatest either, but what do I know? Perhaps after the 60's people have finally left the ranks we can get this stuff put to pasture.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 12, 2004.

"If this brings in some people who may otherwise not set foot into a church, it could be a good thing." --- Bill Nelson

"Ugly churches are never a "good thing." That logic runs along the lines of: "Well, I know she's wearing a halter top and a miniskirt in church, but hey, she came to church, so it's a good thing." -- jake

Hey jake, what have you got aganst halter tops and mini skirts? I think there a good thing.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Gerry,

Those are crickets chirping. There's no laugh track here.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 17, 2004.

Me-- I've never been in a Catholic Church I could call ugly. When the setting isn't lavish or serene or traditional, I remind myself:

The great Temple of Jerusalem, built first by Solomon and again by Herod

Was a grandiose and rich place; a glorious temple.

Why didn't God Almighty, who ruled the people of Israel, and had many holy priests serving Him in the beautiful Temple-- Why didn't He have his only- begotten Divine Son, Jesus-- born in His holy of holies? That was His property, He is God.

Jesus came into the world in a cave. A barren stable out in the cold without furnishings or gold trim.

Our Lord chose to be born in a shabby, out-of-the-way stable, and we have problems with a Church building we dislike? What are we Catholics? Idolators? Materialists? Is anybody forcing us to assist at Holy Mass, in a place ''beneath us''--?

There is no ugly church anywhere the Blessed Sacrament has a home. We have to pray as the Psalmist prayed: ''Lord, I love the place where thy glory dwells.'' That is what gives the Church its beauty. Not your taste.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.

Brian Crane, im not trying to make you laugh, I want to know why jake thinks that halter tops and mini skirts are ugly. or wrong?

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

OK, I'll bite (and probably regret it). You think halter tops and mini skirts are appropriate attire at church?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 18, 2004.

I think beuty is in the eye of the beholder. And I think appropriate attire in church depends on the climate and the culture. Its very hot and humid in summer where I live. And nobody here ever told me halter top and mini skirt are inapropraite. In some places like parts of the pacific people think its ok for women to go around completely topless but they dont allow mini skirts. In other places women have to coverup completely like moslims.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 18, 2004.

Gerry,

I am hoping that you are joking, even if you say you aren't, and just trying to yank my chain. I assumed you were Catholic, but maybe my assumption was wrong. There has been a long, long tradition of modesty in attire in the Catholic Church. Women and men were traditionally taught to dress modestly to avoid deliberately causing sexual excitement in oneself or one’s neighbor. One who dresses modestly shuns clothes that are known or reasonably expected to effect sexual arousal in oneself or others. I'm sure nobody ever told you that halter tops and miniskirts were inappropriate for church. Did anyone ever tell you that a bikini is inappropriate? How about a see-through top? A Britney Spears half- shirt? No, it is just assumed you would know this. Would you deem anything inappropriate, or would that be too judgemental? "Its very hot and humid in summer where I live," is not an excuse for wearing halter tops and miniskirts to church. I don't think its any hotter or more humid today than it has been for centuries and centuries before when people were modestly attired at church. And remember, its really hot in Hell. I know you like quotes. Here are a few:

O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians. -- - Pope Pius XII

Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse) in those who see them.---Pope Pius XII

Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions. Our Lord is always the same.---Our Lady of Fatima

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head---St. Paul, Letter to the Corinthians

...also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire (2:10) but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.---St. Paul, Letter to Timothy

There is no chance of restoring chastity in the modern world without a return to modesty, especially among women. Immodesty in women's dress and bodily behavior arouses men's passions to sins against chastity. In His sermon on the mount, Christ declared that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The immodest attire and physical exposure of their bodies by women is part of the logic of the evil spirit to seduce men to internal and external sins against chastity. This is so true that it has become part of every paganized culture in the modern world. What we call immodesty becomes the accepted standard of a society, as in the United States. We who have the true faith must also have the courage to live up to our faith. On these grounds, the practice of Christian modesty is an apostolic responsibility of professed Catholics. We have the duty to promote chastity by our own practice and promotion of modesty.--- Father John Hardon

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 18, 2004.

Well said, Brian. Immodesty sickens me. Women's "liberation" only puts them further into bondage. These "liberated" women dress like prostitutes, so that men almost cannot help but see their value only in the physical appearance. Then the women demand respect, but they have already contributed to a culture of disrespect toward women through their immodest dress.

The irony of it all is that these "liberated" women push for feminist rights such as abortion and contraception, insisting that they as women have value. All the while, they are devaluing themselves by affording more opportunities for men to view them as "sex objects" and eliminating the "consequences" (children) of those actions.

I am sickened by all of this. Even though I dress modestly, the culture has trained men (through the immodest dress of other women, among other things) to view all women as mere objects. I am hurt at this insult to my dignity, and I challenge all women to rise above this shallow standard and demand respect through our actions.

-- (Im@a.woman), May 18, 2004.

I give up on you people. Evry time I say something that seems perfectly logical and inoffensive I get a avalanche on top of me. So if you wear a halter top and mini skirt you not a Catholic and going to Hell and you pushing for abortion and contraception? Hang on!

