Sungenis vs Matatics - Is the Novus Ordo Mass valid?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Since the Novus Ordo has has been a topic of much discussion here, I thought you may all be interested in the debate between Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics on whether or not the Novus Ordo mass is valid. Matatics will be taking the negative and Sungenis the affirmative.Check it out here
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 19, 2005
This is a disgrace. No organization claiming to be Catholic should sponsor such a "debate". They might as well debate the authority of the Pope. Then again, those who don't accept the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the Church defines it usually don't accept the Vicar of Christ either.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 19, 2005.
Who for sure can say that it is not valid. Almost impotant is it sacreligious.Why? Did Our Lord really say for you and for all men. There is no written record that he did.
The council of trent said that all must not be used. So you decide for yourself.
The original Paul 6th mass is proper, but the vernacular is at least suspect.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.
Wrong once more. The Holy Spirit is always correct, Smith.Trent said nothing. What Trent upholds as proper form is, ''This is my body'' --And, ''This is my blood.''
You make a mockery of the Council of Trent; concocting little pissant objections against the vernacular.
I wonder what you think; is Mass valid when the celebrant sings off-key? Does the devil pay you by the word? (I think so.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.
The Novus Ordo is an accepted form of the celebration of the Mass. Period. End of Story.God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 19, 2005.
By Catholics, yes. By schismatics, no.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 19, 2005.
"I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).""I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the everstrengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee’s renderings."
"I.C.E.L.’s changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass."
"Such a litany of defects suggests that many modern Masses are sacrilegious, and some could well be invalid. They certainly are less Catholic, and less apt to sustain Catholic Faith."
"I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from “conservative” Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican “Concilium” group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ’s victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties."
This is from a priest tha helped form the English version of the Mass.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.
We don't care, John. The priest might repent someday.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.
What responsibility did Paul VI have in choosing a man like Bugnini to carry forward the work of liturgical renewal? Should he not have chosen a different man?ABBOT BONIFACE: Paul VI was a very great Pope, but he was a weak man. He had great difficulty in taking a decision. For example, he had the New Order of the Mass on his desk for three years - three years! - before promulgating it. And he took many unusual decisions to avoid that final decision. And one of his decisions was inviting in the six Protestant theologians to review the document before publication to ensure that Protestant sensibilities would not be offended. And it was this decision that caused the greatest problems.
Paul chose Bugnini and kept Bugnini at his post all those years because he liked him and trusted him, and this is understandable, because he was a likeable and competent man.
And he did not lessen this trust when he saw the Novus Ordo Mass which Bugnini's Consilium prepared?
ABBOT BONIFACE: No. Paul approved the new Mass because his advisors told him that the Protestants would come closer to the Catholic Church as a result.
That was his main reason, because it really did take on some of the aspects of a Protestant service; that is why the Anglican and Lutherans and others are so favorable to the New Mass. And that was the way Paul wanted it. He had a vision of the Church re-uniting after centuries of bloodshed and division.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.
Be quiet, John. Stop making a fool of yourself.The Catholic Church is under the guidance and refuge of the Holy Spirit.
'' [The} Pope, was a weak man. He had great difficulty in taking a decision. For example, he had the New Order of the Mass on his desk for three years - three years! - before promulgating it.'' It's never dawned on you, Sir. Never occurred to you that the Holy Spirit let the plan wait for the day it would please Him, because man proposes but God disposes? A weak man. Indeed! That means you and your Druids of tradition are stronger????
What do you think the Catholic Church is ??? An opera?
Are you capable of disputing the Holy Spirit, and reuniting Christians? Who would trust you with Christ's Holy Church?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.
....
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.
Paul M.--Robert Sungenis is an orthodox Catholic (if also controversial) man, and does accept the validity of Novus Ordo. I suspect he may have arranged the debate between himself and Gerry Matatics, because he, Matatics and Scott Hahn are all former Presbyterians who have converted to Catholicism. Sadly however, Matatics fell in with a group that does not accept Novus Ordo. Sungenis could be trying to pull Matatics back home; or perhaps Matatics challenged him to a debate: both men are fervent apologists, both brilliant.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 20, 2005.
Hello John!My response to you might sound weird, but here it is:
(1) Walk into any protestant church building. What do you feel? Nothing special, right?
(2) Now, walk into *any* Catholic church, whether Novus Ordo or Tridentine. What do you feel? That's right--He's there!
After many years as a Lutheran, I noted to my surprise that there was a "presence" and numinous holiness in the local Catholic church, that was not in my own church. It centered around the Tabernacle. I realized to my fascination that Christ was *there* in a special way He was not in my own church. And, the local Catholic parish is Novus Ordo, with a devout and orthodox priest who loves Christ our God.
Remember also, that the brilliant Michael Davies, who had written many books questioning the validity of Novus Ordo, finally accepted its validity. (Davies passed away some months ago, God bless His soul.)
I am personally of the opinion that, in a matter of such grave import, Christ did not allow His Vicar, Paul VI, to derail the entire Church and destroy the daily Sacrifice. (Remember, Paul VI also waited for at least two years to publish Humanae Vitae--he wanted to make sure he got it right!) Mind you, while I might also personally desire that the Novus Ordo were closer to the Tridentine wording because of the majesty and propitiatory language used, I cannot but admit that I *know* Christ is present at my local Catholic parish under the appearance of Bread and Wine.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 20, 2005.
"When two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in their midst."I don't think you have to be in a particular building to have Christ's presence.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 20, 2005.
OliverClearly makes a difference if you are on your own! :-)
-- Hugh (hugh@inpsired.com), January 20, 2005.
Hello Oliver!On one hand you are correct; we have the promise of Christ "I am with you always, to the close of the age". Yet, there are different *modes* of presence, are there not? Christ was *with* the apostles in one mode when He appeared in the upper room that first Easter night. After He disappeared, He was still *with* them, but in a non- tangible mode.
The Eucharist is the *bodily* presence of Christ, in tangible fashion. That, to me, is different from His presence in the Word, or in prayer, or in general. In one of his letters, Paul VI mentions several ways in which Christ is "present", but all are different from one another. Does that make sense?
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 20, 2005.
The Novus Ordo Mass is usually celebrated in the vernacular but some parishes celebrate it in Latin. The N.O. is holy.There is nothing wrong in attending the Latin Tridentine Mass (which can only be celebrated in Latin) as long as it has an Indult from the Vatican. The celebrants of these Masses do not disrespect the inerrancy of the N.O. Mass.
It is wrong however for the faithful Catholic to frequent the Latin Tridentine Mass celebrated by schismatic sects like SSPX and Sedevacantist. The celebrants of these Masses ridicule the N.O. Mass. These Masses are not approved by the Vatican.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 20, 2005.
Mind you, while I might also personally desire that the Novus Ordo were closer to the Tridentine wording because of the majesty and propitiatory language used, I cannot but admit that I *know* Christ is present at my local Catholic parish under the appearance of Bread and Wine.***I agree 100%! What I do want to give this forum before Lent begins (I give up the computer), will be the prayers. Most who attend I would have to bet have never seen, heard or prayed them. They are beautiful and I truly believe they will make many grow spiritually.
God Bless.
-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.
Michael, Christ's presence is fully real, touchable, and undeniable to me in the meetings in which I gather together with the saints. He is living, moving, and active in the spirits of the brothers and sisters, and expressed through their prayer, praise, singing, and speaking.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 20, 2005.
Why should we doubt you, Oliver? Almost everybody has his/her mystical side. I recall the old Mojican chief; raising his hands to heaven as he gave up his soul to the Great Spirit.But if you've felt these things in your heart, and truly are a mystic; just wait till you receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Catholics call it the foretaste of heaven for good reason.
Not only that. The souls of His people are sanctified and made HOLY by their communion with Jesus. He has revealed it perfectly in John 6. We are given everlasting life, in the act of eating and drinking of the Lamb of God. There's no comparison, My Friend, between this truth and the words ''Where two or more are gathered in my name.'' It doesn't begin to compare.
You may find out someday. I hope.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.
"You may find out someday. I hope. "FYI Gene, Olly is a fallen away Catholic that needs our prayers. He is a good man though.
-- - (David@excite.com), January 20, 2005.
Dear Oliver!Yes, I too have experienced His presence in the worship of the gathered saints, in prayer and in praise. That is undeniable! And I know the touch of His Spirit in knowledge, healing which I have experienced, and sometimes even interior visions.
But please notice what I said and what I did not say.
I said, I feel Christ's presence in the Catholic church *buildings* in a powerful way, centered at the Tabernacle. I do not sense His presence in protestant church *buildings*. In Catholic sanctuaries, I know I am definitely on holy ground.
And my *point* is that I know in my body, heart, spirit and gut that Novus Ordo is valid Mass.
But that being said, Christ moves whenever people call on His name!
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 20, 2005.
I am not sticking up for schismatic traditionalists like the SSPX or SSPV but I have always wondered are priests and laity driven to these schismatic groups because our own bishops do not seem to think that 'Ecclesia Dei' exists since 1988?How many bishops in the USA and UK still say "NO" to hosting an indult Tridentine Mass after Pope JP II says,
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask support of the Bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.
"By virtue of my Apostolic Authority I Decree ... respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal ... of 1962."
-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
The local Bishop must have valid reasons for the lack of indult Latin Tridentine Mass in his diocese. Perhaps there's a lack of priests capable of celebrating the Mass in Latin. Perhaps he thinks that those who want to attend the indult LTM are too few and too far apart that it's not practical. Perhaps, etc.The faithful Catholic has the right to have access to the sacraments. The indult LTM is not a right but a privilege.
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which is in full communion with Rome, is a group of priests dedicated to the celebration of indult LTMs. Their growth would mean an increase of indult LTMs available to the Catholic faithful.
Bottom line, the LTMs celebrated by schismatic tradionalists (SSPX, SSPV, and Sedevacantist) are not approved by Rome and faithful Catholics should not frequent them.
The faithful Catholic who is attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, in the absence of the indult LTM in his diocese, will just have to withstand and "suffer" the holiness, inerrancy, practicality, solemnity, majesty, reverence, magnificence, humility, and beauty of the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
Having read all of the arguments against the New Mass, I can understand why there are people who feel rather strongly that it is not a valid mass.Many Catholics in the 1960's were told that the mass had not changed at all..it was the same mass, just in the vernacular. This is definitely not so.
When one takes the time to compare word for word both liturgies, one comes away wondering WHY the mass itself needed to be altered.
By altering the mass, there opened wide the door for all sorts of things which have caused much confusion and disunity within the Church. Does this mean that the mass itself is not valid? No, it doesn't. Vatican II was every bit as valid as any other Church council. The manner in which Vatican II was interpreted is at fault.
I find it interesting that Pope John Paul II did NOT shut the door on the "old" Tridentine mass, forever abandoning it, or decreeing that it can never be used again.
BOTH masses are valid. People who choose to leave the Church (as I did once) because of the "New mass" and all that came with it, are like the proverbial lost sheep..they need to be sought out with charity and understanding. The Church cannot be whole again with her people scattered in confusion and error, and how can the Holy Spirit work within you to heal the Church if you are not a part of it?
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
Look, the whole supposed problem with the Mass being in the venacular is silly - there are 7 main rites in the Catholic Church, the Latin is the largest, with about 90% of people, but the other major rites have always been equally valid (since before Trent) and THEY have ALWAYS had their Masses IN THEIR VENACULAR (Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, etc.)Indeed, the Latin rite WAS the Venacular of Western Europeans from the fall of the Roman Empire to the rise of modern nation states. Most European languages developed from 800 AD to 1400 AD.
Also as far as rite and rubrics goes, few in favor of the Tridentine rite know that St Pius V, who was a DOMINICAN, allowed the DOMINCANS TO HAVE THEIR OWN RITE WHICH WAS NOT THE TRIDENTINE.
So there you have it... millions of Catholics have had the Mass said in their native languages and in rites other than the Tridentine for centuries, including the last 500 years without ANY MORAL PROBLEM AT ALL.
Now we are to believe that all hell broke loose solely because the Latin Mass in the tridentine rubrics was largely discarded for the Latin rite? Hogwash. The problems we suffered since 1962 where long in coming and preparation. To think the Council or new rite is to blame is to fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (those who love latin know what that means so I won't translate).
For the sake of the argument, let's suppose that the language and rubrics of a Mass celebrated in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church are so essential that social and cultural problems spring directly from it. Fine. Please explain to me why then, in the centuries immediately following Trent, that we suffered the following:
The full break away of the Protestants, the rise of anti-Catholic and anti-Christians Masonry, the rise of securlar nation-states, the wars and secularization of society. The universal European experience of wars of persecution against the Church... Napolean's sacking of Rome, the anti-clerical regimes of the late 1800's, the rise of modern atheism, communism, fascism, nazism, and anarchy. The rise of satanism and paganism - which started in the 1920s.
Please explain to me how it was possible in the years when the Tridentine rite with Latin was being said on all the Latin rite's altars, that Christendom was destroyed, that the Church was persecuted, that vast numbers of people lived and died in atheism and fanatical ideologies...why the Church lost control of the culture and all the leaders thereof?
For those who think that all hell broke loose after Vatican II, or the Novus Ordo...what do you make of World Wars 1 and 2 and the Cold war????
Ah, of course, if you say that the Mass of St Pius V and Latin wasn't to blame for all these awful and unprecedented problems, then by what theory do you suddenly think all problems of the past 40 years are due to the Mass being said in the venacular in the new rite?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 21, 2005.
Wouldn't it be great to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in Aramaic, Jesus' native tongue, the original language of the Last Supper? The schismatic traditionalist Latin die-hards would disagree. I betcha those schismatic traditionalist Latin die-hards are so relieved that the homilies of the Latin Tridentine Mass are in the vernacular (and so are the schismatic celebrants).
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
David--I loved your remark about the "holiness, inerrancy, practicality..." etc. of the Novus Ordo Mass!Joe--your remarks about great evils in the world (wars, Masonry, etc.) breaking out *during* the time of the Tridentine usage is irrefutable. Thanks.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 21, 2005.
Can anyone answer why we needed such a drastic change in the Mass?The people did not ask for it.Church attendance was at 70-75 percent.
In just two decades it was down to 30 oercent. These figures are too drastic to be blamed on society. My answer is that they thought that it would help the ecumanical movement. It did not, as Protestants are still not flocking into the Church.
It was a big mistake which few people want to admit, but the evidence is all around us.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 21, 2005.
Look, the whole supposed problem with the Mass being in the venacular is sillyThe vernacular language is not the biggest problem with the Novus Ordo imo, nor the second biggest, third biggest or fourth biggest. Numero uno, for me, by a long shot, is the orientation of the mass and altar. I believe the priest facing the congregation is not a good thing, to say the least.
Cardinal Ratzinger has this to say about orientation: These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about "turning to the people") new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II's liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re- ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the Liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the Liturgy -- the Liturgy as a communal meal. This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate...In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest -- the "presider", as they now prefer to call him -- becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing...Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make a contribution of their own". Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern"...Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 21, 2005.
More Cardinal Ratzinger:The unprecedented manner in which Pope Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo of the Mass created tragic consequences for the Roman Catholic Church...Not only did the banning of the Old Mass represent a severe departure from tradition, but the revolutionary manner in which the new Mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own, not something which is given...the New Mass has become a source of liturgical anarchy, dividing Catholics into opposing party positions and creating a situation in which the Church is lacerating herself...I was dismayed by the banning of the Old Missal, seeing that a similar thing had never happened in the entire history of the liturgy. I am convinced that the ecclesiastical crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in a great part upon the collapse of the liturgy.---From My Life; Remembrances 1927-1997
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 21, 2005.
Thanks, Michael.John, One possible answer would be to facilitate the spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Mass in Mandarin would reach the farthest places in China. The Mass in Swahili would reach the deepest jungles of Kenya and Tanzania. The Mass in Portuguese would reach the innermost parts of the urban slums of Sao Paulo in Brazil. The Holy Catholic Church is generous and wise.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
Joe: Vatican II did not dictate that the mass be said in the vernacular. It said that the mass COULD be said in the vernacular.At issue for many people is the "new rite" of the mass itself, not necessarily the dropping of the use of Latin.
It is not the conjecture of anyone whom I have ever met that the fruits of Vatican II are responsible for the social and political decline of the modern world.
It IS the conjecture of many people whom I have met that the fruits of Vatican II are responsible for the spiritual decline of the Catholic Church.
It is my own opinion that the misinterpretation and misapplication of the VALID issuings from Vatican II are responsible for the spiritual decline of the Catholic Church.
After the Council of Trent, there was Protestantism..it was there BEFORE the Council met, hence the Councils' offer of safe passage to protestants who wished to attend.
After the Council of Trent, there were wars..yes, as there were before the council, and as there always will be. God has said it will be always so.
After the Council of Trent, there was secular government, yes. Before Trent, there was secular government..now there is secular goverment. So what?
Despite all of Protestantism, Napolean, secular government, two world wars and the Korean Conflict, the advent of Communism and atheism, and any other "ism", the Catholic Church REMAINED STRONG. It REMAINED united, firm, solidified..UNCHANGED..a beacon of light in a world gone mad.
And then..Vatican II..
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
You persist in the misunderstanding of this age, Lesley. Everything is affected today by the decline in morality and self-denial. We see this everywhere, not only in the Catholic sphere. Have you seen a movie lately? Or read a novel? Have you shopped for an outfit, or spoken to a university student or professor?I'm a faithful Novus Ordo believer, and my faith holds me above every one of these infectious things I'm mentioning. Novels full of sin and vice. Movies abounding in corruption and obscene language. I argue sometimes with liberal academics I know. They all hate conservatism and the Catholic Church. I ask one older lady, a teacher: ''Haven't you heard what Christ offers you? Life eternal?''
She replied, ''No way! I don't want to live for eternity!!!'' You shop and what do you see? indecent garments, filth in the CD recordings, suggestive ads.
This is pervasive since the 60's in America. Catholics at least might repent. You surely wouldn't place the blame on the Popes, would you? They have enough to do keeping the flock from taking over the Church --without the sheep accusing them-- ! ! ! of all this disorder! Instead of circling the wagons in communion with the Church, people like yourself and Smith and Emerald want to burn the wagons and blame other Catholics. WHY?
Let me tell you: Because you don't contemplate the Will of God. You judge everything superficially. When someone like me calls you to PRAYER and more PRAYER! You laugh at him, you say he's in denial!
Nobody can shake your self-confidence; not even the Holy Spirit. We are called to unshakeable FAITH, not beefing at all the bishops and our Holy Father, Lesley.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
Eugene. To recognize that there are great problems within the Church is NOT to destroy HER. One cannot merely choose to ignore the problems or to accuse those who wish to discuss them as being "against the Church".The only analogy I can think of at the moment is of a good Christian marriage where one spouse keeps trying to get the other to see that there is a problem and the other keeps saying, "yes, I KNOW there is a problem, but we needn't discuss it..we only have to PRAY and it will go away."
God gave us intellect. One reason that He gave it to us is to be able to recognize good from bad.
There ARE those of us Catholics who have experienced a lot of first- hand false teachings from priests. And the sad thing is that IF we didn't KNOW better, we'd have simply gone along and in our ignorance, taught OTHER Catholics those things..like our CHILDREN, and our neighbors, etc. etc. etc.
And so what is one to do then? Say nothing and pray for the priest to wake up and to get it right? Go behind his back and report him to his bishop? Stand up in church and denounce him as a heretic?
What's wrong with being charitable and asking to speak with him and say, "Father, we're concerned, since you said "xyz" and the Church teaches "abc". ??
What's wrong with sending a letter to the Bishop and alerting him to the fact that there is a hymn being published in the Catholic missal which promotes the idea of the Eucharist being merely bread and wine? Is it better to say nothing?
What's wrong with ASKING "why" the Mass had to be changed at all? And since the mass was changed, there are empty churches everywhere. The world has often been a place of madness, yet the Church has NEVER BEFORE BEEN AFFECTED. That's the key. Another "key" is that the Council of Trent specifically said NOT to change the Latin rite, for this very reason.
What's wrong with asking "what's wrong"?
There are Bishops and Cardinals who ask "what's wrong". Are they also against the entire Church?
My confessor is an 86 year old priest. He said to me the other day in tears..literally, "Lesley, I don't know whose Church this is anymore, but it's not mine." After devoting his entire LIFE to the Church, would you say THIS holy priest is against the Church? The final "straw" for him was the new directive from his bishop, informing him that the lay ministers are now to perform the rite of cleaning the chalices at mass, even though he is there. He held up his hands for me to see and said, "These hands were consecrated many years ago. Now they say that unconsecrated hands can touch the body and blood of Christ..pretty soon, they'll say they don't need to even have priests anymore..just the people."..He hoped that God would take him home soon. I do too.
Just as this very holy and devout priest loves the Church with his whole heart, so do the people whom you think to be against the Church. He is not against Her and neither am I.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
Dear Lesley:
I've suggested before, the sheepfold is governed by shepherds. Sheep aren't saving anybody today-- as they seem to think. They must remain humble, and be served by the one in charge. Ordained for the task by Christ.I need a quick answer. An example of this: "Father, we're concerned, since you said "xyz" and the Church teaches "abc". ??--
What was this ''departure'' from an orthodox teaching of the apostles, or the Catholic Church?
Tell us, so we have a better idea of what alarmed you. Now-- I have a brother-in-law; and he even laughs telling us; a radical priest in San Diego advised his son before his marriage-- in confession;
That it was not a mortal sin to have sexual relations with his fiance, as long as he loved her and was about to marry her.-- And he was confronted later by my bro-in-law; that priest. ''I told him I'd punch him out if he ever spoke to my son again!'' He was hot! Hah!
Yes, it shocked me. I've known a few bad priests, and I believed him. But-- as it happens; our radical priest is in a mental ward since the 80's. He was deranged. He was NOT the Church speaking, Lesley. He was an unfortunate man, out of his mind. (Even so, I'm glad my brother-in-law didn't hurt him. It would have been a sacrilege, IMO.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
About the elderly priest, who says it's no longer ''his'' Church. (Which it's not; it's Christ's Church) --if you take too seriously his disapproval for instance, of''These hands were consecrated many years ago. Now they say that unconsecrated hands can touch the body and blood of Christ,'' you have to realise, the touching of the sacred species by devout laymen is not a modern aberration at all. The ancient Church during and after the apostolic era, everywhere gave Holy Communion into the hands of our faithful. It's not a sin; in spite of priests' hands being consecrated. They are consecrated because they offer the sacrifice of the Mass; not because your own hands are profane or inferior to the priest's. There's no teaching in the church which makes such a distinction. There is NO offense to the Body and Blood of Jesus, as long as the eucharistic minister is duly authorised by the pastor, and the bishop consents to it.
Just consider; Mass and the transubstantiation remain just as VALID and pleasing to our Father Almighty when the priest himself is in mortal SIN; consecrated as his hands might be! The Blessed Sacrament cannot be desecrated at all, by devout hands. Only a sinner himself offends God.
In the case of the elderly priest; what causes him sorrow is definitely not sinful practices in the Church. He is overcome by his own nostalgia. May God love him and give him peace. He can't help feeling like an anachronism. But he shouldn't fault the Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
Trent dealt with the problems of the 16th Century. Vatican II dealt with the problems of the 20th Century. The next Council will have to deal with the problems of the Third Millenium. The Holy Spirit faithfully guides each and every Council into making infallible and inerrant decisions regarding the Holy Eucharist -- the very Center of Church Life. Trent's Latin Tridentine Mass is Perfect; and so is Vatican II's Novus Ordo Mass. There is no need to pit them against each other. The next infallible and inerrant Council of the Living Church might decide that another form of Mass is best suited for the Third Millenium. The Living Holy Spirit is full of surprises.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
Not true..The Catholic Church suffered serious schisms in France and Germany in the 1700's and 1800's. Every single European country saw public persecution of the Church with the ensuing loss of thousands of bishops, priests, nuns, monks, etc. with the inevitable loss of millions of lay people...You think the Church was "strong"? Lemme tell you something about a persecuted church that isn't strong: millions of lay people who simply drop out of the faith! Sure the institution survives and a remnant keeps faith...but you call that a victory when 80% of the people filling the pews are lost as is their decendents?!