Those quotes talk about modesty. They don’t say about any clothes in particlar. That’s what I mean what is modest depend on the climate and the culture. I don’t know about what Our Lady of Fatima say, its only “fashion” I don’t even know if she means clothes or some other fashion. And what St Paul say, do any of you wear braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire, or praying or prophesying with her head not covered? Looks like you going to Hell too!

I never hear of this Father John Hardon. But if a man even looks at a woman lustfully, thats the man sinned, not the woman. Why you always blame the woman? This is why most of my women friends don’t go to church. I am hurt at this insult to my dignity!

This is why when that awful man assumed I am a man and you and him go on about "the church is too feminine and you have to be manly and fight wars"., I didn’t even correct him, I just let him keep on making jackass of himself. Because he probably put me down for being a woman and say women have no right to talk about war that’s mans business. He already assumed I am a child and tell me to shut up and just red what he says.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 18, 2004.

Look, Gerry,
Whatever your hangups are don't blame me. You don't need my seal of approval to be a man. My only dispute was about the need for armed combat in CERTAIN situations. Not about your favorite cause, which is denying all ocassions for fighting because you think that's the only way to become a saint.

In a very reasoned way I pointed out that Popes had led armies in wars. Saint Joan of Arc, the defense of Catholic Spain against moslem aggression, ec.

I even prayed for you, and other pacifists, to the holy archangel Saint Michael. That he might give us all a model of justified armed combat in a just cause.

All you think about is KILLING. You are so traumatic about anyone being killed you can't accept even one word about it.

You think everything revolves around YOU and a fear of death, Gerry is the good Catholic ''suffering because he labored in support of Jesus and the Pope!'' A great illusion. You push a silly, politically correct agenda. You forgot the meaning of justice. You would rather appease & pamper bullies. Our Lord was not a pussy-footer, Gerry. He once entered the Temple with a lash and attacked the money-lenders. He overturned their tables; HE WAS A MAN!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2004.

He overturn their tables he didn’t attack them or kill them. Read you Gospels if you got one. You think killing got nothing to do with war! how you can have a war without killing people. That’s what its all about!

Popes led armies in wars. Well only one that I know of. A lot of Popes in those times commit fornication too. Maybe we should do what they did then and not do what the holy modern Popes say? and what Jesus say? No matter how much you pray and ask for a model Gods not going to tell you war is good. God answer your prayer when you ask for what God wants, not what you want. Fighting war is not how to be a man.

You think everything revolves around YOU. Youre wrong it revolves around Jesus and the Pope is his repesentative. I don’t fear death. "Fear not him who can kill the body. Fear him who can cast both body and soul into Hell." That’s why I fear to kill because I fear God. But I don’t fear bullies like you.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 19, 2004.

My private opinion:
We all have seen in church some women who lack respect due Our Lord; some without real malice, some indifferent altogether to decency. I don't have to describe them. One look tells the story.

In my heart I see this as a challenge to my own decency. Not as if I should cast the first stone at a fallen woman; but as the measure of my own resistance to temptation. What priests refer to as concupisence.

I could ogle a girl --even at my age, dressed for the saloon not the sanctuary. It would be the male animal response. When her clothes are revealing or tight, or MISSING at some section of her anatomy, --I can feel attraction. God gave men that kind of antenna.

I won't look. I will cover my eyes for the moment. Not because she isn't attracting me. Because God will know.

The saddest thing about it is; most women are acutely aware they attract mens' stares. That is why it is sinful of them; they could wait, perhaps, until later to wear a particular blouse or skirt. They aren't stupid. They elect to enter the house of God looking like streetwalkers-- because they don't see much WRONG with streetwalkers. To these girls, SEX is too good be true! God is secondary. He won't care.

We have a resposibility to Our Lord. The reponsibility of recognizing the evil things, even when we are powerless to correct them. God DOES care. Let's not rationalize what is incorrect or offensive.

And yet, let's not be outraged over the sins of a few tepid Catholics. Let God be their Judge. If we offer up to Him our acts of reparation for the sins of the world He may yet give grace to our wayward women. That's how Jesus responded to bad women. With a sense of restraint and His blessings.

Meanwhile we must guard our eyes. SIGHT is a man's tempting sense. David the king SAW Bathsheba at her bath. He fell into temptation then, and offended the Lord. If he had kept his gaze away from her, his heart would have remained pure. In church and everywhere, women will be daring. They usually know what they do. They dress to call men's eyes.

In Church more than anyplace else-- eyes off the women. Don't blame them for your roving eye. Look at the holy altar, That's where.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2004.

Dear Gerry:

You're making a mistake. AGAIN.

I have never said that war is good.

You keep saying ALL war is evil. I say NOT all war is evil; sometimes a war comes which cannot be avoided. It cannot be avoided by real men. Cowards will find some way to avoid it.

You must think I called you a coward. No. I expect you to be a man, however. God expects it; like he expected when he sent the boy David, to kill a giant, Goliath.

Nobody is asking you to sin. To kill giants.

Right now, what I would ask you is, respect your elders. You act like a spoiled brat.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2004.

Gerry,

Are you saying you're a woman? You're right, I assumed you were a man. I apologize for that.

So you can read those quotes and still think mini-skirts and halter tops are suitable attire. Ok, its your call. But I don't see how you can say halter tops and mini-skirts are not meant to call attention to oneself, and especially in church, give me a break. I don't know if you're going to Hell. You don't know if I'm going to Hell. But Hell does exist, and its hot, so I hear. I would like to avoid it myself. I sincerely want you and others to avoid it as well. Will wearing a halter top and miniskirt in church give you a one way ticket south? I don't know, only God knows. But it's my hope that you wouldn't take the chance. Our Lady also said to the children of Fatima, that sins of the flesh would condemn more people to hell than anything else.

I am sorry to hear that your women friends won't go to church because men blame women for dressing scantily. I would rather have them go to church in a halter top than have them give up on it. But I would hope that eventually they would desire to imitate Catholic modesty. Not everyone who thinks that immodest attire is inappropriate is being self-righteous. Some are sincerely concerned about offending God and leading others to sin. Revealing attire can cause others to sin by inducing lustful thoughts. This is a fact, I'm sorry to say. And it works both ways. Sure some people are judgemental and rude. We all have our faults. But who cares about them. Only God knows what's in your heart.

As far as Eugene goes, you may think he is a curmudgeon, or worse. He can be harsh to those he disagrees with but he is very faithful, and he does care about you. He even says here that he prays for you. So keep your chin up Gerry.

BTW, Father John Hardon, is one of the great Catholics of the 20th century, the spiritual advisor to Mother Teresa and participated in the Second Vatican Council.

BTW part II, My wife and daughter do cover their heads in church.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 19, 2004.

Gerry--
It may be I've had you mistaken for a man. Maybe you're a woman. Your name might be Geraldine. Is it? It doesn't matter. You still have a right to your opinions. They're mistaken, but it would not change if you're either a man or woman. I respect intelligence in women. Show us some, OK?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2004.

I keep saying all war is evil because that’s what the Popes keep saying. Maybe eugene “ I would ask YOU, respect your elders. YOU act like a spoiled brat.”The Pope and bishops and Jesus are youre elders. And I might be elder than you, you don’t know. And its not Geraldine you can call me Gerry. You already assume about my sex and age and sneer at me for them. If I tell you my full name I bet you assume about my race and sneer at me for that too. You are a very funny man really. Even after I tell you I am a woman you tell me “I expect you to be a man”. And you say it is me who show no intelligence? Now we really know you don’t even red what other people say before you condenm what they say.

And you say you cover your eyes when you see a womans arms or legs or back in church? And you blame the woman for your lustful thought? A man will have lustful thought if he wants even if all women coverup like moslims. Do you ever walk down the street in summer? You must cover your eyes all the time or have lustful thought all the time. You call them fallen, wayward and bad women and “it is sinful of them; they could wait, perhaps, until later to wear a particular blouse or skirt.” If it is sinful to wear it now, its sinful to wear it later anywhere a man can see them?

Brian Crane, you are a good Christian. You try to think the best of eugene. I try to think the best of him too. But I don’t think he really prays for me he just patronise me, tells me he prays to St Michael to give me fortitude. Brian you didn’t tell me if your wife and daughter wear braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire. Maybe in St Pauls time only prostitutes have braided hair. In my grandmas time only prostitutes and actresses wear makeup. Now most women wear it, does that mean there all prostitutes?

I didn’t mean my women friends won't go to church JUST because men blame women for dressing scantily. I mean women turn away because some bossy men think they own the church and blame women for everything even there own sins and they try to make the church agree with what they want like war.

But I tell you all I red all of what you say and the quotes you gave me and I thought and prayed about it. Maybe you are right at least about the halter top. I asked my priest and he said maybe you have a point but there are more important things we should be thinking about . He also said a lot of people think “sins of the flesh” mean just what clothes you wear or sexual sins but in fact it means all sins.

So I will try to be more aware to be modest in clothes. So maybe you have taken the splinter out of my eye about this. So now I ask some of you especially eigene, you maybe take the log out of your own eye. Please read all of what I and other people say and the links we gave you about how to avoid War and the statements of the Popes and the Gospels. “War is always a defeat for humanity.” Please read them And discuss with your priest. and think and pray about them with sincere heart and a open mind not just say “it’s liberal so I disagree with it”. Or “Its not infailable”. Maybe its not but are you willing to bet your immortal soul that you are right and all the Popes and bishops are wrong?

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 23, 2004.

Gerry,

I am really pleased to hear your response. Certainly we still don't see completely eye to eye about this, but I appreciate the kind words and am glad that you prayed about this. I too pray about alot of the stuff discussed in this forum, especially where people disagree with me or vice versa. I pray to have an open mind, but to not ignore the truth. I pray that pride will not get in the way of my thinking and arguments.

You said: Do you ever walk down the street in summer? You must cover your eyes all the time or have lustful thought all the time. You call them fallen, wayward and bad women and it is sinful of them; they could wait, perhaps, until later to wear a particular blouse or skirt."

Actually, I do pray the St. Augustine prayer each day to keep my thoughts and actions holy. There are times when I avert my eyes when walking down the street, going to the mall etc. My sons physically turn away while watching TV when a bad commercial comes on, or they're at someone's house and something bad is on tv. They have been called freaks by one of their cousins for doing this. :-) I love my freaks.