The Church in the US was weak in many ways from the 1700s to the 20th century...
Really folks, please read some detailed historical accounts of the Church's experience in other countries before thinking that all was hunky dory before Vatican II.
There was 70% Church attendance in this country...but not everywhere else.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 21, 2005.
David and Joe,Many thanks for your words of wisdom and insight. Christ be with you.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 21, 2005.
Lesley;That old priest telling his story is very sad indeed. I know a much younger priest who is troubled by the N.O. mass, bu obedient as he is he continues to say it as devoutly as possible. Not using the consecration words as a narrative, but stopping at the sacred words, bending low over the altar and saying slowly, "This is my Body", and also for the chalice. He would do the tridentine always if he had the chance. He said that people complain about his masses. how about that! I have seen most priests when I attended the novus ordo, hold up the Host and just narrate it from beginning to end. He just finished telling us a story thats all. I doubt the validity of sucn a consecration.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 21, 2005.
This may shock some staunch novus odo advocates. The vatican itself acknowledges that many masses in the united stated are invalid.I am betting that it won't
The state of Anglican orders/services at the end of the 19th century was certainly a cut ABOVE today's Novus Ordo service, and yet Pope Leo found Anglicanism invalid. In every case, the defects of Anglicanism as he described them in 1896 were only a fraction of the defects of today's Novus Ordo. Therefore, one could easily argue that what the pope said about the invalidity of Anglicanism is true a fortiori of the New Order.
Even the Vatican doesn't agree with the statement about "indefectibility." As the Letter from the Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the President of the [U.S.] National Council of Catholic Bishops, as approved by Pope John Paul II on May 11, 1979, indicates, a significant number of Masses said in the United States are invalid because of defect of matter. Given later information published by the U.S. dioceses themselves, the situation is worse now than it was then. Thus, even the Vatican implies that vast numbers of Masses in this country are invalid.
-- John Smith (A@a.com), January 21, 2005.
The majority of priests I know say the words of consecration with the utmost reverence. None more so than my pastor, who is 35. Why wouldn't they? It is the same sacrament, the same Mass, the same reality. That's just the point.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2005.
Smith's posts have been travesty followed by mendacity followed by atrocity. Everything except respect for authority. By now his credibility is in debility without any civility.There's no need to quarrel with John any longer, Thank God. Just consider the source. This is the fellow who took a cheap shot at Mother Theresa.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
John,You can't "copy" text from a different website and then "paste" it here without citing your schismatic traditionalist sources properly. This is the second time I've noticed you do such a thing. If a part of your post is not your own words, you will have to identify your sources.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
And also with you, Michael.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
This was an article in daily catholic. I did not mean to fool anyone as they reflected my beiefs.Do they lie about the vatican saying that some masses are invalid?
You either will have to doubt them or believe them. It is a bit of a tenuous situation.
What is so difficult is that you think that after 40 years there is not a bit of a problem. Someone said that the drop in attendance was only in America. That is correct. It is far worse in Europe and other places.
At this rate the novus ordo will be almost extinct in 50 years. Stop having the fear of looking at the numbers and start doing something about it.
What is your greatest weapon aside from prayer? Your pocketbook. That, they will understand.
I don't get any joy out of this. I feel awful about it, but reality is still just that, even if I don't like it.
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 21, 2005.
When I hear something like this, I know the devil has bought that soul: ''What is your greatest weapon aside from prayer? Your pocketbook. That, they will understand.''Only someone mercenary raises this kind of suggestion. A sell-out who thinks everything's got a price, even faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
Here are some stats about the decline of the church. Priests, nuns, brothers, parishoners. Worse yet the oss of faith on divorce, abortion, belieff in the Real Presence.Go ahead mock the numbbers if that makes you feel better. It does not make me feel better.
1965 Current Priests 58,000 (doubled from 1930-1965) now 45,000 (only 31,000 projected for 2020; more than half will be over 70) New ordinations 1,575 down to 450 Parishes without priests 1% to 15% Seminarians 49,000 down to 4,700 (down by 90%) Seminaries 600 down to 200 Sisters 180,000 down to 75,000 (aver. age: 68) Teaching Sisters 104,000 down to down to 8,200 (down by 94%) Jesuit seminarians 3,559 down to 389 Christians Brothers candidates 912 down to an amazing 7 Franciscan and Redemptorist seminarians 3,379 down to 84 Catholic high school population 700,000 down to 386,000 Catholic elementary school population 4.5 million now below 2 million Annulments* was 338 now 50,000 Attendance at Mass (in 1958) 3 out of 4 now 1 out of 4
* The number of Catholic marriages has fallen by one-third since 1965, although the number of Catholics has risen by 20 million.
You may be tempted to think that these figures are possibly reprints. Sadly, they are not. The shocking figures tell the story....
Mr. Buchanan’s report includes some equally tragic percentages, as gleaned from polls or other research methods:
Catholics aged 18-44 who believe that the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus - 70% Lay religious teachers who believe: • A Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic - 53% • A Catholic may divorce and remarry - 65% • One can be a good Catholic without attending Sunday Mass - 77%
Mr. Buchanan concludes: “Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway. Jones’ statistics tell us the price of appeasement.”
These are horrific numbers. Even if you say it is only half true it is still horrible.
But stop saying that everything is fine, the Holy Spirit is on the job, and trads are doom and gloom people. They are realists!
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 21, 2005.
Stop it with the pseudo science. In not ONE of those surveys is the factor of repentence and final perseverance taken in account. Millions or multi-millions of souls advanced and receded, finding redemption as they reached some later point in life; even on a deathbed. Numbers mean nothing. You do the devil's work preaching defeatism for the sake of setting up an anti-Church in the face of our Pope. We stand with Peter; Smith is just an alias used by the evil one. Is that too severe? He's on a witch hunt and the witch is Peter, isn't it?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.
First: To John Smith..how could it possibly be of any benefit whatsoever to healing within the Church to even suggest that people stop contributing financially to it? In my hometown of Boston, I thought it shameful that so many people did just that, as some kind of "protest" to the Archdiocese's handling of the sexual abuse issues. Their "financial protest" took food and clothing and shelter away from the thousands of needy people whom the Catholic Church serves on a daily basis. That kind of idea is not productive, but distructive.Eugene, the priest who was in error whom I was referring to was teaching that as Catholic married couples, we have the responsibilty to listen to the Church's teaching on contraception, YET we must examine our "own consciences", and IF we find that "in our own conscience, as a married couple, we are not "MERELY" using artificial contraception for our own sexual gratification, but utilizing it for "moral means", then we would not be sinning to utilize it. "..In other words, his point was that you can use artificial means of birth control and not be in sin if you are doing it so that you don't have too many kids and run out of money to feed them, etc.
This was said in a Church-sponsored class for married couples that my husband and I attended, since my husband isn't Catholic. A much younger couple asked the question, concerned about using "the pill", and asking if it would be a sin.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
John,Your source of information is wicked and corrupt.
www.dailycatholic.org is a schismatic traditionalist website. It gave the Holy Catholic Church derogatory names such as Neo-Church, Counterfeit Church, and Post-Conciliar Church. It is Anti-Rome. It promotes SSPX doctrines and trashes the Novus Ordo rite.
"Daily Catholic" is a misnomer. That website is Non-Catholic.
You did not get your stats from "Daily Catholic," did you? Which Buchanan? Where did you get Mr. Buchanan's report? Please cite your sources properly. Cite the author or the web page. Give us a link. Play fair. You are not about to convert faithful Catholics to schismatic traditionalists simply by spamming.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 21, 2005.
David,"Your source of information is wicked and corrupt. "
No its not! Can you refute the statics?
Thats what I thought.
-- - (David@excite.com), January 21, 2005.
Lesley; I stand by my statement of not giving your money to the novus ordo.Do you want to drop your cotributions into the collection to pay off pedophile settlements? How many of the poor and hungry would that feed? Maybe we should drop an extra ten spot for the lawyers.
There used to be a society called the Propagation for the faith.
Now it is to pay off pervert damages. Anyway, where is the faith propagated these days.
Cardinal Law has to get out of town to beat the law( coincidence in that name). Does the pope chew him out,defrock him, demote hime? Not at all. He promotes him to head some basilica somewhere. That is ruling with an iron hand isn't it?
Remember that all these bishops (some of them pedophiles themselves), were appointed by this pope.
Like Harry Truman said many years ago "The buck stops here". None of these folks want to find the slightest fault with John Paul. That is very sad. No one is judging his soul, but his record is very public.
Yes , and all thos people that left the church after V2, are now returned with a stronger faith than ever.
Pick your own poll on what is happening, Gallup, Zogbie, you name it. But of course they are all wrong.
Churches around here are down to a skeleton staff with marrid deacons doing most of the work.
I don't need any poll to see empty churches with mostly senior citizens in attendance Where are the young people?
If you want to continue in "the ostrich syndrome", go right ahead.
I don't want to come across as mean, but when you see people with their heads floating up there somewhere, it gets frustrating.
I know Mr Chavez. It is the devil incarnate talking to you. Sure.
When did you last stand out in front of an abortion clinic? Or go to Washington D.C.
Well I did!
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 21, 2005.
A note of caution to non-Catholics:It is not sufficient to use a search engine using a topic such as "abortion and catholics" or "Tridentine Mass" and expect that everything that you read which SAYS it is written as Catholic authority, or even by some priest, or bishop is actually sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
At first glance it may appear to be, but if you read ANYTHING on any website which says that Pope John Paul II is in error, or that the Council of Vatican II was not a valid council, or that Catholics need not follow EACH AND EVERY TEACHING of the Church, then the website is not putting forth what the Catholic Church teaches.
There are clergy who have fallen away from the Church who have given their names to false teachings.
There are people who are actively against the "New Mass" and think it is not a valid mass at all.Many of these people also do not think that Pope John Paul II is a valid Pope. One can find MANY websites putting forth this rhetoric. IMHO it is an example of how much influence satan has over the "airways".
And then there are Catholics who believe that the "New" mass is quite valid, and without question so is His Holiness Pope John Paul II..and that Vatican II was valid, yet poorly implemented and that the poor implementation of it's decrees has caused much harm to the Church at large. These Catholics also bemoan the loss of the deep sense of spirituality which once was so obvious within the Mass itself..the prayers which are no longer said at all, the externals which assisted one to be lifted up in his worship of Almighty God.
And then there are the Catholics who feel very strongly that the "New" mass is wonderful, moving, deeply spiritual, and perfect in itself. They see the societal issues of the culture being the reasons for any issues in the Church, rather than anything within the Church being the cause.
The Church teaches that approved Tridentine masses are valid. People who wish to attend masses where the liturgy is the same as it was in the Middle Ages until 1965 can do so. The problem is in trying to find one to attend.
ALL "New" masses are valid masses. They can be found everywhere that there is a Catholic Church.
If someone would care to observe a "New Mass" said using both English and Latin, turn on EWTN the Catholic cable channel. This is not the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass has liturgy which was removed by Vatican II. Prayers were taken out, and some words were changed in the prayers which were left in. Hence the controversy arose for some. Many people erroneously think the "New mass" is the Tridentine mass in the vernacular..it is not.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005.
David, (@excite.com)I was referring to www.dailycatholic.org, my friend, as the source of John's post (he claimed) beginning with "The state of Anglican orders/services at the end of the 19th century was certainly a cut ABOVE today's Novus Ordo service ..." Check out the schismatic traditionalist website for yourself and see if it edifies your Catholic sensibility.
John has not yet been gracious enough to provide us with the source of his numbers.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 22, 2005.
Here is an excerpt from that heretical rag ,the daily catholicWhile Modern Rome would have you believe they are being unfairly attacked and that the SSPX are the perpetrators, it's also a fact that satan doesn't like to be unmasked. That's what Traditionalists are vowed to do, unmask the prince of darkness in order to blow out of the Church the smoke of satan which, like carbon monoxide, has slowly but surely suffocated the faithful in every way. Apologies won't do anymore, it's time for mass resignations of prelates who have compounded the sin of the first, fifth, sixth and seventh commandments by violating the eighth commandment. But Modern Rome continues to spin the heresies of ecumenism such as condoning and promoting the anathema that it is alright for the Jews to wait for the Messiah (1. Changes in Doctrine and New Anathemas), while focusing all their energies not on cleaning up the scandals and punishing the abusers, but in attacking those who strive to uphold the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. Talk about topsy- turvy. It's time to clean things up from the inside out, much in the manner Pope Saint Gregory VII, the holy monk Hildebrand cleaned up the clergy some 970 years ago. Sadly, rather than a Gregory VII, we seem to have today men like Nero whose logic seem to be insane in the scope of adhering to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. Sadly, while the cover-up continues and more souls are burned, Rome fiddles away more souls.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.
Go to google, ask for polls that show declines in catholic mass attendance and take your pick. Here is a bit of another one.And finally, the decline of the Catholic Church in America has dramatically harmed the USA. According to a 1958 Gallup Poll, 74% of American Catholics attended mass every week. Now, the number stands at 25%. With 65 million members, the Catholic Church in America is by far the nation's largest, and used to set a moral tone that was taken seriously by society in general. That's over now, because of the priest scandals and the lack of leadership within the American Catholic Church.
I repeat, this is not for joy. I don't think that Paul Revere was enjoying the bad news that "The British are coming"
-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.
Schismatic traditionalists love to paint a false picture wherein the Holy Catholic Church is ebbing to death. Furthermore, they have a myopic point of view.The ANNUARIUM STATISTICUM ECCLESIAE 2001 by the Vatican's Central Office for Statistics of the Church published in L'Osservatore Romano contends:
"CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOWS STABLE AND STEADY GROWTH WORLDWIDE"
WORLD (40% increase)
(1978) 756,533,000 Catholics
(2001) 1,060,840,000 Catholics
AFRICA (147% increase)
(1978) 54,759,000
(2001) 135,660,000
AMERICA (44% increase)
(1978) 366,614,000
(2001) 528,103,000
ASIA (71% increase)
(1978) 63,183,000
(2001) 108,168,000
EUROPE (5% increase)
(1978) 266,361,000
(2001) 280,589,000
OCEANIA (48% increase)
(1978) 5,616,000
(2001) 8,320,000_______________________________
WORLD (76% increase)
(1978) 63,882 Candidates to the Catholic Priesthood
(2001) 112,244 Candidates to the Catholic Priesthood
AFRICA (272% increase)
(1978) 5,636
(2001) 20,994
AMERICA (68% increase)
(1978) 22,011
(2001) 37,166
ASIA (136% increase)
(1978) 11,536
(2001) 27,265
EUROPE (8% increase)
(1978) 23,915
(2001) 25,908
OCEANIA (16% increase)
(1978) 784
(2001) 911______________________________
WORLD (25% increase)
(1978) 3,714 Catholic Bishops
(2001) 4,649 Catholic Bishops
AFRICA (43% increase)
(1978) 432
(2001) 616
AMERICA (23% increase)
(1978) 1,416
(2001) 1,743
ASIA (28% increase)
(1978) 519
(2001) 665
EUROPE (20% increase)
(1978) 1,253
(2001) 1,500
OCEANIA (33% increase)
(1978) 94
(2001) 125______________________________
WORLD (4% decrease)
(1978) 420,971 Catholic Priests
(2001) 405,067 Catholic Priests
AFRICA (65% increase)
(1978) 16,926
(2001) 27,988
AMERICA (1% increase)
(1978) 120,271
(2001) 121,147
ASIA (60% increase)
(1978) 27,700
(2001) 44,446
EUROPE (17% decrease)
(1978) 250,498
(2001) 206,761
OCEANIA (15% decrease)
(1978) 5,576
(2001) 4,725______________________________
WORLD (425% increase)
(1978) 5,562 Catholic Deacons
(2001) 29,204 Catholic Deacons
AFRICA (309% increase)
(1978) 91
(2001) 372
AMERICA (351% increase)
(1978) 4,239
(2001) 19,100
ASIA (121% increase)
(1978) 52
(2001) 115
EUROPE (732% increase)
(1978) 1,133
(2001) 9,425
OCEANIA (309% increase)
(1978) 47
(2001) 192[Renewal of the Number of Priests] "It can be said that the replacement of the quota of priests is guaranteed when the relationship between seminarians and priests (per 100) is not less than 12.5 percent. This threshold value has been largely supplanted across the world, although geographical differences, as always, are rather marked and deserve a brief comment. If in Africa, Asia and Central and South America the renewal of the quota of priests is by and large adequate, North America, with the indicator at 9.7, is below the threshold of replacement. The same is occurring in certain parts of Europe. Let us take two examples of particular importance and not only from the numerical viewpoint: Italy (11.3 percent) is below the threshold, whereas in Poland (24.5 percent) renewal is largely guaranteed. The average situation in Europe (12.5 percent), which coincides with the threshold of renewal, would be such as to guarantee the renewal of the number of priests."
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 22, 2005.
This latest attack by Smith is mounted because he has been challenged and feels the tide turning against him for good. We saw the clues repeatedly, of his animosity and dishonesty. He slurs our Holy Father openly now. Not indirectly, but with open scorn. A man who pleads in favor of traditional doctrines and follows by trashing canonized saints, urging the faithful to destroy their parishes financially, and denying the sacred presence of Jesus Christ upon the altars-- John Smith is not a traditional Catholic. Far from it, he literally serves the devil. Even if other souls here were sincere in their desire for Latin Masses for themselves and others; Smith is interested only in trashing the heirarchy and our Pope. He speaks for Satan here; and we've exposed him.That's one reason he retaliates by pasting scandal sheets and bias from his schismatic church. The devil won't accept defeat; he shows his plain hatred in that manner. And, just a side-light to the farce;
Another reason: Any financial support Smith can scare away from the true Church would be donated quite likely to his own sweet mother; anti-Church. He exposed very unwittingly how he esteems money. ''That's a lot of money the Church gets from Novus Ordo parishes. --Let's put a stop to that!''
Very transparent, Smitty. Does Satan promise you a comission? Better take care. He's a proven liar, you know.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.
Eugene! Shouldn't you give John the benefit of the doubt as to being a human being of good will? Calling him in the service of Satan is a bit over the top, don't you think?
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 22, 2005.
Do you think so. Michael?Why would Our Lord say to certain individuals in Jerusalem, ''You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil?'' (Matt 12:34), and, ''Woe to you Scribes, Parisees; because you are like whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead mens's bones and uncleanness. So you outwardly appear just to men but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.'' ( Matt, 23: 27--) --For being human beings of good will?
''Calling Smith in the service of Satan is a bit over the top, don't you think?'' I wonder, Michael-- When Smith enters a solid Catholic forum with every intention of recruiting you into anti-Catholic groups? That is NOT good will. Who would benefit by dividing the Catholic Church; not you or me. Only Satan.
Confrontation with Satan demands we confront them who attack God's holy sanctuary, labelling it false, unscriptural, full of evil men. Look at his appraisal of Mother Theresa; of Pope John Paul II, of the saints he recently canonized.
This man serves no church. Satan won't serve God's Church; he'll ruin us if we don't confront his messengers.
Whether he's consciously aware of it or not; Smith works for Satan. The Pharisees ight not have been aware, yet they did the devil's dirty work. Christ confronted them for the express purpose of making them aware. He told them: ''Get real-- This is what you do, and it's sinful'' We do it here for Smith. He must stop being unaware of whom he serves by subversion of the Holy Catholic Church. Good will MY EYE.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.
Well Our Lord said "If they hated me they will hate you".. He was so right.They also said about Him "Can't you see that He has a devil".
I guess I fit that description but so did te Lord, so what the heck.
Anyway to Lesley; Here is an excerpt from Quo Primum Tempore. No pope even today's pope can stop any priest from saying the traditional mass They will tell you that Quo Primum was a discipline. Well if that is all that it was, why was it not abrogated. It has certainly been a thorn in the side of the conciliaar church.
I"ll tel you why it has not been abrogated(though hidden), because it scares the dickens out of them to do so.
That closing punch line stops them.
Here is the priests part;
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force - notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing
This is why you got a brand new mass and not an adjustment of the old one.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.
The ones who claimed Jesus had a devil were precisely those whom He challenged, the way Smith is being challenged. Now he thinks he can say it to the Pope?And, we weren't handed '' a brand new mass and not an adjustment of the old one;'' our Mass is the same as all Traditional counterparts; the same as the Mass of Trent. Our Tridentine Rite (WE STILL HAVE IT,) came long after the Greek language celebrations and the Lord's Last Supper, celebrated in Aramaic. All are one and the same Holy Mass. John Smith is making heretical interpretations of those papal writings, and he aligns them against our own reigning Pontiff. He's a schismatic, and serves a cause of the devil's; to divide Catholics into two camps.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.
Dear J.S.A grant "in perpetuity" "nothwithstanding previous decrees" etc., can be granted by *any* pope. It is not a definition of doctrine, it *is* a discipline. Otherwise popes would never be able to rule, or we'd end up bound like Mary Baker Eddy's "Christian Science" churches, which haven't been able to change a jot or tittle of her service since she died--much to their detriment.
"Notwithstanding" is an interesting word. It can be used as much by Paul VI as by Pius V, and has the same force in either case.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 22, 2005.
There is no problem with the Latin Tridentine Mass. It's Perfect. A faithful Catholic can attend an Indult LTM, approved by the Vatican and the local Bishop, as often as he wishes, if accessible.The problem lies with the excommunicated schismatic priests (SSPX, SSPV, Sedevacantist). They are not authorized by the Vatican nor the local Bishop to celebrate the LTM yet they do in disobedience. They reject Rome's instructions. They follow their own private judgment. They broke their vow of obedience to the Church.
-- David (d50ev@people.net), January 22, 2005.
But they didn't use it, and will never use it!In perpetuity does not mean "until next time" not in my dictionary.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.
Answer this;If SSX and SSPV and all the other traditionals are out of the church, how come Rome recognizes their mass as valid.
We are told that to keep your faculties you must be incardinated to a diocesan bishop. They are not, but the Vatican does not deny the validity of their mass.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 22, 2005.
Who is Rome? Are you referring to the one, legitimate and everlasting Catholic Church of the apostles? There is no Rome to approve any Mass. That's the term favored by heretics.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.
Well, validity of the Mass doesn't have anything to do with being obedient. To have a *valid* Mass, all you need is a validly ordained priest. Likewise, any old heretic can Baptize as long as water and the Triune Name are used.The problem is *disobedience* to the Holy Father, which makes the SSPX Masses *illicit* even though they are *valid*. I admit I have not looked at the documents instituting Novus Ordo, and am curious what wording they use.
But SSPX is in disobedience--claiming to be sons of the Holy Father, they defy him.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 22, 2005.
Dear J.S.,I just checked it out, and found that "in perpetuity" is simply a technical phrase meaning something will be in effect until and unless abrogated by an equal or greater authority. If you will remember, the Panama Canal was leased to the United States "in perpetuity" also, but Panama now has the canal.
Hence--for example--Clement XIV abolished the Jesuit Order "in perpetuity", but Pius VII re-established them. A later pope has power to set aside the orders (but not the ex cathedra teachings) of a previous pope.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 22, 2005.
Michael,
You're exactly correct. But don't look for John to bother with this trivial interruption.John has no interest in the facts as they support the authenticity of a vernacular liturgy. If the current Pontiff isn't safe from John's hard appraisal, why should your messages trouble him? He's on a witch hunt and John Paul II is his quarry; with the 2nd Vatican Council.