I do admit that there are times when I get inwardly upset upon seeing women wearing revealing clothing, especially in church. But I try to avoid such thoughts. Mostly, I think they are just a slave to society's fashions and culture, and don't realize what they are doing. I wish more priests would speak to the parishioners about appropriate attire. Sigh! There are probably other important issues to think about, as your priest said, and I do think about such things. However, as the parent of 3 teenaged boys (and one 11 year old), I do not think this is an insignificant issue. There are many sins of the flesh, as you say, and revealing attire, is often an ingredient or a precursor to such sins.

Regarding the braids, gold, and pearls: I think you are correct about this type of fashion in St. Paul's time. I believe my wife is going to post something about that tomorrow.

Regarding Eugene: I am certain that he does pray for you.

Regarding War: This thread has already been hijacked from church architecture to fashion; we don't need to re-hash the war. Your opinion is known as is mine. We have several threads currently running for that discussion. God Bless Gerry!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 23, 2004.

Gerry:
Whenever you enter the house of God, wear what a decent woman wants God to see her wearing. Not what anyone else picks for you. Don't give yourself the benefit of the doubt, dressing as if you have no shame. Shame is an uneasy conscience; otherwise you would walk around without clothes and to hell with ''the beam in Eugene's eye.'' --You don't do that, so we know there's a conscience living in you somewhere.

You can scrap about this all you want. But immodest dress is something shameless in the house of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 24, 2004.

Gerry, I have to say I was very surprised myself to find out you are female and not male. To me you seemed like a "pervert" (please forgive me) who enjoyed seeing women dressed scantily. To find out you were a female just about knocked me over. As a woman, you should very well know how VISUAL men are. It doesn't take much to entice them. For this very reason we must be conservative and not make excuses for other women who do not care what men see when they've chosen an outfit that enhances their bodies. I am not a saint (working on it), and at one point in my life I was one of those very women who felt it was the man's "problem" if they chose to view me the way they did. Hey, I was innocent and INTO the latest fashion. Why couldn't I wear what I wanted? It was their problem if they viewed me with lust, those perverts! I can still blush over some of the outfits I use to wear, and I am sorry for the times I made many sin. As for braiding my hair and wearing gold vs. make up? Think this is talking about certain type of women. If we dress and wear make up to draw attention and provoke then we are accountable for what others think. There is a big difference in how women can wear their make up and as a woman you, and I both know it. Either it is caked on or it can look very natural. I've seen so many women tug at their short skirt when they see me or pull up their blouse. I could care less what they have on. I am not judging them, but God will. If they feel shame when they see me how will they feel when they are in front of God? Why don't they feel this same shame just by entering His Church? How many women dress to provoke men in Church or to just show off their bodies? You should see how they are dressed in our town, and the next town over. Then we go to the FSSP Mass and there is a night and day difference. Everyone dresses appropriately. Too bad we don't see this in all our Catholic Churches. Right now I have 3 teen aged sons who are VERY visual creatures. So much that more than half the time I miss what they have seen. Because of their hormones they will struggle more and they have asked to please never attend a teen Mass again. They do not want the temptation to sin. They already deal with this daily all around them and having it IN CHURCH doesn't make it easier for them. Quite honestly I am disgusted and appalled at the latest fashion that women want to embrace. I try hard not to judge because I was once there, but pray that they will see their errors. Women do not have power over men by dressing in this manner. Instead they have lowered their standards and they look like what the prostitutes mentioned in the Bible BUT with less clothing. One last thing...all of us must do our home work in finding a good priest. Sad to say, but many are out there with a very liberal view and will lead many in the wrong direction. Glad to hear your priest agreed halter tops are not appropriate. Mary stated about fashion to Jacinta.

"the sins which bring most souls to hell are the sins of the flesh. Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much... the Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same..."

Some days, Jacinta while in the hospital, was very saddened by the worldliness of the visitors, the women dressed in fashionable clothes, often with low-cut dresses. "What is it all for?" she asked Mother Godinho (her guardian ). "If they only knew what eternity is."

Jacinta on Holy Silence: Noticing that many visitors chatted and laughed in the chapel, Jacinta asked Mother Godinho to warn them of the lack of respect for the Real Presence this represented. When this measure did not bring about satisfactory results, she asked that the cardinal be advised that "Our Lady does not want people to talk in church."

Keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary, I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:30

The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silent before Him. Habakuk 2:20

Let all flesh be silent at the presence of the Lord; for He has risen out of His holy habitation. Zechariahs 2:13

"The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians."

Pius XII to Catholic Young Women's Groups of Italy

THIS LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED BY: THE LEAGUE FOR MODESTY IN DRESS, NY

Gal.5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity."

Romans 12;1,2 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."

1 Corinthians 3:16,17 "Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are."

1 Thessalonians 5:22 From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. And may the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), May 26, 2004.

Excellente, Jalapeno-- This is a keeper.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2004.

Jalapeno, why do you keep kicking me after I have told you Brian and my own prayer and reflection has already convinced me about dressing more modestly? Why are you so bitter and condenming? Like some other people here you think its ok to call people bad names as long as you say “God bless” at the end. If it wasn’t for some sensible and Christian people here like Brian I woulnt bother keep looking here. Why are you “Knocked over” to see I am a woman when you tell us you used to think the same as me? Maybe YOU are not a woman? You are aggressive and you name sounds like a mans name. Maybe you are really eugen?

Those quotes you give, Brian already gave us some of them and the rest are irrelavant to what clothes people wear to church. You think you have to tell me not to chatter and make noisy laugh in church? I would never do that. Why you assume I am a slave of fashion like you were? I don’t care about fashion I wear whats comfortable and practical and what I like. You say I “made many sin”. But you cant MAKE other people sin that’s their own decision. I already said Im trying to dress modestly so not to TEMPT men to sin. Why you assume I wear caked on makeup? I hardly ever wear makeup I like the looks God gave me. I only mentioned makeup to show that what people wear is basically culture and climate not morality. – that people in St Pauls time thought braided hair meant prostitute just like people in my grandmas time thought makeup meant prostitute. We don’t have to have the same culture they had 100 years ago or 2000 years ago. Faith and morality is the same but culture changes.

You say my priest convinced me, as I said he just said maybe Brian has a point but there are more important things. Why you think its impossible for a “liberal” priest to be a good priest?

Why you think God only sees you when your in Church. God sees you all the time and he sees through your clothes and you makeup and even sees through your body into your heart. And if your sons cant deal with seeing womens arms and legs when there in church with lots of reminders of there religion all around them, how do they deal with it when they see womens arms and legs everywhere all the time with no reminders of there religion there? It sounds very hypocritical. The human body is not evil. Some peoples actions are evil. So don’t be so obsessed with what other people wear.

People can think different from you about some things and still be moral people. If you disagree with someone You need to always be willing to reflect and listen to what Gods telling you maybe through other people, instead of asuming God wants what you want. Maybe both you and eugene should have a motto like Father Werenfried van Straaten, “God is much bigger than we think. And not only God, but people too are better than we think.”

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), June 01, 2004.

Those quotes you give, Brian already gave us some of them and the rest are irrelavant to what clothes people wear to church.

***He didn't give all of them and yes they do have something to do with what we wear in Church in my opinion. That is why I gave them.

You think you have to tell me not to chatter and make noisy laugh in church? I would never do that.

***Please show me where I said YOU did this.

Why you assume I am a slave of fashion like you were? I don’t care about fashion I wear whats comfortable and practical and what I like.

***LOL Again, please show me where I stated this. I only shared the way I use to be to show I am a sinner and people can change and to point out most out there are a slave to fashion.

You say I “made many sin”. But you cant MAKE other people sin that’s their own decision.

***Not true. I can either provoke or not provoke. In the Catechism Explained, under the sixth commandment of God it states, Immodesty in dress and excessive finery. Vanity and love of dress are powerful factors in Satan's service; for women who deck their person to attract men dare not presume to say that they are chaste and pure of heart; their very appearance gives them the lie. The longing for admiration does not come from a simple heart; it is a snare to entrap others into vice.

I already said Im trying to dress modestly so not to TEMPT men to sin. Why you assume I wear caked on makeup?

***Here we go again. Where did I state YOU caked on your make up? So here you do agree women can dress to "tempt" a man. At least we agree on something. ;o)

I hardly ever wear makeup I like the looks God gave me.

***Good for you! :o)

I only mentioned makeup to show that what people wear is basically culture and climate not morality. – that people in St Pauls time thought braided hair meant prostitute just like people in my grandmas time thought makeup meant prostitute. We don’t have to have the same culture they had 100 years ago or 2000 years ago. Faith and morality is the same but culture changes.

***True to a point. My point is to show that still today there is a differnce in how some wear makeup verses others.

You say my priest convinced me, as I said he just said maybe Brian has a point but there are more important things. Why you think its impossible for a “liberal” priest to be a good priest?

***Because if most believe the way liberals believe then they are not leading your soul in the right direction. Maybe you should tell me what a liberal priest means to you if you want me to elaborate more. Women provoking men in Church is not important to your priest?

Why you think God only sees you when your in Church. God sees you all the time and he sees through your clothes and you makeup and even sees through your body into your heart.

***Yes...where did I state he doesn't see us outside of Church?

And if your sons cant deal with seeing womens arms and legs when there in church with lots of reminders of there religion all around them, how do they deal with it when they see womens arms and legs everywhere all the time with no reminders of there religion there?

***You must not have any sons do you or you must live some where out of the US or in a bubble if you are not yourself offended with what women wear to Church. Being a woman you know very well how easy it is to arouse a man. Women know what they are doing. If they didn't, when they bought their clothing they would not turn around to check out their bottom. Please don't make us be so weak and innocent because we are not. My boys not only see arms and legs (a little funny you make it sound so simple and innocent), but see tight clothing, cleavage, bras under their see through blouses, g-strings hanging out of sweatpants (one had cutie written on her behind), short shorts so tight it goes up in the front and back (excuse me everyone else for stating this), and I can go on and on, but I just had lunch and don't want to get sick. Also, please show me where I said my sons CAN'T DEAL with it? They pray all the time is how they deal with it. If we go to the FSSP Traditonal Latin Mass they don't have to deal with it. That is seeing immodest women (should be like this in all Churches).

It sounds very hypocritical. The human body is not evil. Some peoples actions are evil. So don’t be so obsessed with what other people wear.