The schismatics' hour coincides with an upheaval all round the world which is actually upon us. It wasn't caused by a lax Catholic religion, as the schismatics insist. The Church is sacrosanct, protected from the world. But John Smith comes here arguing for the world, and the powers of the world.
Which is why I ventured to say he is a devil's advocate; an errand-boy for Satan. They run the world.
According to the visions of Anna Catherina Emmerich, in the final half century or so of the world, Satan was to be released from captivity; permitted to raise hell for a time. It's God who sends this trial. A relatively brief one, prophesied as well by Christ.
If this is not that period, I miss my guess. It's no time for capitulating to the devil's deceit. John Smith was sent to make our Church lose the faithful. The Church may be decimated, because men are unworthy. But never will she retreat an inch from Satan. There's no call to. We aren't his slaves. John Smith is here to only to sound the retreat for the Catholic faithful. He doesn't have any faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, nor in our Advocate, the Holy Spirit. You can't convince him there even is a Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2005.
Michael; I do not like to disagre with you but quo primum is a dogmatic pronoucement.Primum still binding?
By Raymond Taouk
Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.
First, in issuing the solemn decree, the pope is carrying out the decrees of a dogmatic council. Second, the Mass contains much essential doctrine (remember: lex orandi legem credendi statuit). Third, the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass is not an exceptional rite, but the universal rite of the Church, being the rite of the See of Rome. The pope was simply restating the 16-century Sacred Tradition of the Church in this case.
At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. Thus it can be said that the refusal of the new liturgy and adherence to the Traditional Mass, the suspension and any canonical pain are invalid in virtue of the Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V which give to all priest the perpetual right to celebrate the Mass of "St Pius V" and declares null and void any censures against a priest who celebrates this Mass". Further St. Puis V would not have made us of the severe condemnatory language that is used in Quo Primum if he were making some minor editions but rather it is because he was binding for all eternity the Mass of the Roman rite.
We must not wrongly think that Pope Pius V was "binding" something new. He was simply acknowledging that he was bound, as all popes are, by the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The fallacy that may be made is the "Tridentine Mass" idea. There is no essentially "Tridentine Mass." What is being talked about is the Latin (Roman) Mass of Sacred Tradition, as it was said at the Roman See, in essence from the beginning, but basically in the form we know it since at least the 6th century, and in most parts even earlier. Pope St. Pius V, was not introducing a new Mass; he was canonizing the Roman Mass which has been handed down to us from the Apostles. To further confirm this venerable Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) himself said in response to a request that he add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass, "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"
Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:
"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum is the mass of all time, any thing else is invalid.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
No pope can make an ex cathedra statement about the order of the Mass because it isn't a doctrinal issue. Period!
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 23, 2005.
JS,Rather than go through this again, why not look at the other 80 threads on the subject?
If SSX and SSPV and all the other traditionals are out of the church, how come Rome recognizes their mass as valid.
Their masses are still considered valid for the benefit of the faithful. They are NOT considered licit. Some of the sacraments of these excommunicated priests are even considered *valid*, such as marriage or confession. You can read up on it under "excommunication". It is very unwise to deliberately attend the mass of an excommunicated and unrepentant priest. Why would one do this and have him preach whatever his schism/heresy is to you?
Quo Primum is a solemn papal decree binding on the Church "in perpetuity" and condemning any whom would depart from it, as the pope indicated.
You've obviously never READ quo primum. It says the mass must be *without change*. If you look at the history of the Tridentine mass, the FIRST changes to it were made ~30 years after Quo Primum was decreed, so that the Catholic mass was either invalidated in the 1600's, OR, it doesn't mean what you think it does, LOL. BTW, the Tridentine itself underwent dozens of changes up until 1962.
Give it a rest. The Pope and Magesterium changed the rite of mass. If you don't accept *their* authority to do so, you aren't Catholic any more. Who has the ability to bind and loosen, the pope, or you?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2005.
OOPS!Some of the sacraments of these excommunicated priests are ***NOT*** even considered *valid*, such as marriage or confession.
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2005.
Frank, even the modernists would tell you that if the Sacraments were invalid, the Church would "supply jurisdiction". Which is completely lame... first, they make bold proclamations as to the invalidity of the confessions and marriages. Then they immediately turn around and say that they it's ok, because the Church supplied jurisdiction according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Therefore, they say, they were valid. Yet another bizarre excercise in holding two contrary positions at one and the same time. Straight out of the theology books of St. Pavlov's Obedience School.As for the issue of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, the form of the words of the Consecration is still intact. The actual form consists of This is my Body and This is the chalice of My Blood. The words for all or for many do not affect the form, and therefore, do not affect validity. That is, of course, if all other conditions having been satisfied: valid matter and intention.
Obviously, for many is proper and more accurate, because those were the actual words of Christ, and they had a specific meaning. The Novus Ordo slips the for all ambiguity in there to make way for the new Ecumenism... duh. Not one of the other 22 rites uses for all, and the only one that does has used it for only 40 years out 2,000 total. It's a no-brainer: the proper phrase is for many.
Of course, Frank and Gene are going to throw a rod and make up a bunch of stuff about how if someone says something like this, then they aren't "following the pope". St. Pavlov strikes again.
There is a sense in which Christ shed His Blood for all; however, only some avail themselves of it towards their salvation. The Blood of Christ will be one of two things to a soul in the ultimate end: the soul will have either taken this Blood as a remedy, or, they will be guilty of shedding this Blood. The many refers to those who partake in it as a remedy and for their salvation. All, of course, is everybody. Given what goes on in most parishes, they have no idea what they are calling down on themselves by means of their silly attachments to "inclusiveness" if they themselves do not know or care what they are receiving.
No, the many/all issue doesn't invalidate the Mass one way or another, so long as the form is retained, and of course intention is there and the proper matter.
Is the Novus Ordo an equal liturgy to the Traditional Mass? Of course not. Not by a long shot. I won't even go to them unless for whatever reason I have absolutely no alternative. Every time I do it's a reminder of why I take my family to the Traditional Mass.
And that's before people start ad libbing and changing it as they go, further abusing it. I'm talking about your reverent Novus Ordo Masses. Why? I've got a traditional Mass to go to. It's superior. So are the Eastern liturgies.
A superior liturgy for a superior people? Not by a long shot. At the traditional Mass, no one approaches the altar without a profound understanding of their sinfulness and littleness.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Nice long post Emerald, but you completely overlooked the sticky part for him which is of course that if Quo Primum read the way you guys want it to there hasn't been a true mass said in 400 years. You aren't honest with yourself or others. If the church can CHANGE the Tridentine, it can replace it with something else.And on the sacraments of an excommunicated priest, you have again put YOURSELF in two contradictory positions! For the Tridentine, you say that people should be able to do what the pre-vat II popes said to, and not what the current magesterium teaches, BUT, if the old church taught that these priests' sacraments were invalid, your justification that that's o.k. is because the *current* church will allow them anyway!
I couldn't even call your approach "cafeteria catholicism". It's more like "I'll just do what I want and only believe the parts of any church history that supports it, and will REFUSE TO SEE the other parts that conflict with it Catholicism".
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2005.
"Nice long post Emerald, but you completely overlooked the sticky part for him which is of course that if Quo Primum read the way you guys want it to there hasn't been a true mass said in 400 years. You aren't honest with yourself or others. If the church can CHANGE the Tridentine, it can replace it with something else."I didn't overlook it. I just didn't mention it. So if you want to talk about it, let's.
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used."
That means that all those people that have employed themselves in frantic armwaving trying to stave off people from assisting at the traditional Masses, as if it were wrongheaded, or as if it were an aberration from a true sense of tradition? They're all full of it.
And the popes can change some of this stuff, liturgically that is, and depending on exactly what it is. They may also have to answer for it. That's something you don't mention.
It also means this: in indicates that all those who attend traditional Masses are not guilty of all charges of schism for doing so. Those other people who take issue with them attending? Lay off. That's what it means. They're the ones that are full of it, full of themselves, and full a genuine lack of understanding of tradition and what it means.
"And on the sacraments of an excommunicated priest, you have again put YOURSELF in two contradictory positions! For the Tridentine, you say that people should be able to do what the pre-vat II popes said to, and not what the current magesterium teaches, BUT, if the old church taught that these priests' sacraments were invalid, your justification that that's o.k. is because the *current* church will allow them anyway!"
Sorry, that doesn't represent my position. You must have missed my point. That's exactly what I'm saying the modernists do. It is a two-faced game they play, and that's what I was pointing out. With one face, they invite and encourage novelty and suppress dogmatic reality. UNTIL it suits them to dredge up tradition and dogma in their favor in order ot cover for themselves or dismiss a problematic consquence with they have incurred.
"I couldn't even call your approach "cafeteria catholicism". It's more like "I'll just do what I want and only believe the parts of any church history that supports it, and will REFUSE TO SEE the other parts that conflict with it Catholicism"."
Nah. It's basically just you having trouble keeping a focus on the principles of any given topic of conversation. That, plus having the goofy idea in your head that somehow I am at odds with Holy Mother Church, and you're not.
By all means, if you want to keep discussing this, go right ahead. All your implications that I'm speaking and acting against the Church will eventually fall flat. There's good reason for that: It isn't true.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Quo Primum is interpreted in two ways. Pre vatican two and post vatican two. That is where the conflict comes in. When there are two churches, there are two diferent meanings.As for the traditional mass being changed since quo primim, yes, a total of 26 words, in the canon of the mass. Mostly the addition of saints names.
If Pius ninth couldn't even add St. Joseph to the canon, he must have thought the document to be dogmatic.
St. Joseph was not added because he died before the mass was instituted.
As for "for all", it may or may not be valid but it most certainly is sacrilegious. Where is your proof that Jesus said for all. None . It even was "for all men" until the feminists objected. Blatant ecumanism was the reason, and to heck with what Our Lord said, or did not say.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
The way to know when something is truly holy and valid when parties disagree is to ask; where is the Holy Spirit a party? THE party.We defer to Him, not to men intent on dividing the Church. John and Emerald et al are dividers. Nothing can bring them back to the Holy Spirit and to ecumenism and our reigning Pope; short of a miracle. They're blind men, come here to lead the blind. But we're able to see, as in the state of grace. Sorry to disappoint you boys. We are in a state of grace. I'm going to Holy Communion this day; you turned out to be wrong. AGAIN. --You're blind and we see.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.
Emerald,Nope.
We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it
Clear as crystal Emerald, quo primum says NOTHING can be changed. Therefore either the church hasn't said a mass in 400 years or you and your ilk are wrong. You are wrong.
JS,
As for the traditional mass being changed since quo primim, yes, a total of 26 words, in the canon of the mass. Mostly the addition of saints names
You lied about what was said by Our Lady of Salette, and never even admitted it or apologized, even when the text of her appearance was given in its entirety. Before expecting anyone to believe what you are saying THIS time, why not look up a couple of times the Tridentine rite was changed? Here are a few examples:1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955 or the most current missal, 1962 and of course if you want to make your life REALLY easy you can use the *most* recent changes found in the current Novus Ordo Missae...
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2005.
In other words, *all* popes hold the Keys of the Kingdom, and have *authority* from Christ to change disciplines, liturgies, customs,-- everything except ex cathedra or conciliar dogmas.And various popes *did* elect to change Tridentine Mass, even if only by 26 words--it's still a change.
Come on, guys. Paul VI was every bit as much a pope as Pius V.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
No pope cah change the words of Our Lord. If that is just a discipline then surely the Holy spirit is not with this church.Trent settled this once and for all they said tha for all was not to be used and then said why.
That is until some Protestant named Johannes or something, "found" that all meant many.
No one fron Gregory the geat to Paul 6th found out about that little secret. A protestant trnslator? Ecumanism helped? Come on!
Please mention some of those changes instead of jus throwing dates at me.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
"We defer to Him, not to men intent on dividing the Church."No you don't. You just claim that you do.
"John and Emerald et al are dividers."
No, you're just full of it, and full of yourself when you say things like this. What, are you the Church speaking for us? No. Are you wrong? Yes. Comments like these? They're nothing more than your own private opinions. You don't speak for the Church here, you don't speak for us.
You're just speaking for yourself. Duly noted as such.
"Nothing can bring them back to the Holy Spirit and to ecumenism and our reigning Pope; short of a miracle. They're blind men, come here to lead the blind."
Boooooo.
"But we're able to see, as in the state of grace."
Pharisee.
"Sorry to disappoint you boys. We are in a state of grace. I'm going to Holy Communion this day; you turned out to be wrong. AGAIN. - -You're blind and we see."
I went to Communion today as well, and for extra bonus points (as if!), at the Maronite Rite. lol.
And if you refuse communion with me, then you're a schismatic.
I dare you.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
"Clear as crystal Emerald, quo primum says NOTHING can be changed. Therefore either the church hasn't said a mass in 400 years or you and your ilk are wrong. You are wrong."Wrong about what Frank?
I'll tell you what. Repeat back to me what my position is, exactly.
We'll find out if you even have it right to begin with, or rather, whether you've been simply in the bad habit of making lots of goofy assumptions.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
You dispute the Pope and the Holy Spirit. I don't. Neither have I forwarded my private opinion, but the authority of the Church. I stated strictly the truth: If the Holy Spirit abides with you you're in the truth.He abides in our Church, not just in ''trad'' enclaves. The Holy Spirit can't be divided. So; as a believer, take what you can get and stop the belly- aching.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.
"In other words, *all* popes hold the Keys of the Kingdom, and have *authority* from Christ to change disciplines, liturgies, customs,-- everything except ex cathedra or conciliar dogmas. And various popes *did* elect to change Tridentine Mass, even if only by 26 words--it's still a change."Don't ask how much. Try asking what kind. In fact, skip that, even... if you really want to get to the bottom of this, ask this: what was ommitted?. That's where it gets interesting.
Btw, while it does indeed have application to the reality of the office of authority of the papacdy, actually, the Power of the Keys in it's strictest sense is a reference to the sacrament of Confession.
"Come on, guys. Paul VI was every bit as much a pope as Pius V."
No kidding. Just like Pius V was, each pontiff will be called before the throne of God to give an accounting of their governance of His flock. It'll be severe, as it has been for every pontiff. Every last one of them.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
"You dispute the Pope and the Holy Spirit."Bull. I dispute you.
"I don't. Neither have I forwarded my private opinion, but the authority of the Church."
How soon before we can expect you to be using 200 different user names and emails?
"So; as a believer, take what you can get and stop the belly- aching."
Quit belly-aching about the trads and we'll call it a draw.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Now you resort to cute stuff. OK; you merely make your argument asinine. You can't change the rules to fit your personality. Where you might use tact or logic, you lose it and fall back on ''zingers''.No matter; You've been check-mated.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.
Like Eerald says only 26 words were added, not 70 percent removed.History and Nature of the Old and New Mass
In 1970, Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass that is now used throughout the world in Catholic churches. Before this time, what is commonly referred to as the "Tridentine" or "Latin" Mass, was used by the Church. The Canon, or main part, of this Tridentine Mass, is essentially the same as what the Apostles themselves used, as given to them by Our Lord. Since the time of Christ to 1962, a total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon. Thus, the holy Council of Trent states that this Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs (the 26 words). This is why St. John Vianney said of this Mass: "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God." Blessed Pope Pius IX, when requested to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon, replied: "I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"
Because of the hallowed sacredness of the Roman Rite and to protect it, Pope St. Pius V codified the Traditional Latin Mass using the strongest language in the proclamation Quo Primum in 1570. It says in part:
"At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . .
"And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Doesn't sound much like a discipline. Did any of the conciliar popes ever use that kind of language? You can be your booties that they didn't.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
"Now you resort to cute stuff. OK; you merely make your argument asinine. You can't change the rules to fit your personality. Where you might use tact or logic, you lose it and fall back on ''zingers''."Gene, be honest. Consult the mirror. If you want to know what and who is seeking to divide the Mystical Body, as if that were possible, take a breather and take a good long look at the your own style and approach to this discussions.
A liberalized Catholicism calling itself conservatives, running about brandishing their self-proclaimed allegiance to Catholicism are perhaps the leading cause of otherwise well intentioned traditional Catholics feeling as if compelled to be driven from the Church. IF indeed that is what is actually happening to some of them. If.
And that's wrong.
You're driving off traditional Catholics, Gene. That is not your place in the Mystical Body.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
"No matter; You've been check-mated."Really, now. Perhaps you'd like to sum up how so. Kind of do a recap and show me how. If you're going to play to the audience, by all means, allow me to assist you in my own demise.
Proceed then. Recap for me the checkmate.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
You're just asking me to waste more time Emerald. Quit playing games.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2005.
Now you're going to approach this armed with nothing but your attitude?No sir. You quit playing games.
Explain Quo Primum to me. Let's find out your version of the reason for its existence. It should be lots of fun to hear the liberal, private interpretation of it.
Then when you're done playing the Pope, I'll respond to it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Dear Emerald, John, and everyone else,I have found a most remarkable article entitled, "A Defense of the Pauline Mass" by John N. Lupia, Ph.D., which I believe *more* than adequately answers your objections to the Novus Ordo. Reading this article was a good education for me.
Please read it. You may find it on http://jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
And by the way, "the wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" was typical for a papal bull, and does *not* imply definition of dogma. This by the way is how Leo X's bull against Luther began, in which Leo supported (among many other things of course) burning of heretics: surely not an infallible decree.
And also by the way, you have not explained how Pius could restore the Jesuit Order that had been banned by Clement "in perpetuity".
Read the article, please.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
I'll read it Michael, sure.I noticed a link to Matt16:18's work at the bottom. Armstrong might be soon to follow, no doubt. You know, the lidless eye group. Liberal Catholicism's very own private magisterium.
But I'll read it and get back to you. Fair enough.
-- (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Michael. Tell us how closely your are connected with this group.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and NEVER AT A FUTURE DATE can it be revoked or amended legally. . . .read that, "never at a future date". That means never even if "in perpetuity" does not.
I will read the Loughnan article now.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
Michael, are you the pastor of St. James Lutheran Church, Folsom, N.J?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
How closely am I connected with *what* group? I have no standing or connection with this Catholic forum, or with the Armstrong group you mention (Lidless Eye? So Armstrong is Sauron? LOL), or any other group for that matter. I am fervently interested in this and all other such topics, as a long-time Lutheran theology nut who has seen the Catholic light--even though the local parish is Novus Ordo, I might add!But to me, if Novus Ordo falls, it seems to me that logically Catholic theology falls--and maybe I'd better look to the Orthodox! I'm serious. I am a student of history, and know the can of worms this would open. Do you have any idea what rides on those keys of Peter? Quite a lot.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
No, I am not pastor at St. James--though I was. I have had a long journey.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
Interesting article and very convincing...however, he cannot explain away the for all additions.If you stop with the shorter formulas, that can be accepted, but no way no how, can they say "Jesus took the cup AND SAID, For all. He did not say for all, and no matter how they twist it and turn it, it still comes out as something Jesus did not say.
Two gospels said, for many, and two did not... but nowhere can you find for all, except in the minds of the current day translators. They try to turn us away by showing other bible passages for many. Maybe so, but at the moment of Consecration He said for many, and nothing can change that.
As far as the other rites, 73 I believe, not one, no not one. says for all.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
By the way, Emerald, you should read a book by a bunch of former lutheran pastors, entitled, "There We Stood, Here We Stand". Some friends of mine are Catholic converts.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
"Lidless Eye? So Armstrong is Sauron? LOL"Well it wasn't my designation; it's their own. There's no Armstrong group per se. Point is, ideas run in circles of people. Look around a bit, I suppose.
"But to me, if Novus Ordo falls, it seems to me that logically Catholic theology falls--and maybe I'd better look to the Orthodox!"
Only the new theology. Which wasn't the genuine article anyways, so of course it'll fall eventually. But pursuing this line of reasoning at face value, it follows then that all which was before the Novus Ordo was already fallen, so to speak. An impossibility.
Orthodoxy? Well, there's the real deal schismatically speaking. Why bother.
"I'm serious. I am a student of history, and know the can of worms this would open. Do you have any idea what rides on those keys of Peter? Quite a lot."
Of course I do. "So important is this unity...", as Eugene IV would say. As he rolled in his grave.
"By the way, Emerald, you should read a book by a bunch of former lutheran pastors, entitled, "There We Stood, Here We Stand". Some friends of mine are Catholic converts."
I'm not a real sucker for personal testimonies. I'd rather just get to the truth a matter, and once there, writhe in pain trying desperately to conform to it.
Let me come right out and say it: Lutheran infiltration is a large measure of what ails the Church. Note that I'm not accusing you personally here. Welcome to the Catholic Church, btw, and I sincerely mean that. It is possible however to be well intentioned while yet still carrying the baggage of a lot of bad ideas. If you need a sounding board for ideas, I'm game.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
Thanks for the welcome. But, what Lutheran infiltration are you meaning? The Lutherans I have met who have converted to Catholicism are anything but liberal--far from it. I suspect much of the disruption you see in Catholic seminaries, etc. actually stems from about 1955, when certain Catholic biblical "scholars" decided they were no longer bound by the Holy Office decrees regarding Scripture studies. My understanding is that Pius XII was going to discipline them, but Cardinal Tisserant intervened. Unfortunately, watering down of theology has occurred since.Thanks for the sounding board offer. If you go through my posts, I think you will not find anything that attacks Catholic teaching, nor will you find any ad hominem attacks. I do believe the Bishop of Rome is successor of Peter; and besides being a scholar and a father of three kids, I'm a generous hearted and gracious individual. (In my own opinion, LOL).
But anyway, back to the question at hand:
Does your trouble with Novus Ordo, ultimately, stem from the translation "for all" instead of "for many"? That's it?
My understanding--which I will check on--is that the Aramaic tongue used by our Lord would have used a word that means, essentially, "the multitude"--compare Daniel 12:1-3, in which "the many" who will awake at the resurrection are, obviously, everyone who has lived. The reason I bring up the Aramaic is that this is a huge argument in favor of Petrine primacy in Matthew 16, as protestant scholars are realizing; "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church."
And yes, the Orthodox do tend towards quarreling among themselves. But--as I see from this forum--so do Catholics! ;-)
Yet as I have said on many posts, deep down I know there *is* no other place of truth than Rome.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
By the way, there is an interesting article by a Hugh Thwaites, S.J., which you can find on Catholic Apologetics International, on the new rite of Mass. The priest says it is not heretical, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it is water when we need milk. Is that where you are coming from, Emerald and John? Or do you think N.O. produces nothing but a bread wafer?This is an important question to me, since I *pray* in front of that Tabernacle!
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 23, 2005.
"Thanks for the welcome. But, what Lutheran infiltration are you meaning?"Something extremely concrete. Watching them sponsor very large talks in Catholic parishes. Convincing one of my friends that the Lutherans have the same consecration we Catholics do, producing an equalivent of the Blessed Sacrament. Offering Bible studies within the official context of a Catholic parish. I'm not talking about converts here, as you may have gathered.
"The Lutherans I have met who have converted to Catholicism are anything but liberal--far from it. I suspect much of the disruption you see in Catholic seminaries, etc. actually stems from about 1955, when certain Catholic biblical "scholars" decided they were no longer bound by the Holy Office decrees regarding Scripture studies."
No, I mean right now.
"Thanks for the sounding board offer. If you go through my posts, I think you will not find anything that attacks Catholic teaching, nor will you find any ad hominem attacks."
You are devoid of the ad hominem, and for that, thank you. As far as Catholic teaching, a shrug... maybe, maybe not. I can't remember offhand one way or the other.
"Does your trouble with Novus Ordo, ultimately, stem from the translation "for all" instead of "for many"? That's it?"