***Hypocrtical? How? Please explain. The body is not evil, but too much was not meant for all to see, but your spouse. I'm obsessed with what people wear? Not at all, only saddened.

People can think different from you about some things and still be moral people. If you disagree with someone You need to always be willing to reflect and listen to what Gods telling you maybe through other people, instead of asuming God wants what you want. Maybe both you and eugene should have a motto like Father Werenfried van Straaten, “God is much bigger than we think. And not only God, but people too are better than we think.”

***Yes, you should be willing to reflect and listen to what God might be telling YOU through other people also. You can not be moral and dress like a whore. Any one who dresses like one knows why they are doing it and it is to attract attention. :o(

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.

Jalapeno, why do you keep kicking me after I have told you Brian and my own prayer and reflection has already convinced me about dressing more modestly? Why are you so bitter and condenming?

***Almost missed your first paragraph. Wow, and what a whopper! I not once condemned you in the least nor am I bitter. Please show me where I came across to you like this. I've been on many list with only women and we like to kid each other about looking on the calendar before replying. At times we can be a little more "sensitive" and take things wrong. ;o)

Like some other people here you think its ok to call people bad names as long as you say “God bless” at the end. If it wasn’t for some sensible and Christian people here like Brian I woulnt bother keep looking here. Why are you “Knocked over” to see I am a woman when you tell us you used to think the same as me? Maybe YOU are not a woman? You are aggressive and you name sounds like a mans name. Maybe you are really eugen?

***Wow again! Everything you claim I have done you just did it yourself. Please show me where I called someone a bad name? Where was I aggressive? What do you call what you have done in your letter to me?

As for Brian, I'm married to him and yes, he is a very good man and I'm the luckiest woman alive to have him in my life. My name Jalapeno comes from my parents and it is only a nickname. The name can be either female or male. Not sure if hot peppers have a gender or not. ;o)

God Bless you and it is meant from the bottom of my heart!!

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.

Why is Gerry upset with me? I haven't been telling her anything personal.

All I did for her is make clear what the house of God should mean to each one of us. We assist at Mass with respect for Our Lord. Not respect for me.

Wearing something too provocative in the house of God can't be excused because of ''changes'' in culture or customs. We have always been taught to give proper respect to God. And at no time did I point the finger at anyone. Gerry was offended because I'm ''aggressive''--? Come on!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2004.

My dear Jalapeno, Im sorry if I misunderstood you. But you sure made it sound like your critcism was at me not at others. My question was about halter top and mini skirt. I would never wear any of those ugly fashions you mention. I repeat you cant MAKE people sin.

My dictionary says “liberal: giving freely, generous, not sparing; open-minded, not prejudiced; not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal; favoring individual liberty, open to the reception of new ideas; regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change; willing to tolerate behavior, opinions, etc., which are different from one’s own.” Sounds like a good Christian to me.

You say “where did I state he doesn't see us outside of Church?”

Before, when you say “ If they feel shame when they see me how will they feel when they are in front of God? Why don't they feel this same shame just by entering His Church?”

“Hypocrtical? How? Please explain.” Like I said, God sees you everywhere and men see women everywhere. If something women wear “provoke” men in one place it will provoke them in all places. At least in church its easier for men to remind themselves of there religion.

Don’t you think “pervert” and “whore” are bad names? I was making a joke about you maybe not being a woman because of what you said about me. I ask God to bless you and Brian and you family too. I do read carefully everything you say and think and pray about it.

Eugene say “Why is Gerry upset with me? I haven't been telling her anything personal. And at no time did I point the finger at anyone. Gerry was offended because I'm ''aggressive''--? Come on!”

Oh Eugene you really make us all laugh a lot now. You know as well as we all do that you are the most aggressive person in this site. If anyone doesn’t know look at the way he attacked me and other people in the threads about war and lots of other things, even though some the personal things he said were so bad that ed delted them.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), June 02, 2004.

Jalapeno you say “please show me where I said my sons CAN'T DEAL with it?”

Before, when you say “Because of their hormones they will struggle more and they have asked to please never attend a teen Mass again. They do not want the temptation to sin.”

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

My dictionary says “liberal: giving freely, generous, not sparing; open-minded, not prejudiced; not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal; favoring individual liberty, open to the reception of new ideas; regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change; willing to tolerate behavior, opinions, etc., which are different from one’s own.” Sounds like a good Christian to me.

***Sounds great as long as the thinking goes along with our Catholic teaching. I know of a few priest who have liberal thinking and one even took a girl to have an abortion. How sweet of him for being "tolerant". I have other sad stories, but quite frankly there is no use in discussing them. We must know our faith and teach are children so that they can not be lead astray.

You say “where did I state he doesn't see us outside of Church?”

Before, when you say “ If they feel shame when they see me how will they feel when they are in front of God? Why don't they feel this same shame just by entering His Church?”

***OK, I have to extra careful with my wording or at least a little better with my explanation. He is PRESENT in the Eucharist, and I did not say He is NOT outside the Church. All of us know he is every where, but when in His Church you would think they would show more respect. These women tug at their clothing when they see me? Why be ashamed around me? That is what I was trying to point out yet I see you mistook this. Do you understand what I am trying to say now?

Don’t you think “pervert” and “whore” are bad names?

***OH please. I'm not politically correct so no I don't think they are bad names if it fits the person. Sorry. I call it like it is AND I did apologize for thinking you were a pervert (that is when I thought you were a man) and don't think that of you now.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 03, 2004.

Jalapeno you say “please show me where I said my sons CAN'T DEAL with it?” Before, when you say “Because of their hormones they will struggle more and they have asked to please never attend a teen Mass again. They do not want the temptation to sin.”

***So you take this to mean they can't deal with it? My boys are trying to be as saintly as possible YET you will think they have no control because they don't want to be around a teen Mass where many are dressed like "hoochie mommas"? Is that word better for you? If there is a friend who has booze and drugs around, and my boys tell me they don't want to be near it, would you think it is because they can't deal with it? Why should they be around sin? Why should I take them to a Mass where there is lack of respect in every direction? Where they might be "tempted" to sin? My sons are dealing with all the temptations around them and doing so in a manner that has me wondering what I ever did to deserve such wonderful children. My sons are dealing with it all Gerry, and with the grace from God.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 03, 2004.

What were they thinking?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), September 10, 2004.

Well, in spite of its curious resemblance to certain creatures of Star Wars ilk, it probably doesn't reflect any lack of respect. Just lack of taste.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 10, 2004.

Over these many years, all over the U.S, in Mexico, England, Spain, etc., I have never seen a single "marble" altar undergo purposeful destruction, or, as Regina likes to say, get "ripped out"

It must have been built that way.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

You did not visit my church Nick. A beautiful traditional church with a beutiful marble high altar was replaced by an ordinary wooden table. Oh they kept it but several years aftrward I stopped by the church during the week. Looking inside the door I was shocked to see that beautiful altar lying there in a thousand pieces, a barren rear wall with spikes that used to hold it, sticking out of the wall. It looked like a bomb had hit it. I never again went back to a novus ordo mass.

-- Hortense (Heartbreak@dissalusioned.com), February 24, 2005.

Hortense,

My heart goes out to you. Actually, the part in italics wasn't said by me. I was quoting someone who denies that what you described actually happens (or, if it happens, then it doesn't really make any difference, according to him). The best way to stop these wreckovators is to vote with your feet (like you did) or with your checkbook (as in not putting any of your checks in the collection basket) and let them know why.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Thank you Nick. I since have found a beautiful church with no table, a devoted young priest and everything that a traditional Mass offers.

-- Hortense (heartbrea@disallusioned.com), February 25, 2005.

I agree the scan you linked above is awful. No excuse for calling that art.

Nick wouldn't name the one who said *otherwise* above. It was me. I was telling the plain truth, and I've really been all over. Let me add, even in many Novus Ordo parishes I've visited,

--their old altars are intact, standing to the rears of newer ones, where priests now say Holy Mass. There was no need to demolish them, they remain. Sometimes with, sometimes without the holy tabernacle. Of course, there have to be exceptions. We should realise these are fewer; and not always ''ripped out.'' They're replaced with something fine or not as fine. That's life! Accept it, it's LIFE.

NEW buildings have no cause to rip out; they simply build on a new floor-plan. Why is that an affront to you, or to God? Some folks will never understand. God wants our SOULS, not our bricks and stucco, or the beautiful carvings. God is the Creator, we can't call His love down by erecting beautiful stages upon which we'll celebrate a GREATER Holy Mass. Mass is already GLORIOUS!!!!

God owns the universe, He rules the earth's oceans and all the wonders of nature. The diamond mines are His, and the wild herds of Africa and the blue heavens! You have NOTHING to match them! Give up this insane fixation on material things, externals. Offer your hearts to Him. Give him LOVE--

Give God all your love. Give Him MORE than I can give, or your neighbor. Be the one who loves Him better than anyone else! That's how you'll bring His LOVE down to you-- Through his Holy Son Our Lord, Jesus Christ!!!!! Come on and DO IT!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

Dear Nick:
Over several years of being here in this forum, nothing has ever disgusted me more than to see a Catholic giving others advice like:

''Vote with . . . . your checkbook (as in not putting any of your checks in the collection basket.''

A mind- set like that is utterly below contempt. To think that your STINKING CHECK has influence over our WORSHIP;

That MONEY makes a better Church, and that withholding contributions to holy mother Church is fair to your parish and pleasing to GOD in heaven-- That is SATAN at work in your sorry brain.

You need a change of heart Nick, starting with a thorough examination of conscience. What you're suggesting to another Catholic offends God; it's a sin. The day on which money gives you ''RIGHTS'' at the holy altar, we won't have Jesus in the Eucharist any longer. Keep the money and stay out. --Store up your treasure here in this life; and when you die, see what it'll buy you at the Gates of Heaven.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

For those who live in Southern California.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

I'm aware that Cardinal Mahoney has alienated a large number of Catholics in that area. He is no saint.