Well first off, I'd have to say I don't have any trouble with it, in the sense that I don't go there. Unless, as I mentioned, there is absolutely no alternative. I realize this statement can be construed as a smartalec response, but no matter. I'm being honest. I don't go, so therefore, I don't have the opportunity to be irritated by it.
The for many vs. for all? That's merely an item amongst many, really.
"My understanding--which I will check on--is that the Aramaic tongue used by our Lord would have used a word that means, essentially, "the multitude"--"
Coincidently, I was at the Maronite Rite just this morning and heard the consecration in Christ's native tongue. But it does translates as for many.
"Yet as I have said on many posts, deep down I know there *is* no other place of truth than Rome."
I'm truly glad you call it home.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
"This is an important question to me, since I *pray* in front of that Tabernacle!"So do I. So you're in good company.
Something else the high and might NeoCatholics of the forum didn't know. I do adoration in a Novus Ordo church.
A really, really ugly one.
Talk to me. I'm not the devil these armadons would have everyone believe.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 23, 2005.
This is something that may raise a few hackles;Aside from the all or many controversy, could someone give me a reason for this;
Up until 1968 a priest was ordained with the following;”receive the power to forgive sins,who evers sins you shall forgive etc” Also “Receive the power to offer sacrifice”
After 1967 utter silence on those two powers in ordinations. Are we supposed to guess that they are superfluous.
A bishop when consecrated; “Receive the power to ordain” in the old rite.
In the new rite, silence.
It is probably OK because even if they now say “you are a bishop, and you are a priest” that is good enough.
Tell that to any legal expert and he will tell you that if it is not said, it means nothing. Even a layman will tell you that.
I promise to pay you the ten bucks, or I say nothing. Can’t make any sense.
You tell me how.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 23, 2005.
Haha Ha!
Listen to this, spoken with derision to a convert:'' If you need a sounding board for ideas, I'm game.'' ----- A sounding board; --for ideas, no less. How can anybody KEEP this one from sounding? Doesn't he make even the dislexic Zarove the soul of brevity as well as exciting and cogent? Emerald is ''game ! ! !
But your ideas are certainly no improvement on the current state of Christ's Church, Emmie. You can laugh at Lutheranism all you want; but there you are, right where Luther started. A palid imitation of Luther. Both you & he ended up not loving Catholics. Not loving the Pope. Not loving truth.
At least our friend Michael is coming full circle, but you're going on your way out. Michael is embracing Tradition and truth. While you departed. Quoting a friend from the past: Emerald is so well intentioned; yet still carries the baggage of a lot of bad ideas.'' --Give him room, friends.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.
"Something else the high and might NeoCatholics of the forum didn't know. I do adoration in a Novus Ordo church. "I knew it because I rember you saying when you lost your keys to the chapel a few years back. 8-)
-- - (David@excite.com), January 23, 2005.
JS, according to your “legal expert and layman“ logic, it would logically follow that a Catholic marriage means NOTHING unless the priest explicitly says to the bride and groom, “Receive the power to have sexual intercourse”.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.
no. Because they marry each other. The priest is just a church witness.What makes me wonder is that every pope before V2 just issues disciplines, while the conciliar popes are thought to say something doctrinal every time they speak.
-- JS (A@A..com), January 24, 2005.
Steve;A most important question is, "Why change something that is crystal clear, unambiguous and airtight. Then substitute something vague and controversial".
What is going on? Do you have a rational explanation?
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
Michael..I'll answer your earlier question..YES..a perfect description of the New mass for me..water, when we NEED milk. Absolutely.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2005.
Clever, John. Not very clever.The ''change'' is altogether in your own perspective, because truth doesn't change. Catholic faith isn't dependent on every word coming from a Pope's mouth. That's how you view the faith.
But only as it serves to settle controversy is any papal bull necessarily conservative. Popes can just as well be progressive, and their words are no less binding. We depend on their inspired counsel as it pertains today to contrary views or controversy. The apostolic deposit of faith is accomplished; Popes have no call to pontificate from the past.
That won't fix what isn't broken. You're adamant in the erroneous belief the faith is broken. That's why you have recourse to papal edicts that support your model of a Church. When they were speaking the Church had different controversies to address. Not ecumenism. Not even Emerald's phobic modernism of nowadays is related to that era's modernist threat. He imagines so; but he doesn't speak from any authority. He is a dilettante; just as you are, and me too. You boys have nothing to fix, even if you knew how. Leave it all to the Holy Spirit.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
"At least our friend Michael is coming full circle, but you're going on your way out."I'm not leaving.
You are.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 24, 2005.
I will be out of town a couple days, but wish you all well.Emerald, I am very interested in the "many" vs. "all" translation you have in the Maronite Rite. Mainly because translation is not always the bare word, but shades of meaning--translation of an idea is sometimes necessary.
I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are various passages (like the Daniel one I mentioned) in which "many" seems to have the sense of "all". In which case the English N.O. is not necessarily incorrect as a translation.
BTW, I realized you accepted the Novus Ordo when I looked at the link you provided a couple weeks back. Thanks for that.
No, I don't think you're a devil at all.
John--is there a difference between you and Emerald on this issue--do you believe the consecration for Novus Ordo is invalid, so I am kneeling before a mere bread wafer when I pray at the Tabernacle? Or perhaps you aren't sure? I'm trying to gather where both of you are coming from, since the conversation on these threads moves fast and furious, and what with all the ad hominem zingers we sometimes don't get to *the point at hand*.
Regardless of where you are coming from, John, I will listen respectfully. God knows, I have been a Lutheran too long to accuse anyone else of heresy! If I was, it was in good faith.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 24, 2005.
BTW, Emerald, are these Lutherans you speak of coming in under the pretext of the Joint Statment on Justification? I'm wondering who these folks are, and what the Catholic bishop could be thinking of! Because, it has *not* been recognized that consecration by a Lutheran pastor necessarily produces the same result as by a Catholic priest. (Which to me is a no-brainer, because the teaching isn't quite the same.)
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 24, 2005.
Also, John--I believe I'm correct that, in the most ancient liturgies for ordination, it was quite simple, not necessarily laying out all the powers of the priest. Although details are good, I think it is the intent of the Church that counts here. And the intent of the Church is to ordain priests who forgive sins, offer the Sacrifice, etc. The liturgies do change, e.g., it used to be thought that handing a chalice to the ordinand was essential to the Rite; we don't think that now. But the *intent* of consecrating a priest is the same. So, I have no fear of whether my priest is a true priest!
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 24, 2005.
My sharpest criticism was saved for a true servant of the devil; that's ''John Smith.'' I haven't said anything like that to Emerald. He has been referred to as an elitist and Pharisee. He's also a pseudo- theologian driven by a large ego. His agenda serves the devil, but he doesn't believe so. Emerald shades his attacks so he doesn't openly break with Vatican II.Smith isn't on the brink, he went into the abyss. Calling our Magisterium and the Popes wolves in sheep's clothing; predicing the fall of the Catholic Church and the triumph of Satan over her. This is simply heretical and blasphemous. He shills for Satan.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
Followers of pope Pius 12th follow this encyclical, Mediator Dei. Don' go back to ancient times and don't remove the altar. Well the modernist EC, doesn't recognize Pius 12th.62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither WISE NOR LAUDIBLE to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. 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
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
What you really mean is Divide and Conquer.Emerald is nearer an accord with the Church, with all his accusations about watering down the faith. He's divisive for the sake of Tradition.
Smith is divisive and subversive; because his Church would be schismatic and independent of the Pope.
Christ says to Peter, in Luke 22, ''Simon, Simon behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you (all the apostles,) as wheat. But I have prayed for thee (Peter, His Vicar) that thy faith may not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again; strengthen thy brethren.'' Peter is the strength of the whole Church. Satan has desired us, to sift us as wheat, to divide the faithful; to destroy our faith. Where then is Christ's Communion of Saints?
In the followers of Saint Peter; named now our Pope. He keeps the Church from dividing; from being sifted by the devil
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
What the Council did was Liberalize the Church, which means that it brushed aside the tradition of faith and discipline and prudence which once prevailed. Since the Council, no principle, no tradition, no custom, no common sense judgment, no established authority has been any defense against or deterrent to whatever lunacy or novelty the Liberals have wished to foist upon the Catholic faithful. Further more, the controlling hierarchy has made it its chief business to take the side of Liberals against all and everyone who raised their voices to object or challenge. It is not a rare thing to hear it suggested that the bishops do not obey the Pope, or "The Vatican." Similarly, many have said that the American hierarchy may be expected to set the Church in this country free of Rome. Such talk is ill-informed. Besides appointing Liberal and Modernist bishops, the Roman Curia has carried out a program of subversion by favoring the Liberal over everyone else in every dispute and conflict. Likewise, in the spirit of "collegiality," it has allowed national bishops’ conferences to vote into effect almost everything for which Liberal majorities have agitated
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
Each of your last two posts makes false assertions out of pure malice, Smith. Neither of them can be substantiated. Naturally, you didn't try to ascertain the truth. You work openly for the demise of the Catholic clergy from top to bottom of her heirarchy. There's a definite trend now; if Smith says something, don't believe it. He is a tool of the devil.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
You can't substantiate these quotes:Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” It never happened.
--And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren,''
That was no statement anybody can verify. Bugnini didn't even design any new Mass. You and your cohorts invented all of this tripe.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
--
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”The actual quote, I believe, is a little different: "Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices" -- La Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965, page 6 column 4.
He was not speaking here of the Novus Ordo Mass, but in particular about a particular prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. The title of the prayer was changed from "For the unity of the Church", to "For the unity of Christians", and instead of "heretics" and "schismatics", it now speaks of "all our brethren who believe in Jesus Christ" and asks "that God may gather and keep together in his one Church all those who seek the truth in sincerity."
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 24, 2005.
"...if Smith says something, don't believe it. He is a tool of the devil..."Ok if you say so. Arn't you the same guy telling someone to receive the holy Eucharist is ok before confessing ones sins to a priest Gene?
Satan has you eating right out of his hand if you realy believe that evil dribble.
-- - (David@excite.com), January 24, 2005.
“no. Because they marry each other. The priest is just a church witness.” I know, Johnny boy. It was what's called a joke.There is nothing “vague and controversial” about the Church’s constant and continuing teaching that a bishop has the power to ordain priests and a priest has the power to offer sacrifice and forgive sins. If anyone is in the slightest doubt about this he need only look in one of innumerable documents published by the Church.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 24, 2005.
David, where do you think your bearing false witness against your neighbors comes from?
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 24, 2005.
I posted this again because you completely ignored it.No comments on this?From Pius 12th
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither WISE NOR LAUDIBLE to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. 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
--
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
Stevey Boy;Did you ever look at the old rite compared to the new one.
Were they trying to save time ,or paper. or something.
This is now the church of don't ask, don't tell. Not one of you modernists ever challenged your bishop or the pope on anything. You are not sheep, you are sheeple.
If you don't wake up soon, you won't have a church anymore. they are killing you and you are saying hooray.
This is my church also, and I won't surrender it to a bunch of wolves in sheep's clothing.
The Lord warned would he find any faith at all. Well not with you guys.
There are much more of you than us, so safety in numbers seems to be with the minority.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
Which all brings us back to my premise of earlier today:Smith isn't on the brink, he went into the abyss. Calling our Magisterium and the Popes wolves in sheep's clothing; predicing the fall of the Catholic Church and the triumph of Satan over her. This is simply heretical and blasphemous. He shills for Satan.
Smith himself is supporting that premise for me in his last post.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
here is another one; Still no comment on Pius 12th?Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 428:
When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name of Christian has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasures of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 24, 2005.
Well, you're obviously cribbing this inflammatory material from some anti-Church arsenal in the net. Go on, paste more of it.We sheep do not have anything from which to defend ourselves lately, except pseudo- tradionists with aims at undermining the Pope and our bishops. That means you, in this forum. Not able enough to stand on your own, you import documents out of the archives to distort for your cause. It's insufficient as an indictment of our Mass, or the bishops, or the Pope or the 2nd Vatican Council. It's irrelevant, Smith.
Once more you post a note that seems to boost your opponent: ''. . . every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name of Christian has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasures of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them,'' --And I rise to the occasion, though I wasn't worthy. I'm safeguarding as best I can, those treasures from your slinky devil's appetite. --SHOO, FLY!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.
The problem is, the most vocal critics of the Holy Father clearly do not have the necessary knowledge of the essentials, but rely on their personal interpretations of current infallible teaching (which interpretations they reject), and of documents written several hundred years ago by former popes (which interpretations they favor). Their interpretations of the one are, of course, no more authoritative or valid than their interpretations of the other, and merely set up spurious "conflicts" which they subsequently waste their time and effort attacking. They don't seem to recognize that the authority under which earlier liturgical decisions were made is exactly the same authority under which current liturgical norms have been formulated. If the former norms were authoritative and valid, then by necessity so are the current norms. If the current norms are not authoritative and valid, then there is no reason to think that the earler norms were either.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 24, 2005.
current infallible teaching
Why would anything infallible need the qualifier "current?" Is it because that when it's no longer "current," it will no longer be infallible?
-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2005.
Paul;
Thank you for answering like a scholar with thought provoking information.
Unlike the rantings of the holler guy who has nothing of substance to say.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 25, 2005.
Haven't you ranted throughout your stay in our Catholic forum, Smith? I haven't ''hollered''. You've received plenty of substantial answers, but you ignore them. --Here's some substance: ''A house divided cannot stand.''Every post you've had tolerated here is an overt effort to undercut and break up the Church. We've never asked you to depart the Church. We want unity and respect. You incite division and dissent. You provoke our faithful, right here in this forum; not some bunch of unbelievers. You call them out of the Church of the apostles, where Peter is our shepherd.
ALL of this is substance, versus your empty claims. Here is more substance: You're literally the devil's advocate here. It's an indisputable fact, you even cast aspersions on the sainthood of Mother Theresa and a large number of other souls who are canonized. Why would a faithful Catholic give the devil this kind of leverage against our POPE? --Substance: -- You haven't been faithful.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
Jake:
The term is intended as, ''actual infallible teaching.'' Rather than the one you hope to debunk. If I'm wrong, Paul will correct me.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
Paul"current" "infallible[?]" teaching [from Dominus Iesus]:
"For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.”."
old-fashioned, nostalgic Infallible teaching, from 1441 [Florence]:
"[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], etc..."
rationale for "new" teaching [from Dominus Iesus again]:
"Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.... [***BUT***] This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78"
the Church appears to have changed its mind.
but can it? here's another infallible definition from Vatican I:
"For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
...and more from the same definition of EENS given at Florence:
"....that the ***unity of the ecclesiastical body*** is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, etc..."
there has been a sea-change in the Church's view of Unity - then, Unity was the Church; now it is replaced by a "grace" that extends to those who are "not formally and visibly members " [or voluntarily members, for that matter].
i'm sorry Paul. this kind of stuff doesn't wash. you can tub- thump all you want, but you have to get your hands dirty and address the issues.
if you aren't up for it, just, if you get a chance, re-read para 22 of Dominus Iesus, sentence by sentence. my goodness. is this really so complicated? what does "objectively speaking" mean, and who was it written for? if you can answer these, i'd be grateful.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2005.
The term is intended as, ''actual infallible teaching.''He said "current," not "actual." Quite a difference.
Rather than the one you hope to debunk.
If it's infallible, I won't debunk it. I can't. It's infallible.
If I'm wrong, Paul will correct me.
Perhaps, but why not clarify with him first rather than to come to public assumptions about what you think he must have meant? Best to take your well-trodden path of awating his response, then agreeing with it before opening fire on the opposition.
-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2005.
The opposition? I thought you were our friend? Oh, that's right; you're here to poison the drinking water.If I'm getting a correction, let it be from Paul; yours isn't my brand.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
Smoke this Mr. Chavez; Hard facts, not wishfull thinking.St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris Traditional Catholics Simply Occupied the Church in 1977 and Threw out the Novus Ordinarians Now St. Nicholas Boasts Five Traditional Masses on Sunday With an Attendance of 5,000 Worshippers France. Eldest Daughter of the Church. Once the most Catholic country on the planet. What has the Novus Ordo done to it?
A BBC report quotes a French presbyter as saying: "My fear is that the Roman Catholic Church [he means the Church of the New Order] will disappear altogether in France. That's the path we're on." In the whole country of France, only 150 men completed their training as Novus Ordo presbyters last year. The average attendance at a French Novus Ordo church is about five. So, what is Newchurch in France doing to turn around the problem?
Weddings, baptisms, and funerals are done by laypeople. A New Age movement called Focalari, "an un-dogmatic approach to Christianity aimed particularly at the young" is being pushed. An end to celibacy and priestesses are being pushed. Do you see the flaw here? This is the Achilles heel that underlies Newchurch. It tries to change itself into everything but the unadulterated Roman Catholic Church, when that is the only solution that works! Traditional seminaries have more applicants than they can accommodate. Presbyters want to revert to the traditional priesthood because they're tired of the phony Novus Ordo. Traditional churches and chapels persist in spite of the most hostile attacks by Newchurch bishops. Yet traditional Catholicism true religion, so people stick by it in spite of persecution.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 25, 2005.
Actually I shouldn't have even used the term "infallible", since I was talking about the order of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, liturgical norms which don't even fall under the charism of infallibility. Sorry about the confusion. What I said still stands. Either the Church has full authority to define and redefine its liturgical norms in every age, or it doesn't.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 25, 2005.
The opposition? I thought you were our friend?Am I?
Oh, that's right; you're here to poison the drinking water.
What have I offered you that's poison?
If I'm getting a correction, let it be from Paul; yours isn't my brand.
Paul doesn't need your help.
-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2005.
Since you are not to be trusted, and you quote from a source not famous for support of our faith, the BBC;I don't find your post so convincing. It may prove something to you-- but not to us. In fact France, FYI is where Raison was enthroned atop the main altar of Notre Dame Cathedral once. They found a painted hussy to portray Raison. Fine folks, the French. Why don't you move to France?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
Sometimes I think you're going dippy, Gene.
-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2005.
Thanks, Jake.
I'm really a lover, not a fighter. I think you're loved; only you're not a lover. Have you ever written the word ''love'' in any post here? Only dippy folks do.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
More words of wisdom or perhaps more heresy? Wake up Mr. Chavez. It gets more difficult every day to defend the actions and words of this pope. Papolotry may not be so bad if it embraces a PiusX, but you are ever so slyly losing your catholic faith, and of course you don't even know it. Barnum was so right.
This is ever more obvious this week when John Paul II openly advocates Catholics to worship with Protestants and other non- Catholics. How many can remember when, during the reign of Pius XII we were admonished to never worship or participate in a non-Catholic ceremony? What happened to those who did. Have they all been forgiven because it is no longer a sin? No, afraid not. Rather, sin is sin and if it was a sin during the time of Pius XII it is still a sin during the time of John Paul II for it is still a violation of the First Commandment.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 25, 2005.
You're a heretic, Smith. How do heretics always accuse faithful Catholics? By calling them ''papists'' and your epithet, papolators. You're true to your cause, then. I stand by our Holy Father. The Catholic Church stands by him. But we only worship God. -- You stand outside, with your master the devil. Thanks for showing your true colors once more.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
And; as a lagniappe for you,Sungenis vs Matatics - Is the Novus Ordo Mass valid?
DEFINITELY, valid-- and holy in the eyes of God, and truly Emmanuel; God with us.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.
"You're a heretic, Smith."Only until someone steps up to call your bluff.
"You stand outside, with your master the devil."
By what authority do you say this?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 26, 2005.
It's plain to observe. I can elaborate, but I decline to serve you. Go on and observe this man's views. On Catholicism today. On the Popes. On the saints.I speak by no authority of mine; but the Church's. Smith himself made clear: when the Church is placed in danger, whoever has knowledge of their faith is to defend her from attack. I do it because I can. I judge the message equitably. The devil is behind it. The devil hates our Holy Father, hates us and the Catholic Church. So; he spreads doubt and dissent. He works against the Church. Thus, I determine the messenger serves the devil.
I didn't bluff. He's a heretic, and you can't dispute it seeing his works here.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2005.
"It's plain to observe. I can elaborate, but I decline to serve you. Go on and observe this man's views. On Catholicism today. On the Popes. On the saints."Yeah, whatever. But I'm an idiot, as you well know. Explain it to me in great depth. Spell it out for me, how he's a heretic. Let's see if it floats.
"I speak by no authority of mine; but the Church's."
So, then, you speak by the authority of the Church? Alright. Please, then, tell us about your authority derived from the Church. Now I reckoned you to be a layman. Was I wrong?
Proceed, by all means, to tell us of his heresy. Lay it out for us.
"Smith himself made clear: when the Church is placed in danger, whoever has knowledge of their faith is to defend her from attack."
Well see, I don't think it's so clear. So you're going to have to make it clear to me, Gene. And I want you to do that. Preferrably, right now.
"I do it because I can. I judge the message equitably."
Who's stopping you? Let's see it then. Lay it out for us morons.
"The devil is behind it."
Uh huh. Sure. The devil controls him. Yeah, we've heard that. Anything else?
"The devil hates our Holy Father, hates us and the Catholic Church. So; he spreads doubt and dissent. He works against the Church."
What, you think this is news to me?
"Thus, I determine the messenger serves the devil."
Like you have that ability, eh? lol. Nice private interpretation you got going on there. You're a sharp one. You can figure this stuff out, but the trads? The trads are morons.
"I didn't bluff. He's a heretic, and you can't dispute it seeing his works here."
Aah, if he were in heresy, I'd actually try to help him out. I would do it for his sake. I wouldn't hold it against him, I'd just lift a finger to give him some assistance, like good Catholics do for other people. It's called Christian charity. Try it. You might like it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 26, 2005.
Emerald, you have my respect. You are obviously someone who is conscious of the body, with a desire to care for the Lord's house before your own. I take my hat off to you.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 26, 2005.
Hello IanI am so tired of all this talking. The posts on this and other threads are incessant.
But just a couple thoughts for you.
I think Vatican II realized that the Church is *more* than just an outward society of Baptized people (Bellarmine's concept). Rather, just as our Lord Jesus has two natures, human and Divine, so the Church is a *mystery* much bigger than we are used to dealing with. It is the Body of Christ, the fulness of God, and Sacrament of Salvation, among many other realities.
Could it be--just an idea--
1. On one level, the Church is an earthly society of the Baptized, in which Christ calls us to be incorporated and in which we receive the wellsprings of Life.
2. On another level, the order of Grace, the Church is made up of all who receive the working of God's grace, whether they know the name of Christ consciously or not. (Old Testament saints, for example).
Note, Ian! It is possible to assert *opposite* things of Christ according to His two natures. He is finite and infinite, passible and immortal, omnipresent and circumscribed, omnipotent and weak. According to His humanity, He eats, sleeps, hungers, is weary, dies. According to His Divinity, He was upholding creation even as He was lying in the manger or hanging on the cross.
Do you think the Church, His Body, is any less mysterious and seemingly contradictory?
Perhaps Dominus Iesus is reminding us that the Church is much bigger than we think, according to the order of Grace. Remember, St. Justin Martyr could speak of Socrates as being saved by the Logos, and Shepherd of Hermas reminds us that the Church is ancient, as old as time.
-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 26, 2005.
Dear Emmie:
you played all the strings, Kid. A nice retort, with nothing of Catholic truth that all of us haven't accepted. --< i>''if he were in heresy, I'd actually try to help him out. I would do it for his sake. I wouldn't hold it against him, I'd just lift a finger to give him some assistance, like good Catholics do for other people. It's called Christian charity. Try it. --'' Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 26, 2005.Yes, as I recall that's the approach I took to you months and months ago; assistance and dialogue. Charity.
It got me far with Emerald, didn't it? Now every response of his is the old spoof. The smart-arse on a roll; confident to the point of carcature? But then, Smith might have less to lose than you do. You invested in badinage. You can't depart from that now and act serious. It's not ''trad'' to come down off the high horse. Possibly Smith would. Only he's given no indication. He's a declared enemy of our Holy Father and our pledged faith in the Church. I guess he likes the blue stockings.
Anyway, Emerald; let him speak for himself. Please desist from distracting from his heresy by your murmurs. Unless the devil came to you with bright ideas, as he's come to Smith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2005.
thanks much Michael. if hope you don't mind, i have pasted yr post in the other thread i started -- and hopefully we can move forward from there.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.
Why did the pope not heed the advice of this great saint?
Bugnini's committee.
By the time of Vatican II, of course, the voices crying out for "peace with Judaism" were strong. A new "appreciation" of Judaism was underway in the Church, culminating in the decree of Nostra Aetate that the Jews did not kill Jesus. Flogged by the whip of the Holocaust, the Church was on the run and trying to prove its sympathy for synagogues. If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious "swap" in the Mass, had heeded the strong exhortation of St. John Chrysostom: "Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the the sacred writings but reject their witness-----and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage." But the advice of this Doctor of the Church was not only ignored, one could say it has been the target of a papal apology actually given within the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986.
-- JS (A@A.com), January 27, 2005.
''If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious "swap" in the Mass, etc.,'' ---------''Tell us what kind of swap, Mr. Schismith. Could you keep it under 100 words? Thank you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2005.
That's Schismith of Panama. Please address the main subject. Apologizing to the Jews. A generation of vipers. (Words of Our Lord, not mine).
-- JS (A@A.com), January 27, 2005.
Not all Jews, Dear Schismatico,
Christ said that to the Scribes and Pharisees. All the disciples were Jews, and Our Blessed Mother; Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimithea, --you know.Our Lord read scriptures in his local synagogue. He advised His followers to hear the Pharisees, who sat in the chair of Moses; but not to follow their bad examples.
It's surprising Chrysostom lost sight of that. But then, he wasn' lambasting all Jews. Just their leaders in 33 A.D.
John Paul II made no apology for what Jews believed and Catholics spurned. He expressed regret for the many times Catholics had treated the Jew like a dog; a ''Christ-killer''-- from ignorance. Because we all share the guilt for Christ's death on the cross. We sinned and brought Him to His passion and death; all of us, with Jews in the mix as well; all sinners.
Peter was a Jew; he even attempted to accomodate his brethren. For which Paul, a converted Pharisee berated him. So, clearly we shouldn't judge anybody. All of us are ''Christ-killers.''
Yet, none are; for He laid down His life. No one had power actually, to take Jesus' life. Not Jew nor Gentile. He GAVE His life. That's the teaching of the apostles, which was forgotten for many centuries, as Christians blamed the Jews only. A gross injustice. For which of us can hate Mary, the Blessed Mother of God? She's a Jew.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2005.
Show me a person who claims the New Order of the Mass is invalid and I will show you a heritic.What constitutes validity is what the Church in Her supreme teaching office says constitutes validity.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.
"Show me a person who claims the New Order of the Mass is invalid and I will show you a heritic."You mean, a heretic.
You're a priest?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.
Emerald, never thought you'd stoop to a childish comment like that.David
-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 13, 2005.
When you type as fast as I do and as much as I do sometimes, you are bound to make many spelling errors because brain and fingers don't always work in sync. I try to check for spelling errors and such, but often miss.To answer your question, isn't that what it says?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.
"Emerald, never thought you'd stoop to a childish comment like that."What's childish? I don't get it. He mispelled heretic. I also asked if he was really a priest.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.
LOL! You misspelled “misspelled”! Are you really a Catholic? There’s an “inference” for you! It's just as "logical" as your “inference” that he can’t be a priest because he made a minor spelling mistake. You strain out the gnat of spelling mistakes and “mistranslated” words, while not noticing the camel.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 13, 2005.
LOL! You misspelled “misspelled”!"Now that is pretty funny.
But please. Don't strain the gnat and swallow the camel.
I wonder if he's really a priest or not. Sue me.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.
You’ve got some hide wondering whether others are who they say they are. You come here under a pseudonym and reveal nothing about yourself. He has introduced himself as “Fr Paul” and given us quite a few knowledgeable, helpful and Christian posts which not even you have been able to poke any holes in. We've seen no evidence that he’s not who he says he is, so why do you question whether he’s “really a priest”?
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 14, 2005.
''Show me a person who claims the New Order of the Mass is invalid and I will show you a heritic.''
''You mean, a heretic . . . You're a priest?''
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.Notwithstanding the typo, would even a priest be ''fair game'' after saying such a thing to Emerald? I mean; Emerald has disparaged the man who said it; as if his vocation were dubious. It wasn't enough to pick on the typo; Emmie had to ask for the priest's credential. (He sounds like a liar, see?)
But a priest has laid it at your doorstep, Emerald. You seem heretical from what he says. He could be wrong, naturally. --I hope so.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
"...as if his vocation were dubious."Of course it's dubious. This is the internet. Anyone can claim they are anything.
"But a priest has laid it at your doorstep, Emerald. You seem heretical from what he says."
You're trying to make it look like I ever said the Novus Ordo was invalid. That's because you'd like to think I do. You're problem is that I don't, never did, and have actually said that it was valid many times.
"He could be wrong, naturally. --I hope so."
You're just plain dishonest, Gene.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 14, 2005.
"Of course it's dubious. This is the internet. Anyone can claim they are anything."Of course it ISN'T, because I am not anybody, I am somebody, and whom I claim to be.
At least one of your friends on this site took it upon himself to investigate and even found out my location.
This is only the second time my identity has been questioned because of my honesty.
The devil hates the light you know, he prefers darkness, I am in the light for all to see (not the limelight though, anything but these days).
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
When YOU give a priest here the short shrift it's just snappy dialogue, Hmm? Oh, yeah, --this is the Internet; must be an imposter. Sure. But you don't appreciate my dialogue. Hey! Dishonest!!!!If you DON'T mean the Novus Ordo liturgy is invalid, or deficient or ugly; why don't you lay off the partisan sniping? At least respect someone who MIGHT be a priest.
Let me go this far: Had I known you weren't the one, who made remarks about the Mass in the vernacular not being valid-- (You say you didn't) then it would be sinful to accuse you. Maybe I'm wrong. I know some of your cohorts for about a year ''let it be known,'' we weren't using a ''kosher'' Eucharistic liturgy at the old Novus. One creep actually claimed there were numerous priests celebrating Mass in our parishes who don't even believe in transubstantiation.
Come ON! If we've had to put up with inflammatory ridicule down to THAT level over a couple of years from your gang, is it any wonder I confuse the lot of you? Don't blame me. I'm a faithful, ardent Catholic, Emerald. And just as respectful of Tradition as anybody.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
i had also wondered about Fr Paul over on the Eugene IV thread.over there, too, all he did was post an anathema, and hasn't been heard since.
i'd have thought that all those years in a Seminary would allow a priest to do more than anathemise.
interestingly, the unsubstantiated anathemas, and also the use of self-aggrandising statements such as these are quite typical of Eugene's style of posting:
"This is only the second time my identity has been questioned because of my honesty.
The devil hates the light you know, he prefers darkness, I am in the light for all to see (not the limelight though, anything but these days)."
perhaps Fr Paul and Eugene are related?!?!?!
...but, moreover, to ask if Fr Paul is a real priest is a very fair question.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.
Even though "trads" could very well be partaking of the Sacred Host every Sunday, their hearts/words are NOT in union at all with the Holy Catholic Church. They ridicule Vatican II. For them, Vatican II documents are infected with subversiveness and Modernism and a discontinuation of Sacred Tradition. They persistently pit old Church documents against new ones. They disagree with the Magisterium. They believe that the Universal Catechism is erroneous and unauthoritative -- requiring no assent of faith. They insist that only Catholics are in God's plan of salvation even though the Vatican teaches otherwise. They malign the Novus Ordo. For them it's a mistranslation; it's irreverent. They shun the vernacular. Only Latin will do because it's a dead language. They slander Pope John Paul II, his letters, and the way he runs the Church. "Trads," in their hearts/words, are NOT united with the Holy Catholic Church.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 14, 2005.
Ian,"i had also wondered about Fr Paul over on the Eugene IV thread."
I am not familiar with this thread unless it is the ezboard Trad. one that banned me because I dared disagree with them. Please offer me more info. so I may varify whether or not it was me.
It is fair enough to question my identity, but wouldn't it be more Christian to do so discreetly rather than publicaly when there is no obvious reason to do so. On another thread I questioned the credentials of a certain Rev. claiming to have a JCD who posted something regarding Canon Law that is not true. Perhaps he just didn't pay enough attention to his use of words, but I would hope that one with a doctorate in Canon Law would not be so sloppy because he should know the importance of being accurate with his language.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
the other thread is this one:http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CgJj
you more or less did the same thing there - posted a condemnation without engaging in any kind of discussion.
perhaps you would be so kind to walk us through, say, Dominus Iesus or some other document - and show us the errors of our ways.
i would be most interested. truly.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.
Ian,"without engaging in any kind of discussion"
I have learned with much loss of sleep and precious time that "any kind of [true] discussion" is not possible with so called Traditionalists.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
As to my absence from the other thread, most of my time in this forum has been spent dealing with real issues such as marriage questions. These questions have merit where the whole Trad. debate is pure obstinacy on the part of most, and not a serious search for reconciliation with the Truth.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
...the whole Trad. debate is pure obstinacy on the part of most, and not a serious search for reconciliation with the Truth.To be more specific, the debate is whether the teachings of the post-Vatican II Church can be reconciled with the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church. If not, then it means that the Church's claim to infallibility is false and that every Catholic, like every Protestant, is on his own to determine what is and is not true.
The Church's about-face in her teachings regarding the Jews -- most likely brought on by feelings of guilt over the Holocaust coupled with a fixation on ecumenism above all else -- is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is in schism with her past and thus destroys any pretense to infallibility.
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
well Bonzo, whoever you are, that's how i see it too. it's really quite depressing. it's not just that the Church may have made a few mistakes which really don't matter in the gran scheme of things. it's a veritable house of cards.i have wondered, in the past, why protestants don't use this as a means to attack the Church. it'd far more revealing than all those arguments based upon Scripture that really never get off the ground.
Original Sin used to mean something. not that i want it to - but the Church told us it did. now it has been put out to graze.
you are right - it is the the Infallible Magisterium that has been the glue of the Church: the Supreme Court that has always been able to settle matters definitively for ever and a day.
without that, the Church is just another protestant denomination... and i just can't believe that God wanted there to be n-thousand denominations unable to agree on so many different things.
it goes even further: many protestants refuse to acknowledge that they too have benefitted from the Infallible Magisterium. the Incarnation, the Trinity.
but for the Church, we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.
Ian,"Original Sin used to mean something. not that i want it to - but the Church told us it did. now it has been put out to graze."
Since when?
Just more Traditionalist propaganda filled with falsehoods.
Original Sin is treated in the Catechism, I talk about it at R.C.I.A. sessions, I talk about it to parents before baptism, and it was in my Homily of last Sunday, First Sunday of Lent - 1st Reading = the account of the Fall in Genesis.
The usual Trad. tactic - find a priest, etc. who is abusing the Church's liturgies, teachings, etc. and claim it is the norm of the Church since Vatican II.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
How about the pope himself approving this.
The Assyrian Church of the East to which the document refers is a group based in the Middle East which was originally Catholic, but which passed into the heresy of Nestorianism at the end of the fifth century. It is more commonly called the NestorianChurch. The Nestorian heresy, named for its founder Nestorius, holds that in Christ there are two persons, one human and one divine. The Nestorians are particularly notable for denying that Our Lady is the Mother of God. This doctrine and its author were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. In the eighteenth century a group of them broke off and wanted to return to Rome. They were accepted, and are known as Chaldean Catholics.
John Paul II, in his maniacal eagerness to do ecumenism, signed a Common Christological Declaration with this heretical and schismatical NestorianChurch in 1994. Supposedly this wiped away the doctrinal differences between Nestorianism and Catholicism. One should recall the similar Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, which according to Wojtyla achieved unity on the question of justification, but which in fact was to discard the Council of Trent.
So now that Novus Ordites and Nestorians agree about Christ and His mother, there is nothing to stop an intercommunion between them.
The document, which has the explicit approval of Wojtyla, permits Chaldean Catholics to attend the Masses of the Nestorians, and to receive Communion at their liturgies.
This is nothing new, however. Vatican II permitted such heretical and sacrilegious behavior for Catholics, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically allows the practice in certain cases.
-- Not Surprised (Nothingnew@underthesun.com), February 14, 2005.
Since when?Since the Catholic Church taught that Jews and Moslems, i.e., the unbaptized, can also get to heaven. Are they all immaculately conceived?
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
Fr PaulOK, teach me.
just how does the original sin of the Jews, the Moslems, the pagans and the unbaptised [not baptised or improperly baptised] heretics go away?
Florence teaches us that water baptism is the only remedy. Florence teaches us that to die in OS means Hell.
now read the CCC and Dominus Iesus. i'm not sure what they say, actually, but they sure make a meal of a very straightforward subject.
..and, for the record, it's not because i want to feel amongst the elite, or that i want every non-Catholic to go to Hell, nor for any other spurious reason, that i engage in these discussions. i think Eugene too really needs to grasp that point.
it's because i am all too horribly aware of the point made by Bonzo. the Church stands or falls on this. if the Church falls, what happens to Mary? the Sacraments? and, ultimately, Jesus?
it's serious stuff -- far more important that advising a divorced Catholic (no annulment) as to whether he can marry his now pregnant girlfriend in a Catholic Church. yes, i read those threads too.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.
btw Fr Pauli'm probably signing out now, so no midnight "duels" with me. if that makes it easier to bear. OK?!?!
GB.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.
I want Father Paul to teach you, Ian. However he said he didn't care for joining debates with knuckleheads who keep on coming even after they're sand-bagged. Like you.''original sin of the Jews, the Moslems, the pagans and the unbaptised [not baptised or improperly baptised] heretics go away?''
John Paul II never said these would be freed of any sin. His words were words of peace and understanding. You posit something false.
Also, for Bonzo Boy, there's been NO apology for what we, the Church gave to any Jew in the Holocaust. That's false too. Our Holy Father expressed regret for sins committed by Christians of the past; sins of anti-semitism. Not for any fault of the Catholic Church; nor for the sufferings of every Jew ever persecuted by evil men. The Church has always taught us evil men will go to judgment and everlasting pubishment. More she cannot do.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
The Church has always taught us evil men will go to judgment and everlasting pubishment.The Church taught more than that, Gene. The Church taught that EVERY man will go to judgment and everlasting punishment unless he is baptized. If he dies with only Original Sin on his soul then his punishment will be the loss of heaven. If he committed any actual sins then his punishment will be more severe, depending on the sins he committed.
As Ian pointed out, it's not that Trads want such a teaching to be true. It's that they want the Magisterium to be infallible. That's impossible if the Magisterium changes it's teachings.
What I detest most about the post-Vatican II Church is her deliberate, calculated ambiguity as to what her teachings are. Consider the contrast in the pre-Vatican II prayer for the Jews on Good Friday -- which was recited for at least a thousand years -- and the post-Vatican II prayer.
Pre-Vatican II:
We pray for the perfidious Jews: that Our Lord and God may lift the veil from their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord. Let us pray. Almighty, eternal God, who does not reject the Jews in Your own mercy: hear our prayers which we offer for the blindness of this people, that acknowledging the truth of Your light which is Christ, they may be pulled out of their darkness. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Post-Vatican II:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of His Name and in faithfulness to His covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago You gave Your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to Your Church as we pray that the people You first made Your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord Amen.
It's clear what Catholics were praying for in the pre-Vatican II Church. But what are Catholics praying for in the post-Vatican II Church?
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
Bonzo,That answer really shows this farce of Vatican II, for what it really is.
-- Chuckles (Circuscentrring@PTBarnum.com), February 14, 2005.
Bonzo's cuz,"we pray that the people [God] first made [His] own may arrive at the FUlLNESS of redemption. [AND] We ask this through [JESUS] CHRIST our Lord" (emphasis added)
But maybe we should add:
We pray for the perfidious Traditionalists: that Our Lord and God may lift the veil from their hearts, so that they may acknowledge the TRUE Jesus Christ Our Lord. Let us pray. Almighty, eternal God, who does not reject THOSE IN ERROR in Your own mercy: hear our prayers which we offer for the blindness of THESE people, that acknowledging the truth of Your TRUE light which is THE TRUE Christ, they may be pulled out of their darkness. Through the same TRUE Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Ian and his other friends,
Answer this: how did the Saints who were never Baptised become Saints? What about Catechumens, also not Baptised?
I trust you know the answer, now answer this:
Can one or can one not make a choice for Christ at the time of death? If they can, who is to say that the Jews et al who are not Baptised are damned? Can God not extend one last hand of love to them, one with complete clarity so they can be sure who is their Saviour?
Read ALL the pre-Vatican II documents and if you cannot reconcile them with the way the Faith is expressed in and since Vatican II then you just don't get it because your minds, if not your hearts, are closed.
The Church has NOT changed Her Teachings, She has changed the way she expresses them, and no compromise has been made.
You have your facts incorrect as regards the Chaldean Church, I did an in-depth study of it and you clearly misunderstand it and misrepresent it.
If you want to play the they said back then, and they say now game then we are all done like a dinner because the Council of Hippo said you should ONLY pray to the Father in the Liturgy, not to the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. Pius XII was the first to "contradict" that one.
You cannot win, so give up, I have Truth on my side, foremost the Truth that the Divine Authority of the Church is just that - Divine.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
“i have wondered, in the past, why protestants don't use this as a means to attack the Church.” Because even the most bigoted protestant isn’t THAT dumb. Even they can see that there has been NO change in Catholic doctrine with V2, except in the fevered imagination of the so-called “traditionalist Catholics”. Bozo, FYI, the change to that offensive language in the prayer for the Jews (without changing its meaning at all) was made long BEFORE Vatican 2.Far from introducing ambiguity, the changes after Vatican 2 CLARIFIED the expression of many Catholic beliefs (without changing the beliefs themselves) and REMOVED many ambiguous expressions, so that it has in fact become much harder for bigots to find supposed evidence for their calumnies against the Church such as so-called Mariolatry, idolatry etc.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 14, 2005.
Pre-Vatican II:We pray for the perfidious Jews---and shortly following, Almighty, eternal God, who does NOT REJECT the Jews in Your own mercy: hear our prayers;
How was THAT not ambiguous? In the same breath we would say this people was perfidious and admit they worship as we do, an ''Almighty, eternal God, who does not reject the Jews''.
Vatican II is unambiguous; saying ''the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God,''
Instead of ''perfidious Jew.''
No question which is most pleasing to GOD-- ! [that] Your own [people] may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord Amen.
Just hearing Catholics of this day trying to defend the former blooper makes me sad. So called ''traditional Catholics''--????
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
"Of course it ISN'T, because I am not anybody, I am somebody, and whom I claim to be."Sorry, this is ridiculous. That doesn't make it true.
In fact, there's no sin in doubting that you're a priest. Furthermore, if I doubted you were a priest, and it was proven that you were in fact a priest, I wouldn't have apologized for doubting, simply because I'm under no obligation whatsoever to simply believe what someone says on the internet.
"At least one of your friends on this site took it upon himself to investigate and even found out my location."
I'm not even interested in investigating it myself, because to be quite frank, it doesn't matter to me. I'd discuss the same things in the same manner as I would with anyone else, in accord with what the topic would demanded.
My own brother is a priest. We've debated plenty. He's a good guy.
"This is only the second time my identity has been questioned because of my honesty."
Sorry to hear of your troubles.
"The devil hates the light you know, he prefers darkness, I am in the light for all to see (not the limelight though, anything but these days)."
Uh huh.
-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 14, 2005.
"When YOU give a priest here the short shrift it's just snappy dialogue, Hmm?"Like I said, I would have to take his word for it that he's a priest. I'm not really buying it. Do you know for a fact that he's a priest?
Second question: if so, how would that fact alter this conversation?
"Oh, yeah, --this is the Internet; must be an imposter. Sure. But you don't appreciate my dialogue. Hey! Dishonest!!!!"
Well, duh, Gene. You claimed I said something I didn't. Please don't tell me you can't distinguish that from doubting whether this poster is a priest.
I never once said that the Novus Ordo was invalid. I did say that I don't assist at the Novus Ordo unless I have abolutely no other choice on any given Sunday.
I'd explain why again, but most likely as usual, people would begin to twist the explanation into something that it is not. Dishonestly, of course.
One can only wonder if these people do this on purpose. I think many do. Impossible to prove, but it's my opinion.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 14, 2005.
Strange why anybody would want to discuss something serious with you, Emerald. Your intelligent replies are egotistical, and your everyday ones are spineless and silly. God protect you and may he not cut your long pilgrimage short. You have a long way to go.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
Sorry you feel that way.It is unwarranted, you know.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 14, 2005.
Yes; I know you're sorry. NOT.But I think these are accurate evaluations. As the lioness says, --My opinion, therefore it's fact.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.
"Answer this: how did the Saints who were never Baptised become Saints? What about Catechumens, also not Baptised? I trust you know the answer..."I do; name them and we'll talk about it. Start with St. Dimas just for the heck of it.
"...now answer this: Can one or can one not make a choice for Christ at the time of death?"
A deathbed conversion? Sure.
"If they can, who is to say that the Jews et al who are not Baptised are damned?"
I assume you mean those who have perished already... that's an important qualifier. If so, then the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church has said this. You should know this if you are a priest. Pope Eugene IV in an infallible declaration of Catholic dogma in Cantate Domino, to name just one. Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.
"Can God not extend one last hand of love to them, one with complete clarity so they can be sure who is their Saviour?"
Before they pass away? Sure, why not.
"Read ALL the pre-Vatican II documents and if you cannot reconcile them with the way the Faith is expressed in and since Vatican II then you just don't get it because your minds, if not your hearts, are closed."
Whatever.
"The Church has NOT changed Her Teachings, She has changed the way she expresses them, and no compromise has been made."
The Church cannot change Her teachings. But if someone within the hierarchy drops you an ambiguously phrased statement, you are responsible if you interpret it to mean something other than what the Church has always taught.
"You cannot win, so give up, I have Truth on my side, foremost the Truth that the Divine Authority of the Church is just that - Divine."
You seem to think that people can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised. Pardon my doubts that you're brandishing Truth here.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"You seem to think that people can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised. Pardon my doubts that you're brandishing Truth here."You've probably answered this question a million times b4 Emerald, and if that's the case I do apologise, but what's your take on the thief on the cross?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 15, 2005.
That Dismas was among the justified souls of the Old Testament who went briefly to the Limbo of the Fathers, also known as the Bosom of Abraham. This is where the Church has held that those justified souls of the Old Law awaited Christ's Passion and rising from the dead. In the Creed it describes Christ's descent into Hell, which in particular refers to the outer regions (the Limbo of the Fathers), to rescue the souls of the justified and lead them into Heaven at the Ascension.And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. Luke 16
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"A deathbed conversion? Sure."Lord Marchmain will tell you.
-- (...@...), February 15, 2005.
Give this man a Hand. He may have misinterpreted my "Sure" to be sarcastic.It wasn't sarcastic. Of course there are deathbed conversions, thank God.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
So will Oscar Wilde
-- (...@...), February 15, 2005.
"Pope Eugene IV in an infallible declaration of Catholic dogma in Cantate Domino"Infallible? Did he speak it Ex Cathedra? Intending it to be definitive for all time and exactly the way he put it?
You need a lesson in the doctrine of infallibility.
Dogma?
Again, doesn't qualify the way you think it does.
"Before they pass away? Sure, why not"
Not the question I asked; "at the time of death", i.e. the instance of death (whenever that is, perhaps you know).