He also isn't the Church; he's only one man. The Church depends on our donations. Mahoney might retire to a life of comfort; people will forget him. Those whose donations were not freely offered haven't hurt the Cardinal, they've hurt our faithful priests and the parish communities around Los Angeles. Innocent people are going to suffer because the ones who are supposed to be unselfish; Catholics in their community; won't give. Certainly NOT FREELY. Now they hope to buy a Catholic prelate. They're just fools. Their MONEY is more powerful than Christian charity, as they see it. I feel sorry for them. And for YOU, Nick. You have no faith in Our Lord. Your faith is in your checkbook. Ciao, Money-Bags!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

Eugene, Eugene, Eugene. sigh. You make no sense. According to you, Hortense is supposed to donate to a church she doesn't want to attend? I assume she is donating to the church she is now attending, as do I. Where did I say that I don't donate to the church? Why do you assume I'm storing up my treasures on earth? I'll tell you my checking account balance if you need a good laugh.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

I also noticed that you quoted me out of context. My full sentence was "The best way to stop these wreckovators is to vote with your feet (like you did) or with your checkbook (as in not putting any of your checks in the collection basket) and let them know why."

You left off "The best way to stop these wreckovators is to". You even capitalized the v in vote as if that was the start of my sentence. Pretty dishonest of you. If my priest took up a second collection to fund a wreckovation, I see absolutely nothing wrong with declining to put in one of my "stinking checks", as you call it. There are plenty of Catholic charities that could put the money to better use. Awaiting your apology, ...

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

You think I ought to apologise for pointing to your obvious lack of charity? I see.

VOTE? Why choose that verb, instead of forgive; or pray, or just MOVE, to some other place? Because you believe the people's WILL is achieved by power. Your power to vote, to chastize the bishops and to starve the Church. Again you insist on your RIGHTS.

The concept of hierarchical rule and OBEDIENCE has never been taught you, I guess. You think the Church is a democracy. You want to harness the bishops to your own Will. What pride! Disgusting, Nick.--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

You think I ought to apologise for pointing to your obvious lack of charity? I see.

Did I not mention Catholic charities above? I still don't get how you think I have the means to donate to every hairbrained scheme a bishop thinks up. If it makes you less grumpy, I hereby promise to donate to the next wreckovation proposal I hear about. It might even be your church someday.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Nick:
Please don't be phony. You mentioned ''charities'' AFTER your ugly post about the ''checks.'' Damage control!

In fact, many worthwhile Catholic programs and charities are dependent on our generosity in every Mass collection. By not donating you deny them whatever charity they afford somebody else.

WORSE! For you to stop donating is a personal choice. Your donation is absolutely voluntary. Not even Cardinal Mahoney forces you to chip in. Keep your money, if you don't love him. But you incite other faithful Catholics to hurt the Church! That's a sin! You seek to cheat the Church out of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, for nothing but YOUR silly hatred. Don't give us this creep-stuff about ''other charities''. You committed a sin against charity!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

Eugene, Let me try, once again, to get through to you. I have never withheld donations from my church. I don't intend to withhold donations from my church. My comment was specifically about wreckovations. The best way to stop these wreckovators is to vote with your feet (like you did) or with your checkbook (as in not putting any of your checks in the collection basket) and let them know why. You have this annoying habit of seizing a word here or there, like "vote", "Catholic charities", etc., ignoring everything else. Someone recently asked why you resort to personal attacks. If calling me phony and uncharitable makes you feel better, glad I could help.

One more question before I retire: I've seen anti-Catholics attack the church on this forum. I've seen sedevacantists call the pope an anti-pope. I've seen people question the validity of the Novus Ordo. I've done none of those things. Yet my little comment about not wanting to fund church destruction and Over several years of being here in this forum, nothing has ever disgusted me more ... Huh? Interesting set of priorities you've got there.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

You seem to ignore the entire reason for my disgust. When Catholics advise other Catholics to harm their parishes or any Catholic church financially;

----It causes hardships on every good priest who depends on everyone's weekly donations. The innocent suffer for the actions of another priest. You aren't the first Catholic I've accused of these sins. When evil priests were caught molesting boys, another wise guy came here prompting us to stop contributing in protest. I also stopped HIM from that act of cruel disregard for our Church. Our Church needs support from her faithful; and to hurt one parish is to hurt Jesus Christ Himself. ''If you do it to the least of my brethren, you do it to ME.'' --His words! ,p>Now, forgive me if I'm such a vehement opponent; but this is not a light matter. God demands that we help the church. We aren't doing her a big favor. Ask your own pastor in confession. Don't expect any other reaction from him, nick-- than the one you're getting here.

I lean on you personally. Please forgive me. It's done so everyone else will disregard your hasty advice. No fine altar however beautiful is more important in the Catholic Church than ONE priest. If you cost a priest his bread and board, you do it to Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

You're whole concern is completely undone, Gene, if one were to point out that withholding tithes from a particular Church doesn't equate to withholding tithes.

The funds probably just get redirected elsewhere. Perhaps to those who will handle them more effectively, thereby achieving greater results.

So it's not the big sin you have it worked out to be.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.

Maybe not. Inciting the faithful to ignore a responsibility is a sin. What you prefer is your affair. But suggesting others fail along with you isn't just financial harm. It corrupts the unity of the Church at its base.

Over time you've been dividing the faithful yourself, so you consider it manly and independent. It's subversive and disloyal. Now you support the other man's disloyalty. It figures. You've taken pains here for so long, Emerald. There's little doubt you're an enemy in our midst. You're here to shake the staunch faith we have in the Catholic Church. You'll deny that. But it's all on record, Pal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.