"Whatever."
Figures, you bow out with a simple dismissal because you have nothing else.
"You seem to think that people can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised. Pardon my doubts that you're brandishing Truth here."
You still haven't explained about the Saints who were not Baptised, not the Catechumens - they are there in our history, from the beginng; Catechumens included in the Church as the Elect, some died without Baptism. You better take another look at Church teaching, and history while you are at it, beginning with Scripture. Were any of the Old Testament folks Baptised? I.e. Christian Baptism? How did they get to heaven? Jesus wasn't here yet so it doesn't count? Scripture is for all time, even before and beyond - Jesus is the Word, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, therefore the Word is the Alpha and the Omega, therefore Scripture is for all time and even before time. So the command for Baptism didn't apply to the OT folks?
You deny the Divine Authority of the Church and think everybody should follow your way?
I'll stay with a sure thing.
"justified souls"
Not through Baptism, so then how? You are being inconsistent, and that is where the Trad. arguments always fail, they cannot be consistent.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.
Yes; Emerald thinks he can see a loophole; to disprove the Baptism of Desire. He sure needs a wide loophole.Dismas is ''only another of the justified souls of the Old Testament'' who went to Abraham's bosom after death. NOT SO.
Emerald fails to see that CHRIST is the author of the Good Thief's sudden salvation. Not the Law. Dismas can't be just a figure out of the Old Testament. He is facing the JUDGE of the living and the dead, hanging on the cross near him.
The Old Testament had no more salvation or hope to offer Dismas. If it were so, he was been condemned, not saved. He admits it himself in his rebuke of the the Bad Thief. Dismas received the sacrament from Jesus Himself; who institutes Baptism in His Church. Not from a minister of the Catholic Church, from the CHURCH Himself. Therefore Dismas isn't an Old Testament soul. he's a NEW Testament Christian at the hour of his death. He was BAPTISED without water by Our Saviour.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Emerald, do you like the spanking you're getting?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
"Infallible? Did he speak it Ex Cathedra?"Yes.
"Intending it to be definitive for all time and exactly the way he put it?"
Yes.
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
"You need a lesson in the doctrine of infallibility."
Don't we all, it seems.
The parameters of a dogmatic definition are clearly spelled out in the documents of the 1870 Vatican Council I. See the bolded preface. It's ex cathedra.
"Dogma? Again, doesn't qualify the way you think it does."
What, was that his opinion after a few too many Long Island iced teas or what?
"Before they pass away? Sure." "Not the question I asked; "at the time of death", i.e. the instance of death (whenever that is, perhaps you know)."
Eugene IV, within the infallible statement itself, qualifies this. See the underlined portion of the statement.
"Whatever." "Figures, you bow out with a simple dismissal because you have nothing else."
It's more like this. You don't like what's being said, so you say that those who are saying it have hard hearts. Sure I dismiss that. It's a bad argument.
"You still haven't explained about the Saints who were not Baptised, not the Catechumens - they are there in our history, from the beginng; Catechumens included in the Church as the Elect, some died without Baptism."
Like who?
"You better take another look at Church teaching, and history while you are at it, beginning with Scripture..."
Why, so I can doubt my faith better? I've already heard this from the Protestants.
"Were any of the Old Testament folks Baptised? I.e. Christian Baptism? How did they get to heaven? Jesus wasn't here yet so it doesn't count? Scripture is for all time, even before and beyond - Jesus is the Word, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, therefore the Word is the Alpha and the Omega, therefore Scripture is for all time and even before time. So the command for Baptism didn't apply to the OT folks?
So then, baptism is really optional?
"You deny the Divine Authority of the Church and think everybody should follow your way?"
How so? I don't want people following me. It would be too much of a faith soaked in personalism. That kind of stuff makes me ill. People should only follow the Church.
"I'll stay with a sure thing."
Funny thing is, that's what I'm doing.
"Not through Baptism, so then how? You are being inconsistent, and that is where the Trad. arguments always fail, they cannot be consistent."
Do you even know what justification means? Try the Council of Trent.
Trads won't budge an inch. If that isn't the ultimate in consistency, then lol I don't know what is.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
Italics off.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
You do show consistency, Emerald. --Failure.A Catholic priest has called you in front of other Catholics, stop your crowing.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
You like it.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
"Yes; Emerald thinks he can see a loophole; to disprove the Baptism of Desire. He sure needs a wide loophole. Dismas is ''only another of the justified souls of the Old Testament'' who went to Abraham's bosom after death. NOT SO."From your CCC, Gene. You do read it, right?
Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell
632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.477 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.478
633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.482
What seems to be the problem?
"Emerald fails to see that CHRIST is the author of the Good Thief's sudden salvation. Not the Law."
You're making up stuff. You do this a lot. Actually, I do believe that Christ is the author of the Dismas' salvation. Nor did I used the term "the Law" in the same sense you are using it here. In addition, I didn't make the mistake of equating the point of justification with salvation like you seem to be inclined to here.
"Dismas can't be just a figure out of the Old Testament. He is facing the JUDGE of the living and the dead, hanging on the cross near him."
What is this, your own private interpretation? The establishment of the Mystical Body of Christ happened after Christ was glorified. Dismas' incorporation in that Body necessarily had to await that glorification. This is pretty basis stuff that, if you looked into the history of the Church, you'd found written about.
"The Old Testament had no more salvation or hope to offer Dismas. If it were so, he was been condemned, not saved. He admits it himself in his rebuke of the the Bad Thief. Dismas received the sacrament from Jesus Himself; who institutes Baptism in His Church. Not from a minister of the Catholic Church, from the CHURCH Himself. Therefore Dismas isn't an Old Testament soul. he's a NEW Testament Christian at the hour of his death. He was BAPTISED without water by Our Saviour."
You are now embarking upon you're own private interpretation here, Gene. Btw, St. Augustine disagreed with you. He speculated that Dismas was baptised out of the water that flowed from the side of Christ.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"A Catholic priest has called you in front of other Catholics, stop your crowing."Actually, I'm going to continue right on. Despite the italics.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
Here is something for you to consider.On the Cross, blood and water poured out from His side.
Poured out!!! To where? Upon the earth of course. Jewish (the Evangelists were Jews) Scripture is full of all kinds of symbolism, but not just any symbolism if you catch my drift. His Blood and Water poured out upon everyone, granting Salvation to all who would accept it. We are "washed in the Blood of the Lamb" are we not?
"Go and Baptise all nations; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Baptise them how? With water? Yes. With the Truth of the Blood and Water that spilled from His side? I.e. letting them know that it is by this and no other way that they are saved. Yes. Do you believe it cannot be both and either will suffice?
If we cannot convince them before they die because of our limited abilities, then God cannot convince them by His infinite abilities? That is, after all, your position.
And then they choose, yes to the Truth that cannot be doubted and thus remain with God for ever; or no and thereby joining the Angel of Light (renamed Satan, or the devil) for perpetual rejection and denial.
Baptism IS necessary for Salvation because the Church is bound by the Sacraments...God, on the other hand, is not. Popes before Vatican II noted this (not in these words, but they noted it nevertheless).
I better stop before I get called before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for clarification. Truly, I do not know where this is coming from...not my tired and fallible mind I am sure (it is 4am and I have an early Mass followed by a meeting with the priests of the region). But can anybody deny these Truths?
Sure they can. But isn't the denial of Truth rejection of God?
Strange, last year during Lent I was drawn into a forum and very quickly was called to defend the Faith. God's way of making sure I stay on top of the Church's teaching I guess.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.
You are arguing for salvation outside the Church, using Dismas as an argument, while at the same time failing to distinguish between justification and salvation, between the prefigurements of the Old Law and the Sacraments, and failing to denote the birth of the Catholic Church as being the point of the Ascension into Heaven by Christ. You are not taking note of the meaning and purpose of the Descent into Hell, and failing to note that no one could enter the Kingdom of God until the redemptive act was complete and until Christ was glorified.But it goes like this. If you delve into the Church's rich history of resources, you'll find that in you consider all of the above, it becomes clear: the justified souls of the Old Law had to wait until they had access to the Sacraments.
But now you're implying that you're sent on a mission from God.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
Emerald, will unbaptized traditionalists make it to Heaven?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
"Baptism IS necessary for Salvation because the Church is bound by the Sacraments...God, on the other hand, is not."St. Thomas spoke of this. As a theologian. A good one, too.
But the proposition: "God is not bound by His Sacraments" is not a doctrine, but a theological proposition.
It has been co-opted for use in arguing that the Sacraments aren't really necessary for salvation. I say they are, because the Church says they are. The Council of Trent isn't all that's available, but it is certainly more than adequate to hammer the point home.
This really is the single bolt that holds it all together, isn't it? This issue, that is. Expose this, and all returns to tradition Catholicism. Everything; even liturgy. It must be disconcerting to have people begin to recognize this.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"Emerald, will unbaptized traditionalists make it to Heaven?"Only if they're spanked with the proper matter and form. Oh yeah, and intent.
Do you have the proper intent?
Nahhh...
-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 15, 2005.
'Infallible? Did he speak it Ex Cathedra?' Yes."No. There are only two Ex Cathedra proclamations ever made - The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church"
And don't confuse Ex Cathedra with infallible - all Ex Cathedra are Infallible, but not sll infallible are Ex Cathedra.
Define the "Catholic Church".
OK...lesson in "infallibility":
Infallibility ensures that a teaching cannot be wrong, it is a negative affirmation, not a positive one. It does not guarantee that a teaching is proclaimed in the best way, or even in an appropriate way, it only guarantees that the teaching cannot be wrong. What is the teaching? The basic point being made - there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. What is the Catholic Church? The universal Body of Christ. Who belongs to it? Everybody for whom He died who have not with FULL knowledge of His Truth denied Him.
The trouble with Trads. is that they know what a Teaching says, but not what it means. Who interprets what it means? Ahhh...the Official Teaching Authority of the Church. And who is that? Among them, Ecumenical General Councils such as Vatican Council II.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.
"birth of the Catholic Church as being the point of the Ascension into Heaven by Christ"The Church was born at Pentecost after being conceived at the foot of the Cross. Are you sure you are even remotely Catholic?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.
St. Thomas was more than a theologian, he was and is a Doctor of the Church, an Angelic one at that. Doctor = Teacher. To be a proper Teacher in the Church one must Teach the Truth of the Faith, not opinion.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.
"The Church was born at Pentecost after being conceived at the foot of the Cross."There are several ways one can look at this. Yours is in fact legitimate. The particular thing I was pointing to here was that the Mystical Body of Christ into which we are incorporated, is that of the glorified Christ. As you know, that Mystical Body of Christ is synonymous with the Catholic Church.
"Are you sure you are even remotely Catholic?"
Comments like this really show your hand, imho. The point I am making here is entirely legitimate. But even if it was wrong, or if I do happen to get something wrong at some point in this conversation, you're going to call into question my Catholicity?
That's pretty funny, considering that St. Augustine himself devoted an entire book to the retraction of his own errors... lol!
Are you going to question whether he was Catholic? In fact, he said something along these lines: "I may err, but I will never be a heretic".
You see, the whole attitude you've taken thus far... not good. Doesn't look good at all.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
Emerald, they won't make it to heaven because they're unbaptized or because they're trads?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
"St. Thomas was more than a theologian, he was and is a Doctor of the Church, an Angelic one at that."I went to that school you've heard of that's named after him. This is news?
Theology is called by St. Thomas himself the Divine Science. He calls it a science for a reason; it derives its first principles from divine revelation, the things we Catholics hold by Faith. Since it syllogizes to further conclusions from these principles of Faith, and because of the admixture of other principles derived from natural reason, the conclusions of theology themselves are subject to error. St. Thomas claims this himself.
If you were to argue that the conclusions of theology have the same weight of credibility as the articles of Faith, you'd have St. Thomas Aquinas himself in opposition to you. You'd also be up against the very encyclical that supports the Angelic Doctor called On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy by Pope Leo XIII, where he very clearly states the job of philosophy as a handmaiden to the Faith, and how it doesn't make the Catholic truths any truer, but serves rather as a defense against error.
But what you'll be doing eventually is this... claiming that if a theologian said it, such as Aquinas, that it's unquestionable doctrine. That is not the case. The Deposit of the Faith is complete, and it is sealed.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
'Infallible? Did he speak it Ex Cathedra?' Yes." No. There are only two Ex Cathedra proclamations ever made - The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.Oh, I think I get it. Are you thinking that that there have only been Ex Cathedra statements made since Vatican Council One? If so, the Immaculate Conception definition was 1854, so even that predates the council, btw. There have been many, all throughout the history of the Church. In fact, you're forgetting another well-known one, which is at Vatican One itself, the Ex Cathedra definition in regards to infallibility itself.
No, you've got this way wrong. Pull up the Vatican One definition and see. Infallible definitions have been made many times throughout the history of the Church. Again, see the formula as clarified in the V1 dogmatic definition.
"And don't confuse Ex Cathedra with infallible - all Ex Cathedra are Infallible, but not sll infallible are Ex Cathedra."
I'm not confusing anything here. What particular distinction did you have in mind? We're talking about an exercise of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. Are you referring to an infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium?
"Infallibility ensures that a teaching cannot be wrong, it is a negative affirmation, not a positive one. It does not guarantee that a teaching is proclaimed in the best way, or even in an appropriate way, it only guarantees that the teaching cannot be wrong. What is the teaching? The basic point being made - there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. What is the Catholic Church? The universal Body of Christ. Who belongs to it? Everybody for whom He died who have not with FULL knowledge of His Truth denied Him."
Where exactly are you getting this from?
"The trouble with Trads. is that they know what a Teaching says, but not what it means."
What part of no salvation outside the Church don't you understand?
"Who interprets what it means? Ahhh...the Official Teaching Authority of the Church. And who is that?"
Pope Eugene IV, when he invoked his authority as the Supreme Pontiff in an infallible, ex cathedra pronouncement.
"Among them, Ecumenical General Councils such as Vatican Council II."
Read the documents of Vatican II for yourself. There is not one, not even one, dogmatic definition or clarification in it. Not one. That's why they call it a pastoral, and not a dogmatic, council.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
lol! Now I know! If you really are a priest, you're with the LC's, right?Did I guess right?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"Define the "Catholic Church"."Here's a good one:
"The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching."
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi. That's a good start.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
Fr. Paul wrote:The basic point being made - there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. What is the Catholic Church? The universal Body of Christ. Who belongs to it? Everybody for whom He died who have not with FULL knowledge of His Truth denied Him.
Oh brother. The Catholic Church is now teaching that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and just about everybody else are really Catholics. They just don't know it. This is Universalism, Catholic style. Who can deny that the Catholic Church is in schism with her past?
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.
Bonzo's Cousin, how come trads want a monopoly on salvation?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
The only thing trads want is for the Catholic Church to be what she claims to be: the one, true Church founded by the Incarnate God to teach with God's infallible authority on matters of faith and morals.If the Catholic Church had always taught Universalism, then trads would be Universalists. If the Catholic Church had always taught that the Old Covenant was salvific for Jews and that the New Covenant was for Gentiles only, then trads would embrace dual covenant theology.
But if what the Catholic Church teaches now contradicts what she taught before then we have a Church whose teachings cannot be trusted and whose claim to infallibility cannot be defended.
Protestants don't understand, as Catholics do, how everything hinges on an infallible Church. Everything. Without an infallible Church you cannot have an infallible Bible. Nor can you have an infallible interpretation of that Bible. That's why Ian said in one of his posts above that "but for the Church, we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses."
As for myself, I finally accepted the fact that the Church's teachings are full of errors and contradictions. The same goes for the Bible. I see no evidence of a Divine, infallible authority in either one. The Church is simply another man-made institution, just as the Bible is simply a collection of man-made literature. If a God (or Gods) exist it's anybody's guess as to what He (or they) is (are) like.
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.
Thank you Father Paul and the people who have just promised me salvation.I accept the Lord so now I can go out and have a ball.
Just to think that I wa sweating out some monsters before vaatican II, trying to make my life miserable.
Thanks again guys!
-- Paula (Whoopee@do.com), February 15, 2005.
the significance of an ***ex cathedra*** definition:"..., such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.": Vatican I.
yes ***irreformable***.
from the same Council:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
from the same Council:
"With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many ***even among the children of the catholic church*** have strayed from the path of genuine piety,... Led away by diverse and strange teachings and confusing nature and grace, and human knowledge and divine faith, they are ***found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which holy mother church holds and teaches***, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith."
to quote Eugene: "there is nothing new under the sun".
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
Bonzore- your post: this is the bit that Eugene cannot get his head around.
the choice is THAT stark. it really is.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
> "But if what the Catholic Church teaches now contradicts what she taught before then we have a Church whose teachings cannot be trusted and whose claim to infallibility cannot be defended."A: Bingo! And therein lies the Achilles' heel of the whole "traditionalist" schism. IF the Church is incapable of teaching error, then obviously the teaching of the past CANNOT contradict the teaching of the present. But IF the Church IS capable of teaching error, then NONE of the Church's teaching, past OR present, can be trusted, as there is absolutely no way of telling which of two contradictory teachings is the correct one. And self-styled "traditionalists" therefore are left with nothing but the Protestant approach - deciding for themselves what is right, based on personal interpretations of documents which they personally find acceptable.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 15, 2005.
Bonzo's Cousin, since Lefebvre invented traditionalism for trads, do trads consider him as their redeemer?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
Emerald has the funny fixation about salvation as only one type, because the Church is only One; and to be saved one type of Baptism has to be ritually administered. The Church is definitely One; and we never stated at all that a different Church has ever offered salvation.We have been taught by the CHURCH, not just the last Council-- that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are valid for salvation of souls. By way of God's infinite mercy and justice. There is ample proof in the New Testament. This is the question: is the soul saved by these variations of the one sacrament, Baptism; now Catholic, in the Church (One Church) founded by Christ?
The answer is YES, a soul goes to heaven after Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood --or water Baptism --to heaven IN the Catholic Church. He is in the Church Triumphant, with the prophets, with the Holy Innocents, Saint Dismas and all water-baptised Catholics. Even some who lived as pagans before Baptism of Desire. This conforms with dogma; No salvation outside the Catholic Church.
+
Nothing can be more disingenuous than saying, ''You seem to think that people can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised.'' Emerald will likely claim I'm making my own doctrine. I'm not; the Church definitely taught from ages past, Desire and Blood Baptism. It's not strange doctrine, it's always been Catholic doctrine. And that special gift of Baptism doesn't proceed from a ludicrous ersatz sacrament; it's God who grants His salvation to some favored souls. Because He is All-Just and All- Merciful.
God will never damn any good soul unjustly. And His divine love is boundless. Emerald and the ''trad camp'' try to place a boundary around salvation; in God's way. God is Love!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
"Bingo! And therein lies the Achilles' heel of the whole "traditionalist" schism."no, therein lies its cause.
"IF the Church is incapable of teaching error, then obviously the teaching of the past CANNOT contradict the teaching of the present."
the Church CAN teach error. Pope John XXII?? it cannot, however, do so through its infallible teachings [ex cathedra, Ecumenical Council plus Pope, Ord Magisterium]. that's why they are styled "infallible" to distinguish them from fallible teachings. you know this anyway.
"But IF the Church IS capable of teaching error, then NONE of the Church's teaching, past OR present, can be trusted, as there is absolutely no way of telling which of two contradictory teachings is the correct one."
the Church CAN teach error, and it has done so. look back at the old heresies.
"And self-styled "traditionalists" therefore are left with nothing but the Protestant approach - deciding for themselves what is right, based on personal interpretations of documents which they personally find acceptable."
au contraire: the correct conslusion is that "Self-styled" Catholics adopt the protestant approach of ignoring Catholic Dogma - and rely upon "personal interpretations of documents which they personally find acceptable".
read Vatican I - as posted above Paul. it's pretty clear on all this. Dogmatic definitions are "Irreformable". can't be "reformed". there is not "get out of jail" card in Cantate Domino [save for conversion]. to add one is to "reform" it.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
--''. . . au contraire: theCORRECTconclusion is that self-styled Catholics adopt the protestant approach of ignoring Catholic dogma - and DON'T rely upon personal interpretations of documents which they personally find acceptable.''That means all of you see the Popes as ''self- styled Catholic Popes'' from John XXIII till our reigning Pope? Explain please; why ''trads'' so easily dismiss the Pope even today? Is that traditional?
BTW-- Above we discussed Catholic dogma. No one has ignored it; and we aren't taking a protestant approach. You've been playing the Devil's Advocate, and here you LOSE.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
> "the Church CAN teach error. Pope John XXII?? it cannot, however, do so through its infallible teachings [ex cathedra, Ecumenical Council plus Pope, Ord Magisterium]. that's why they are styled "infallible" to distinguish them from fallible teachings."A: Do tell! Could you give me an example of a fallible doctrinal teaching of the Church?? (Just so I don't confuse it with infallible teaching)
> "the Church CAN teach error, and it has done so. look back at the old heresies."
A: Do tell! Could you give me an example of an old heresy taught by the Church??
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 15, 2005.
Ian, since trads are popeless, who guides their herd of goats?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
Here's Bonzo's Cousin (suddenly a ''trad''.)''But if what the Catholic Church teaches now contradicts what she taught before then we have a Church whose teachings cannot be trusted and whose claim to infallibility cannot be defended.'' Yeah, what if?
What the Catholic Church teaches now DOESN'T contradict what she taught before. All of us support the Church's doctrines but some here don't understand those doctrines.
We still receive and follow the good counsel of PETER; just as Catholics always have. He's the Vicar of Christ in the world. Our Holy Father is truly Peter's successor; and he's guiding us just as all the Popes before him did. Which means you're mistaken. We don't worship today in your ''Church whose teachings cannot be trusted and whose claim to infallibility cannot be defended.'' WE DEFEND IT. Only some elitists have challenged it, and certain uninformed people like you, maybe. Bonzo of Limited Faith. BLF--?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Paulgoogle Liberius, Honorius, John 22, GeoCentrism for starters. maybe even try VII?
you think everything is infallible?!?!?!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
95% of the church's bishops were heretics at one point, Paul. you already know that.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
But you are the ones who deny truths revealed in Christ's Holy Gospel:That our heanenly Father is infinitely Just, and infinitely Merciful. You think God is All-Just, but will not save a just man, All-Loving, but will not show mercy to a soul unable to come to him in water baptism. Not from unbelief, but from ignorance not of his own choice.
What matters for you is the letter of the law. The spirit of God's law you call heresy? Your faith is a sham if you deny the very truths evident in the gospel narratives. And not only these two: How so many were martyred for Christ, indeed the Church celebrates their feast day, (Holy Innocents, Dec. 28) and another dies unbaptized yet goes to Paradise with Our Lord because of one act of faith. A convicted criminal! (Saint Dismas).
Jesus wasn't here to explain WHY to you. But the Church did; and you still deny it. For only one reason. To ''prove'' the silly claim that you're more ''trad'' than our Pope.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Ian, after you left the Holy Catholic Church, did you google less or even more?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
Eugeneat least you've stopped cheerleading. upstream, you were kicking so high, i'm sure i saw yr knickers. gone off Fr Paul since you seen his arguments? different from yr own personal theology?
...you're now back to your only argument - but where do you draw the line in terms of God's love.
at the "back door", as you crudely put it to one protestant?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.
Thanks for your lack of respect, Ian. When you become spiteful and graphically crude, it shows your argument from reason doesn't measure up to the debate.Theology is either correct or incorrect; not ''holy'' because I expound it, or you. Mine isn't a personal theology anyway. All that I've said to you is backed by Catholic Church teachings. (God is Merciful, God is Just, and He wants all men to be saved.) My sense of the Church's teachings is distilled from very long study and contemplation; all Catholic. As any theologian's has to be.
Your theology is mostly central to one condition. It has to be anti-Vatican II without argument, because you THINK you're a ''trad.''
Well, my theology is better than your theology. Vatican II is a holy Council of the Catholic Church. Why should faithful Catholics be anti-Vatican II--? The Pope isn't. Just because you and a few lightweights are.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Ian, Emerald and ither "schismatic trads, don't fret.John XXIII opened the window. Paull VI said the smoke of Satan blew in. Faith blew out.
Don't fret Trads. Water seeks it's own level, as does truth. Vatican II is destroying itself with it's constant lies. If The Lord Jesus does not come back within the next 50 years or so, the conciliar church, for all intents and purposes, will be gone.
Paula, a recent convert to the truth.
-- Paula (Whoopee@do.com), February 15, 2005.
Ian, do all trads dutifully confess their mortal sin of habitual schism during invalid confession before every single illicit communion? or only some trads?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
Ignore the numbers, deny the numbers, say that they are lies. No matter.Post-Vatican II Statistics Prove It!Active Priests: 1965 - 58,000 2002 - 45,000
Ordinations: 1965 - 1,575 2002 - 450
Priestless Parishes: 1965 - 549 (about 1%) 2002 - 2,928 (about 15%)
Seminarians: 1965 - 49,000 2002 - 4,700
Sisters: 1965 - 180,000 2002 - 75,000
Brothers: 1965 - 12,000 2002 - 5,700
Jesuits: 1965 - 5,277 2002 - 3,172
Franciscans: 1965 - 2,534 2002 - 1,492
Christian Brothers: 1965 - 2,434 2002 - 959
Redemptorists: 1965 - 1,148 2002 - 349
Catholic High Schools: 1965 - 1,566 2002 - 786
Catholic High School Students: 1965 - 700,000 2002 - 386,000
Parochial Grade Schools: 1965 - 10,504 2002 - 6,623
Parochial Grade School Students: 1965 - 4.5 million 2002 - 1.9 million
Infant Baptisms: 1965 - 1.3 million 2002 - 1 million
Adult Baptisms (conversions): 1965 - 126,000 2002 - 80,000
Catholic Marriages: 1965 - 352,000 2002 - 256,000
Annulments: 1965 - 338 2002 - 50,000
Regular Mass Attendance - study #1: 1958 - 74% of Catholics (Gallup Pole) 1994 - 26.6% (Notre Dame study)
Regular Mass Attendance - Fordham University study: 1965 - 65% of Catholics 2000 - 25%
Misc. (source, National Catholic Reporter) 77% believe Catholics don't have to attend Mass on Sunday 65% believe Catholics can divorce and remarry 53% believe Catholics can have an abortion 10% accept the Church's teaching on birth control (source, Notre Dame poll) 70% believe the Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Our Lord (New York Times poll)
-- Paula (Whoopee@do.com), February 15, 2005.
Paula, since you're a recent convert to new protestantism, may I ask, where are they training new trads to learn how to vandalize the Holy Catholic Church? Charon's boat?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
I want Paula to know that the Church of the apostles is loyal to our Holy Father. We can't help the ''numbers''.Now, should all the numbers turn up on the side of your schismatical following, and even INCREASE over say, 30 years more; will that make you the true Catholic Church? You'll have great numbers to show. No-- You'll be usurpers of Peter's flock.
The Holy Spirit stays where our Holy Father has his authority from Christ. The See of Peter. --There is no ''pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Holy Spirit. Your numbers won't cause a Catholic panic; all of you are turning schismatic. Farewell, and may God call you back to His Church someday.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Eugene, as has been noted in the past, Pope Honorius was rather weak in character, in the sense that he did not stand firmly against the Arian Heresy. Now, it may be said that Novus Ordo, and all that goes with it, does not necessarily fall into the category of Heresy, since it is concerning liturgy rather than doctrine. Others however may argue that it does since it speaks of things such as invincible ignorance, etc. Anyway, I want to ask you this, if it is agreed that Honorius was wrong for not taking a strong stand against Arius, could not the same be said hypothetically for PJPII ? Note, I say hypothetically, as I am not asserting a position on the matter.The reason I bring this up is because I feel that well-meaning traditionalists in this forum, and no doubt in the Catholic world at large, have no intention of being divisive or disrespectful to the Pope. Rather, they perhaps see themselves in the same position of those who did stand up against the Arian heresy, despite the lack of action from the Pope.
I would finish off by asking these two questions - Are there matters of ex-cathedra involved as far as following Vatican 2, and its teachings is concerned? And if not, why should traditionalists be branded as schismatics or heretics, when it could be compared with the situation in Honorius's day.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 15, 2005.
Thanks for inquiring, Oliver. I don't find a hypothetical supposition unfair.First; you're way OFF saying the subject of invincible ignorance --which relates to Baptism, or salvation of the unbaptised, has any origins in Novus Ordo or such controversies. The Catholic Church taught us the truth about Baptism long before the 2nd Vatican Council. I took pains to type out a section of the texts from which seminarians were being taught in Ireland and Britain in the late 1940's and 50's. Written very precisely by a Catholic archbishop, who obviously was not initiating any theological matter; but KNEW it was Church doctrine well before then. He was always aware of the truth; invincible ignorance, Baptisms of Desire and of Blood, etc.;
Not only did the archbishop write these truths very plainly, he supported them amply, by careful biblical exegesis. This had to be a Catholic priest who celebrated Mass in the Latin Rite, not Novus Ordo. It's likely when he wrote the book, Novus Ordo was unknown altogether. This during the reign of Pius XII--
One of our ''trads'' completely passed over the work and the author. He didn't CARE what the Catholic Church taught during pre-Vatican II about baptism or invincible ignorance.
About heretical Popes I know so little that I'll let others make my argument. I'm sure somebody can, easily. You ask, could not the same be said hypothetically [about] PJPII? (That he's a heretic?)
Maybe. But I trust in God. The Holy Spirit, Oliver. I believe his Will shall be done as time goes by. It's supremely important today and forever for the Church to remain united under our Pope. He is the ONLY visible sign in the world of Our Saviour's presence amidst His faithful. That's why.
For all practical purposes, we have remained in communion with these groups calling themselves traditionalists. We never reject them; they reject the clergy and our prelature. Every time they post they come closer to flatly calling the Pope a false prophet, a failure, and a heretic. Doing so, they reject us, their own brethren. Because we keep faith with our Church. Not with rabble-rousers; they who have assimilated many corrupt practices of radical western dissidents. --Demonstrate, protest, spread dissent and propaganda. Well; I think they have just come to the wrong Catholic forum. They'll get NOWHERE with us.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Since Vatican II did not introduce or change anything doctrinal, following "its" teachings simply means following the universal, unchanging doctrinal teaching of the Church. If there were those who denied the authority of Pope Honorius, then they too were guilty of schism. That's what schism is.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 15, 2005.
Oliver, our reigning Pope JPII took a very strong stand against trads -- he pointed the schismatics out the Church door -- remember Ecclesia Dei? As for well-meaning trads, are foxes cuddly dogs?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 15, 2005.
Were his statements ex-cathedra?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 15, 2005.
Oliver:
An ex cathedra pronouncement is about an article of faith. A dogma.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.
Yes Eugene. I know, hence my question was actually a bit rhetorical. You see, the fact that PJPII's statements may have been to rebuke the traditionalists are about as reliable a litmus test as Honorius's lack of standing against the Arian heresy. Thus, unless you have an ex-cathedra statement from the pope, it is not in fact binding upon the Catholic peoples. In other words, PJPII could in fact be wrong to have made such statements. Catholics agree that the pope isn't impeccable, only infallible, and only infallible when speaking ex-cathedra, which in this case, he certainly was not.This is where things get sticky, because some people think that because the Pope might make bold statements about something, someone or a group of people, even though they're not ex-cathedra, that all of a sudden we need to take them as being absolutely binding.
Then you get all of this completely childish carry-on between people on this forum calling this person a heretic, that one a schismatic, and another doomed for hell, and why? I really can't figure it out. That's why the other day I made the point concerning division, not being only a prob of protestants, but that the Catholic church is rank with it. Why all this bickering? Seriously? What binding statements has the pope made? That should be the litmus test, unless you don't believe that PJPII is the legit Pope of the day, in which case ex-cathedra wouldn't apply.
Seriously folks, this spiritual bloodshed among you is not a good look.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 15, 2005.
Gene says "Here's Bonzo's Cousin (suddenly a ''trad''.)"No, sorry. Wrong. Clearly not, since he says himself:
"As for myself, I finally accepted the fact that the Church's teachings are full of errors and contradictions. The same goes for the Bible. I see no evidence of a Divine, infallible authority in either one. The Church is simply another man-made institution, just as the Bible is simply a collection of man-made literature. If a God (or Gods) exist it's anybody's guess as to what He (or they) is (are) like."
This is a conclusion entirely alien to traditional Catholicism. What you have here is an attempt to make it look like this is the necessary conclusion of adhering to proper Catholic belief and it's proper practice.
Bonzo is merely playing the other wing to @@@@'s insertion of silly little provocative statements.
This thread has become a mere gimmick at this point. There are more nicknames being used than there are people actual posting.
Here's a good example of the practical application of Hegelian dialectic, Ian. It's all here: a personality to act as agitator, a personality to construct the false thesis, and a personality to direct the energy to the centrist position.
Of course, notice that no one seems really interesting in the actual truth, though. It's all of a play to public opinion, and nothing of the honest pursuit of truth.
The proposed choices put on the table by the opposition in the little game that this thread has become, are as follows: ridicule by the agitator, abandonment or despair by the false thesis, and compromise at the center. Only one choice is correct. Take the ridicule, and keep the Faith.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 15, 2005.
"Emerald has the funny fixation about salvation as only one type, because the Church is only One; and to be saved one type of Baptism has to be ritually administered."Where in the world are you getting this idea that the Church has different types of salvation, if not from your own private musings? The Church has never spoken of different types of salvation. On the contrary, the Creed proclaims one Faith and one baptism.
"The Church is definitely One; and we never stated at all that a different Church has ever offered salvation."
...though it seems that one need not necessarily be incorporated into it, by your understanding. All it takes is a little Q and A, and eventually your opinion will come to the surface: that being, that the Catholic Church is the ordinary means to salvation, but that there's this whole other extraordinary economy of salvation, these other paths, these alternative ways. I can start the question-asking anytime, and then the truth will most definitely emerge. That's what you really think. But it's not really Catholic.
"We have been taught by the CHURCH, not just the last Council-- that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are valid for salvation of souls."
As has been shown time and time again, you have the theological conclusions of various theologians here, but not teachings of the Church. In fact, there are saints who spoke against it. You've seen these quotes provided. You just don't want to acknowledge that this topic lies in the domain of theological conclusion, but not in the domain of the Deposit of Faith.
"By way of God's infinite mercy and justice. There is ample proof in the New Testament. This is the question: is the soul saved by these variations of the one sacrament, Baptism; now Catholic, in the Church (One Church) founded by Christ?"
Why do you say there are many baptisms?
"The answer is YES, a soul goes to heaven after Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood --or water Baptism --to heaven IN the Catholic Church. He is in the Church Triumphant, with the prophets, with the Holy Innocents, Saint Dismas and all water-baptised Catholics. Even some who lived as pagans before Baptism of Desire. This conforms with dogma; No salvation outside the Catholic Church."
This is a theological speculation, Gene. This is not of the Deposit of Faith. You simply do not seem to understand that conclusions such as what you describe above are derived from theology, and you do not seem to understand that theology itself is not the origin of our dogma. Theology uses the principles of Faith, it does not produce them.
"Nothing can be more disingenuous than saying, ''You seem to think that people can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptised.''
Hardly. Because that's exactly what's being said by people. You too.
"Emerald will likely claim I'm making my own doctrine. I'm not; the Church definitely taught from ages past, Desire and Blood Baptism. It's not strange doctrine, it's always been Catholic doctrine."
Then why do many saint theologians argue contrary to it? Answer: becomes it is actually not a doctrine, but rather, a conclusion which is the product of theological speculation.
"And that special gift of Baptism doesn't proceed from a ludicrous ersatz sacrament; it's God who grants His salvation to some favored souls. Because He is All-Just and All- Merciful."
You know this? How do you know this?
"God will never damn any good soul unjustly."
Of course not; all souls that are damned are justly damned. There's something that people conveniently seem to sweep under the rug: Original sin. Maybe you might have forgot to factor this in. And actual sin, too, piled on top of it. These things have to be remedied, and we know how they are remedied; by the Sacraments. And if all people are born with original sin, and continue from that point to pile actual sin on top of it... then what, may I ask, exactly is your definition of "any good soul"? Who can say.
"And His divine love is boundless. Emerald and the ''trad camp'' try to place a boundary around salvation; in God's way. God is Love!"
Actually, sir, God Himself placed those boundaries, not I. So you argue with Him, not me. It most certainly does have boundaries, and those boundaries are God's own. The Ark was built to precise measurements, by God's command that it be so. Its boundaries were very precise and were of significance. It is no coincidence that this new ark, the Ark of Salvation which is what the Church calls herself, has boundaries. It is no coincidence that Canticles speaks of a garden enclosed, and fountain sealed.
If you speak as if there are no boundaries around salvation, or boundaries to the Catholic Church, it is you who speak against the Church. The amount of textual support for this, that the Church has clearly prescribed boundaries, would be almost like the flood itself.
No, sir. You are most certainly employing your own private imaginings on this matter.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
Oliver, after rereading Ecclesia Dei -- Pope JPII's EXCOMMUNICATION of trads for their "schismatic act" and EXCOMMUNICATION of those in "formal adherence" with them -- do you still think that his apostolic letter is morally unbinding and doesn't require an assent of faith? Do you think that the Pope wasn't serious when he aptly used the terms "schismatic" and "schism"? The Pope might be fallible in matters of art and science but isn't he infallible in matters of faith and morals because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
"...do you still think that his apostolic letter is morally unbinding and doesn't require an assent of faith?"Don't mind if I butt in.
Assent to which article of Faith?
"Do you think that the Pope wasn't serious when he aptly used the terms "schismatic" and "schism"?"
Do you really think that it was a formal excommunication when you can read it for yourself and see that it clearly referenced latae sententiae excommunication? You didn't really read it that carefully yourself, did you?
"The Pope might be fallible in matters of art and science but isn't he infallible in matters of faith and morals because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit?"
That wasn't an excercise of the supreme magisterium concerning a matter of faith and morals. It was a disciplinary in nature. It in fact does not call upon the infallibility of the Roman pontiff.
You're not really sure what you're talking about, are you? Besides the fact that this wasn't even about the SSPX in the first place, was it?
I have a question. Are you also posting as "Bonzo's Cousin"?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
"But now you're implying that you're sent on a mission from God."---Actually, my Ordination confirms that I am. :)
"failing to note that no one could enter the Kingdom of God until the redemptive act was complete"
---Never once have I failed to note this. Salvation was not possible until then, and after 'then' it is available to all who do not knowingly reject it. Christ's Sacrifice is also outside of time due to His divinity, how else do you think we profess the Immaculate Conception (Mary was justified/saved at the time of her conception).
"the justified souls of the Old Law had to wait until they had access to the Sacraments."
---So when did they receive them? Obviously not by the time of their deaths. You cannot be consistent - sorry to say, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
"you're going to call into question my Catholicity?"
---Is that not what you do with every N.O. Catholic? And even the Pope himself? Oh, I get it now, you are a pot and I am a kettle.
"St. Augustine himself devoted an entire book to the retraction of his own errors"
---How does this follow? When did St. Thomas give error?
"subject to error"
---Subject to, but doesn't mean that it is.
"the conclusions of theology have the same weight of credibility as the articles of Faith"
---I'm not saying that at all, I am saying that when one speaks the Truth, no matter who you are really, it is still the Truth, not because of the one speaking it (unless the one be the One God), but because of the simple fact that it is.
---Example: I will now make an infallible statement. Jesus Christ is both human and divine. This is an infallible Truth, but not because I said so, but because it is.
St. Thomas = Doctor of the Church Church Teaching = Doctrine Can't you get it?
"The Deposit of the Faith is complete, and it is sealed."
---It is? What do you mean by sealed? When was it sealed? Was it unsealed so the Immaculate Conception and Assumption could be slipped in? Now that proves that you are Protestant.
"Oh, I think I get it. Are you thinking that there have only been Ex Cathedra statements made since Vatican Council One?"
---Do you even know what "Ex Cathedra" means? Do you know what qualifies as an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
"Ex Cathedra definition in regards to infallibility itself"
---This was not an Ex Cathedra pronouncement. There are three forms of infallible pronouncements, Vatican I itself is one.
"Where exactly are you getting this from?"
---There's a lot there, which in particular are you asking about?
"What part of no salvation outside the Church don't you understand?"
---I understand it all; what part of the Magesterium of the Church is the only legitimate authority who can interpret Church Teaching do you not understand?
"Pope Eugene IV, when he invoked his authority as the Supreme Pontiff in an infallible, ex cathedra pronouncement."
---Which one?
"Read the documents of Vatican II for yourself. There is not one, not even one, dogmatic definition or clarification in it. Not one. That's why they call it a pastoral, and not a dogmatic, council."
---I have read them, in fact I have studied them, but you know this of course. It was not a dogmatic council because it was not intended to teach anything NEW, and it didn't. It was pastoral because it was applying the Dogmas/Doctrine/etc. pronounced in the past. Have you not noticed that within the documents of the Second Vatican Council there are 2 Dogmatic Constitutions and 9 Decrees, as well as a couple of other Constitutions and 3 Declarations. If none of this is Official Church Teaching, what is it? The Council Fathers saying 'we were bored and thought we would write a bunch of stuff that doesn't mean anything'?
"Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church"
---You didn't give a definition of the Church, you simply said 'the Church is the Church'.
"Oh brother. The Catholic Church is now teaching that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and just about everybody else are really Catholics. They just don't know it."
---Nobody said they were in communion. And nobody said that they were all somehow mystically connected to Christ. Ever heard of the phrase "anonymous Christians"?
"If the Catholic Church had always taught Universalism, then trads would be Universalists."
---First, define Universalism, then demonstrate how the Church has been teaching this.
Paula: "I accept the Lord so now I can go out and have a ball."
---Going out and having a ball (in the sense I believe you intend) is a rejection of the Lord is it not? Don't talk so foolish.
"..., such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.": Vatican I."
---Amazing how error usually if not always has some Truth. Why not give the entire context? "Such definitions"? Define such, and do not say "ex cathedra" simply, I want you to explain what qualifies as ex cathedra.
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
---First off, notice what it says at the beginning? "IF ANYONE". News Flash, the Church in Her Teaching Authority is NOT "anyone". This shows how little you truly know about interpreting Church Teaching; this teaching, as many others like it, is directed at individuals (including priests and bishops and even conferences of bishops), but it is not nor could ever be directed to the Church Herself in Her Teaching Authority.
"a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the CHURCH has understood and understands:" (emphasis added)
---You must prove what the Church understood, and that they pronounced officially their understanding. It is not at all as simple as you would like it to be. And Thank God for that.
---Ian, your posts clearly shows you do not know what constitutes Official Church Teaching, and what does not. You do not know what "irreformable" means - hint, it's root is "form". Oh heck, why don't I just tell you - it has to do with what is at the CORE of the Teaching. Do you know what is at the core of the Teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, that She was Immaculately Conceived and Assumed Body and Soul into Heaven?
---Paula, try putting all your stats within the context of the wider society and guess what you will find? Never mind, instead just look at how your statement is a fallacy - 'post hoc, ergo proctor hoc' = 'after that, therefore because of that'. Here's another example - I went to the store, and the store blew up. Therefore it is my fault. See how silly it can get? BTW, another name for the National Catholic Reporter is the National Catholic Distorter.
Oliver: "This is where things get sticky, because some people think that because the Pope might make bold statements about something, someone or a group of people, even though they're not ex-cathedra, that all of a sudden we need to take them as being absolutely binding."
---They are binding, but not for all time, and "absolutely" is a strong word that I would not use here. Anyway, it is called obedience to the proper authority. How was it again that Jesus learned obedience?
---Enough playing around, before I forget to post it, for a statement to be infallible it must have these or similar words: "to be definitely held by all the faithful". An ex cathedra one would have to be made by the pope speaking as Pope with the intent to pronounce a doctrine or dogma.
"point concerning division, not being only a prob of protestants, but that the Catholic church is rank with it."
---How do you think the Protestant Church got its start? Divisions in belief (one right and one wrong of course).
"Of course, notice that no one seems really interesting in the actual truth, though. It's all of a play to public opinion, and nothing of the honest pursuit of truth."
---Dismissive, proud, arrogant (without just cause) or what?
"one need not necessarily be incorporated into it"
---one need not necessarily be FORMALLY incorporated into it BY A POSTIVE ACT
""We have been taught by the CHURCH, not just the last Council-- that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are valid for salvation of souls."
As has been shown time and time again, you have the theological conclusions of various theologians here, but not teachings of the Church. In fact, there are saints who spoke against it. You've seen these quotes provided. You just don't want to acknowledge that this topic lies in the domain of theological conclusion, but not in the domain of the Deposit of Faith."
---Try this one on for size: "It must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will persih in the flood. YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MUST LIKEWISE BE HELD AS CERTAIN THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN IGNORANCE OF THE TRUE RELIGION, IF IGNORANCE IS INVINCIBLE, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY GUILT IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE EYES OF THE LORD. NOW, WHO COULD PRESUME FOR ONESELF THE ABILITY TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH IGNORANCE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURAL DIFFERENCES OF PEOPLES, LANDS, TALENTS, AND SO MANY OTHER FACTORS? *** ONLY WHEN WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE BONDS OF THIS BODY AND "SHALL SEE GOD AS HE IS" [1 JN 3:2], SHALL WE UNDERSTAND HOW CLOSELY AND WONDERFULLY THE DIVINE MERCY AND JUSTICE ARE LINKED. *** (Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadam, 1854)
---While I am at it - "The infallible dictum that teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths that the Church has always taught and will always teach. *** BUT, THIS DOGMA IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE CHURCH ITSELF UNDERSTANDS IT. FOR THE SAVIOUR DID NOT LEAVE IT TO PRIVATE JUDGMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, BUT TO THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. *** (Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1949)
---There is more where this came from, but not tonight, it is after 2 am. BTW Emerald, the above is hardly the "private imaginings" of any of the posters here is it? Or will you now denounce the pre-couciliar statements of the Church just so you can say your right and that's that.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.
Oliver, after rereading Ecclesia Dei -- Pope JPII's EXCOMMUNICATION of trads for their "schismatic act" and EXCOMMUNICATION of those in "formal adherence" with them -- do you still think that his apostolic letter is morally unbinding and doesn't require an assent of faith? Do you think that the Pope wasn't serious when he aptly used the terms "schismatic" and "schism"? The Pope might be fallible in matters of art and science but isn't he infallible in matters of faith and morals because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit?The catholic answer to that would be "Only if he speaks ex- cathedra", and please correct me if i'm wrong but his excommunicating/declaring people as heretics was not ex-cathedra. As such, I am yet to see an irrefutable reason why traditionalists should be branded as schismatics/heretics etc.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 16, 2005.
"I am yet to see an irrefutable reason why traditionalists should be branded as schismatics/heretics etc."---If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what it is?
Goodnight, 3 am, time to try to get some rest.
O Lord, why do you draw me into these things? Have mercy, please.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.
But now you're implying that you're sent on a mission from God." ---Actually, my Ordination confirms that I am. :)No doubt about that. But this statement was I was referring to: "Strange, last year during Lent I was drawn into a forum and very quickly was called to defend the Faith." Mission from God... you, know.
"failing to note that no one could enter the Kingdom of God until the redemptive act was complete" ---Never once have I failed to note this. Salvation was not possible until then, and after 'then' it is available to all who do not knowingly reject it."
See the bolded part. That's a truth. But it's a partial truth, you see, because it was also not available to those who didn't know of it either because of this curious thing called original sin.
So the complete truth is this: that until then, it was available to no one. Statements like yours are slippery, but people do need to learn how to catch them.
"Christ's Sacrifice is also outside of time due to His divinity, how else do you think we profess the Immaculate Conception (Mary was justified/saved at the time of her conception)."
Christ had a point of Incarnation. It was a real instant. It was in, and not outside of, time. That's because He became flesh and became man, and came into our world. Alright, now that Incarnation was crucified. So I find your statement that "Christ's Sacrifice is also outside of time due to His divinity" to be a bit on the foggy side. Can you tighten this statement up a bit, maybe be more specific? It's way too loose.
"the justified souls of the Old Law had to wait until they had access to the Sacraments." ---So when did they receive them?
Did they not?
Obviously not by the time of their deaths. You cannot be consistent - sorry to say, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry to say, but in claiming so, you have justified a dissent from the Faith. Here's how so: you're setting up human reason against the Faith. Eugene IV declares it to be the case in dogmatic format that unless one enters the Catholic Church before death, they cannot be saved. So you posit a question concerning the justified of the Old Testament which seems to call Eugene IV's statement into question. You find your question to be of value in upturning the truth of Eugene IV's statement. In other words, your question, and your answer to it, take precedence over Eugene IV's infallible declaration. But Faith seeking understanding operates far differently.
The justified souls of the Old Testament had to await the accomplishment of Christ's death and resurrection. But the new covenant has now been established. It's here. The place of waiting is no longer an option. The new law is now, not being waited for in the future, and everyone has this life available in which to avail themselves of the means of salvation. After death, it's to late, and you know this, and you know it to be the teaching of the Church. So there's you're answer.
"you're going to call into question my Catholicity?" ---Is that not what you do with every N.O. Catholic? And even the Pope himself?"
No. "Oh, I get it now, you are a pot and I am a kettle."
Your statement wasn't really addressing the topic, but instead, the person. It wasn't called for.
"St. Augustine himself devoted an entire book to the retraction of his own errors" ---How does this follow? When did St. Thomas give error?"
Follow from what? It wasn't the conclusion of a syllogism. It was a mere statement of fact. St. Augustine wrote The Retractions, where he retracted many of his theological conclusions after having investigated them further. In other words, theologians, and even Saint/theologians, make mistakes.
When did Thomas err? On the Immaculate Conception. He theologically called into question the Immaculate Conception. He's still a saint though, because it was an innocent error on his part.
"subject to error" ---Subject to, but doesn't mean that it is.
That wasn't the point. The point was that theological conclusions are not doctrines. As you know, doctrine cannot be subject to error. Theological conclusions are subject to error. Therefore (now here's a real syllogism, and something follows from it...) therefore, theological conclusions are not doctrines.
"the conclusions of theology have the same weight of credibility as the articles of Faith" ---I'm not saying that at all, I am saying that when one speaks the Truth, no matter who you are really, it is still the Truth, not because of the one speaking it (unless the one be the One God), but because of the simple fact that it is."
Who would deny this?
"---Example: I will now make an infallible statement. Jesus Christ is both human and divine. This is an infallible Truth, but not because I said so, but because it is."
Right. I've got a better example; try this: Because a catechism restates infallible doctrines of the Catholic Faith does not mean that catechisms are infallible. Thank you. I've been trying to point that out to certain people around here for years now. I'm glad you agree with me on this.
"St. Thomas = Doctor of the Church Church Teaching = Doctrine Can't you get it?"
Wrong. He acted in the capacity of a theologian, not in the capacity of the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.
"The Deposit of the Faith is complete, and it is sealed." ---It is?
Yes. "What do you mean by sealed?"
The same thing the Church means when she says it is sealed.
"When was it sealed?"
Upon the death of St. John, writer of the book of the Apocalypse.
"Was it unsealed so the Immaculate Conception and Assumption could be slipped in?"
The Immaculate Conception wasn't added. It has always been held by the Catholic Church, though it had not been dogmatically defined. There was some controversy. That's what dogmatic definitions are for... to end the controversy concerning dogma.
In fact, if you read the definition itself, it's even gratuitously evident in the wording itself that it had always been held as doctrine:
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception..."
As can readily be seen, it refers a doctrine already held. Bingo.
"Now that proves that you are Protestant."
No, it proves that I know what I'm talking about here. It's the protestants who like to say we invent new doctrines. We don't. But you said that something extra got slipped into the Deposit of Faith. That can't, and does not, happen.
"Oh, I think I get it. Are you thinking that there have only been Ex Cathedra statements made since Vatican Council One?" ---Do you even know what "Ex Cathedra" means? Do you know what qualifies as an Ex Cathedra pronouncement?
Yes, I do.
"Ex Cathedra definition in regards to infallibility itself" ---This was not an Ex Cathedra pronouncement.
It most certainly was.
"There are three forms of infallible pronouncements, Vatican I itself is one."
And the others... what are you think they are?
"What part of no salvation outside the Church don't you understand?" ---I understand it all; what part of the Magesterium of the Church is the only legitimate authority who can interpret Church Teaching do you not understand?"
I understand it.
"Pope Eugene IV, when he invoked his authority as the Supreme Pontiff in an infallible, ex cathedra pronouncement." ---Which one?
The one from Cantate Domino which I provided above.
"Read the documents of Vatican II for yourself. There is not one, not even one, dogmatic definition or clarification in it. Not one. That's why they call it a pastoral, and not a dogmatic, council." ---I have read them, in fact I have studied them, but you know this of course.
I do?
"Have you not noticed that within the documents of the Second Vatican Council there are 2 Dogmatic Constitutions and 9 Decrees, as well as a couple of other Constitutions and 3 Declarations."
Yes I have.
"Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church" ---You didn't give a definition of the Church, you simply said 'the Church is the Church'.
Did I lie?
I don't mean this to hurt, but just an objective statement. You really don't know this stuff.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
Father Paul, we thank you.
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what it is?"
A trad?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
"O Lord, why do you draw me into these things? Have mercy, please."Maybe He is having mercy on you. I'm trying to help you here.
But suffering is necessary for salvation. There's this excellent book by St. Louis De Montfort called "Friends of the Cross". I'll mail you a copy if you want one.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
Emerald, do you STILL like the spanking you're getting?Don't you wish my Pope never EXCOMMUNICATED trads and those in "formal adherence" with them? Don't you also wish that you could simply twist the facts and prove that my Pope was wrong in having EXCOMMUNICATED trads?
BTW, will modernistic trads make it to heaven?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
Emerald, do you STILL like the spanking you're getting? Don't you wish my Pope never EXCOMMUNICATED trads and those in "formal adherence" with them? Don't you also wish that you could simply twist the facts and prove that my Pope was wrong in having EXCOMMUNICATED trads? BTW, will modernistic trads make it to heaven?If it looks like a fruit loop, rolls like a fruit loop,and tastes like a fruit loop, hmmm what could it be?
@
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 16, 2005.
Strange. Very strange.Well, off to bed.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
"If it looks like a fruit loop, rolls like a fruit loop,and tastes like a fruit loop, hmmm what could it be?"Closet trad like Oliver?
Closet SSPX follower like Emerald?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
i find that this thread has become even more depressing.a priest that thinks that you can "add" to the Deposit of Faith -ie create "new" Dogma. this is the argument that Paul M, the deacon, used to come out with. though, at least, he phrased it as a "better understanding" - which is also out of the question.
it's also bizarre that the non-Catholics seem to have have a better handle on the origins of Dogma, and the meaning of Infallibility, than the catholics. Oliver has got it. Bonzo has got it.
what hope is there?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.
here's Vatican I on the Sacred Tradition:"Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in written books and **unwritten traditions**, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, OR came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, AND were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us."
you'll also find this in Trent.
the Holy Ghost does NOT land on the Pope's shoulder in the form of dove and then tell the Church something it doesn't know. the Church knows the entire Deposit of faith already. it has been known since the time of the Apostles.
it can NEVER change:
"For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery ***capable of being perfected by human intelligence***, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated."
nor can its meaning be changed:
"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, ***in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding***."
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.
with all this in mind - viz:1/ the Deposit of Faith is just that - a deposit given in toto 2,000 years ago
2/ theologians do not create Dogma: if they contradict it, they are wrong.
have a look at some of the stuff posted here:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/ignorance-quotes.htm
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.
"May understanding and knowledge increase ... but only ... in the same sense, and the same understanding"What kind of double talk is that?? I guess Augustine and Aquinas were heretics, because their understanding of doctrinal issues went far beyond any understanding the Church possessed previous to their theological insights.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 16, 2005.
Paulthis might help you. it's from VI:
".... all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."
"Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." "Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace."
"Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion."
IOW the Church is not against study per se, but such study is incapable of changing the meaning of Dogma. Dogma is immutable.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.
Paul says:"I guess Augustine and Aquinas were heretics, because their understanding of doctrinal issues went far beyond any understanding the Church possessed previous to their theological insights."
The Vatican Council says:
"Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in written books and **unwritten traditions**, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, OR came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, AND were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us."
if Augustine or Aquinas, as they did, ever contradicted Dogma, they were wrong.
St Thomas got it wrong on the Immaculate Conception and Baptism by Desire/ Blood. St Augustine published his own retractions. it's being somewhat rigorist though to accuse either of them of heresy.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.
"what hope is there?"Plenty. Consider this prayer at the start of the Mass in detail:
Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? Emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
Oliver, now I realize, aren't you a through and through Protestant -- don't you utterly reject the the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Sacred Host? Don't you completely reject the Authority of the Pope -- our One Visible Unity? Aren't you your very own papal authority when you privately misread Scripture? Which nth denomination do you choose to belong for now? You might have a desire for ecumenism as Catholics do but what in the world do you know about true Catholic (capital C) unity centered on the Holy Eucharist? What do you care about giving an assent of faith to the Pope's correct apostolic letter of EXCOMMUNICATION of trads? You are trying to police Catholic Unity and Catholic Obedience -- isn't that a little bit beyond ecumenism?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
Excommunications are passe. They went out when the Universal Church came in.
-- XXXX (----@-----.com), February 16, 2005.
No, Sir/Madam: A soul is ipso facto excommunicated under certain circumstances.Ritual excommunication is seen rarely, but for some given sinner, it can be applied. In which case, a sinner would be required to recant, or publicly repent, or otherwise show proof of his rehabilitation to the Church, in order that his interdict be lifted formally. --BTW; we are the Catholic Church. That stands for universal; but not a new world order.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.
Here's the sophist, at it again:''Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo,''
A psalm Emerald trivializes for theatrical effect. God should now ''defend Emerald's ''cause'' against unholy people and lawless men.''
You haven't a cause, Emerald. God may well discern your good will, your willingness to fight to the bitter end. I hope He forgives you, but He won't be vindicationg your ''cause''. God has given us our Pontiff, and the Holy Spirit.
Don't dangle Latin bait in Almighty God's face, Dear Sophist.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.
Oliver, now I realize, aren't you a through and through Protestant -- don't you utterly reject the the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Sacred Host? Don't you completely reject the Authority of the Pope -- our One Visible Unity? Aren't you your very own papal authority when you privately misread Scripture? Which nth denomination do you choose to belong for now? You might have a desire for ecumenism as Catholics do but what in the world do you know about true Catholic (capital C) unity centered on the Holy Eucharist? What do you care about giving an assent of faith to the Pope's correct apostolic letter of EXCOMMUNICATION of trads? You are trying to police Catholic Unity and Catholic Obedience -- isn't that a little bit beyond ecumenism?I'm definitely not a Catholic, that's correct. As for making myself a papal authority, well, no I don't consider myself to be one at all. I am very fallible, and a pretty poor representative of Christ I must admit. I also want to apologise for the tone of some of my posts here. I do feel pretty bad about that. I'm hypocritical by nature and really need the Lord's covering and mercy.
As for the whole ecumenicism thing, well to be honest, on the one hand I believe that we ought to be one because of the oneness of the spirit. However, it ought not be something manufactured by man, but as a result of prayer, denial of the self, and willingness to be measured, cut by the members of the body of Christ, to be fitted into God's House. This is something that I do not personally believe the ecumenical movement is doing.
Where do I meet? I meet in the church in North Shore. I could speak on the ground of locality, but that would really require another thread to be fair as not to detract from the original intention of this thread.
Anyhow, sorry for my arrogant posts last night. It was extremely fleshy for me to do so.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 16, 2005.
Oliver, no problem. North Shore, Hawaii? Lucky you.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
Heh, I wish. It's in Auckland New Zealand, sometimes also called North Harbour.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 16, 2005.
"Don't dangle Latin bait in Almighty God's face, Dear Sophist."Sure, Gene. Whatever you say.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 16, 2005.
Emerald; you focus too indirectly on my words. The premise is really:''God has given us our Pontiff and the Holy Spirit.''
Say ''Sure'' to that one, won't you? It's true.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.
Emerald,Glad to see that you do know what the Church teaches on the completeness of the Deposit of Faith and that in that sense it is sealed, but it is quite obvious that you do not understand it. Development in understanding of the Church's teachings (the Deposit of Faith) is not sealed; your arguments suggest that it is (i.e. once it has been defined by a pope who finds favour with the Traditionalist view). You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican II, the focus was on knowledge (memorise your catechism), rather than on understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means).
By the Way, I notice that you have no response to my posts from Pius IX and the 1949 Letter from the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
I really would like to take the night and respond to your post part by part, but it is already after 1 am and I have an early Mass and a long long drive tomorrow. Please pray that the weather holds and I can take my day off and go home to see my elderly mother, I haven't been off for over 2 weeks.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.
I found this site containing reasons why Gerry prefers the old mass. Some of the material here might constitute a part of the debate in October.http:// www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/gerry.html
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 17, 2005.
"You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican II, the focus was on knowledge (memorise your catechism), rather than on understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means). "great idea, i'll start a thread.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
it's herehttp://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cmnt
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
"the FATAL flaw of the Church"????????????????????????????What???
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.
We recently had an entire discussion concerning "invincible ignorance" and Salvation outside of the Catholic Faith..To my knowledge, there wasn't anyone who disagreed that the Church teaches and HAS taught prior to Vatican II that there is an opportunity for salvation, thanks to the mercy of God, for people who are in "invincible ignorance".In days gone by, "invincible ignorance" examples were given to mean a person who had never heard of Christ in his entire life..never heard the Gospel..never had an opportunity to convert to Christianity, yet led a good life and worshiped God in his own way.
It is not a stretch of the imagination at all to believe that there are still many people who fit that category in our modern world.
What is difficult to understand is the concept of somehow "enlarging" the "invincible ignorance" teaching to include those who are aware of the Catholic Faith, have been told it is the fullness of TRUTH, and then reject it anyway..yet they too will achieve salvation, since they have some sort of "partial truth" as members of any Christian church.
Now before somone accuses me of wishing other Christians would go to hell unless they become Catholics, please don't.
Once again, I'm looking at the difference between pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II "understandings"..
We used to pray for everyone who was outside the Catholic Church because they were lost souls..now it appears that nobody is a lost soul at all. Seriously..who exactly is a lost soul nowdays? If ALL can be saved without water baptism and without being Christian at all, then why not just preach to the world that :
1. ALL religions are equally as good as one another. 2. The only important thing is to be holy within your own religion. 3. God is all-merciful and will receive everyone who asks into Paradise.
I TRULY am not mocking or being sarcastic at ALL..
This (although admitedly oversimplistic) SEEMS to be the modern message.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.
> "if Augustine or Aquinas, as they did, ever contradicted Dogma, they were wrong."A: Obviously! That's just the point. They didn't contradict anything, but they provided new understanding of doctrinal issues which the Church had never been aware of previously. That process continues as long as the Church continues.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2005.
You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican IIWhere's Eugene with his accusations of elitism when you need him?
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.
"The church is providing new understanding"Tha tis the crux of the whole mess that the church is in at this time.
New understandings translated means heresies.
-- Pete (Chas@Charlie.com), February 17, 2005.
"They didn't contradict anything, ....."they most certainly did.
St Thomas on the Immaculate Conception:
"It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified **before her birth from the womb**."
full text here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402701.htm
the ex cathedra definition of 1854:
"...the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from **the first moment of her conception**, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, ..., was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God..."
see especially St Thomas' reply to Objection #1.
.. and in the subsequent discussion on whether the Virgin was born free of Original Sin, St Thomas' conclusion was that she was **not**, but that "..., at the conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes [concupiscence] redounded from the Child to the Mother."
MOREOVER, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is Divinely Revealed and, therefore, part of the Deposit of Faith.
for that reason, it is also incorrect to say:
"they provided new understanding of doctrinal issues which the Church had never been aware of previously".
the last surviving Apostle would have known the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in its every detail.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
Pete, are you talking about trad schism and heresy?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 17, 2005.
Are trads in schism from the schismatic church? YesAre trads in heresy from the heretical church? Yes
Why? Because they believe in the unchanging truth of the Apostles.
Please point out one heresy of the traditionals.
I can give you a half dozen from the current church in Rome.
I do not think that I have to kiss the Koran to prove that I am a good Catholic.
-- Pete (Chas@Charlie.com), February 17, 2005.
Poor Ian. Paradoxes completely go over his head. ''You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican II, the focus was on knowledge (memorise your catechism), rather than on understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means). "great idea, i'll start a thread.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo
Father said a fatal flaw is THE FOCUS, Ian. --Not a flawed Church. There has been a focus before Vatican II, correctly stated by Fr. Paul; on the wrong thing. Read his note again. If only you trusted the words of Catholics in authority over you. You don't care what priests think, or what archbishops think. You dispute even the Pope! You're like a wild animal.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.
In one of his posts above Fr. Paul writes:Try this one on for size: "It must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will persih in the flood. YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MUST LIKEWISE BE HELD AS CERTAIN THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN IGNORANCE OF THE TRUE RELIGION, IF IGNORANCE IS INVINCIBLE, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY GUILT IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE EYES OF THE LORD. NOW, WHO COULD PRESUME FOR ONESELF THE ABILITY TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH IGNORANCE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURAL DIFFERENCES OF PEOPLES, LANDS, TALENTS, AND SO MANY OTHER FACTORS? *** ONLY WHEN WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE BONDS OF THIS BODY AND "SHALL SEE GOD AS HE IS" [1 JN 3:2], SHALL WE UNDERSTAND HOW CLOSELY AND WONDERFULLY THE DIVINE MERCY AND JUSTICE ARE LINKED. *** (Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadam, 1854)
However, in the very next sentence Pius IX says, "But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (see Eph. 4:5). To proceed with further investigation is wrong."
Rather dishonest of you to leave out that very next sentence, wouldn't you say, padre?
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.
Gene wrote to Ian:You don't care what priests think, or what archbishops think. You dispute even the Pope! You're like a wild animal.
A wild animal??? You're losing it, Gene. :)
-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.
i have absolutely no idea what Eugene is going on about.i have already started a thread, whose purpose is to discuss the evolution of Dogma.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
"wild animal"i have absolutely no idea what Eugene is going on about.
i have already started a thread, whose purpose is to discuss the evolution of Dogma.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
Dear Lesley:
You apparently haven't concentrated on the truth of invincible ignorance, since you bring up conditions under which it couldn't apply-- of sinners who would NOT be able to plead ignorance.''What is difficult to understand is the concept of somehow "enlarging" the "invincible ignorance" teaching to include those who are aware of the Catholic Faith, have been told it is the fullness of TRUTH, and then reject it anyway.
YET THEY TOO ACHIEVE SALVATION,since they have some sort of "partial truth" as members of any Christian church.Who says partial truth leads to salvation, Lesley? You're wrong, we didn't say that and Catholic doctrines don't teach us that. In the first place it has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. That wouldn't show invincible ignorance, it would show the contrary, KNOWLEDGE.
In the second place, we haven't suggested a protestant can be saved by grace from any other church. His grace-- if he gets any, --is from Baptism alone; which is one of the life giving sacraments of the Catholic Church (the other is the Holy Eucharist). Baptism washes away sin. A non-catholic church can administer valid Catholic Baptism, but no grace at all, otherwise.
Later on, only PERFECT CONTRITION for all sin might bring him God's MERCY. MERCY is not related to any single sacrament or any other condition. God may or may not have mercy on those sinners. We haven't declared He will.
But WE KNOW HE CAN, if it pleases His Divine Will /
For instance we know people right here. Oliver, and ''David non-Catholic''-- Men of good will, clearly. Yet outside the Catholic Church. They're counting on ''something'' given to them without being faithful Catholics. They are NOT in invincible ignorance, since we've given to them every means of becoming faithful Catholics. We must pray hard for those souls, knowing God will be their Judge, not you and me. If at the end they don't repent, having refused the Church; I think we agree they'll come to GREAT sorrow. But I hope not!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.
actually Eugene,i had understood the debate to have ended somewhat differently.
no-one produced anything Dogmatic - just a few, inconsistent references in some Encyclicals from the war time Popes.
the majority of the Fathers are against the notion, St Thomas and St Augustine included - and we haven't yet seen a single Father support the idea.
moreover, the Dogmatic definitions of EENS make no mention of II; and to add II into the brew would be to change their meaning - das ist verbotten.
such people are in any event unbaptised. Trent?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
Ian, trying to be funny:''i have absolutely no idea what Eugene is going on about.'' -----Yes you do. I said clearly enough for a child to understand: You disregard what authorities (priests, archbishops and the Pope) tell you. That makes you, like a wild animal --- incorrigible.
Then he says:
''I have already started a thread, whose purpose is to discuss the evolution of dogma.'' ---------- That's fine. You lost the current debate, so you'll start a new one. Start TEN new ones, Ian.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.
Eugeneyou comments are becoming more and more personal.
why?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.
Pete, don't you have to at least believe and obey the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium to prove that you're a good Catholic? Isn't an OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL of V2 & post-V2 teachings the heretical hallmark of a schismatic trad?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 17, 2005.
“Rather dishonest of you to leave out that very next sentence, wouldn't you say, padre?” Cut out the patronizing “padre”, you mean “hombre” Bozo. You imply that Pius IX contradicted himself with these two statements. He didn’t. He said exactly what Eugene et al are saying here – it’s possible for non-catholics to be saved through God’s mercy.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.
Do you really think that it was a formal excommunication when you can read it for yourself and see that it clearly referenced latae sententiae excommunication? You didn't really read it that carefully yourself, did you?Emerald, could you please explain what a latae sententiae excommunication is ?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 17, 2005.
"He said exactly what Eugene et al are saying here – it’s possible for non-catholics to be saved through God’s mercy."Of course it is possible. If, before death, they are joined to Holy Mother Church, and remain there and remain in a state of grace.
Are you saying that if they do not enter the Church before death, that they can still be saved?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
"You lost the current debate, so you'll start a new one."Gene, you and Paul lost this one. Really bad.
But who cares about score anyways. It isn't salvific. It's the truth that matters.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
YOU; --tell God; --only IF, can You do as You will in Your infinite wisdom--??? Now it's clear, Emmie. You dictate what God has to do. He only can do it IF. HaHaHa! The ultimate in hubris on OUR forum!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
Oliver, I was wondering if you could explain something to me first. If you go upthread a bit, you'll find these two post in direct succession:Emerald, do you STILL like the spanking you're getting? Don't you wish my Pope never EXCOMMUNICATED trads and those in "formal adherence" with them? Don't you also wish that you could simply twist the facts and prove that my Pope was wrong in having EXCOMMUNICATED trads?
BTW, will modernistic trads make it to heaven?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Emerald, do you STILL like the spanking you're getting? Don't you wish my Pope never EXCOMMUNICATED trads and those in "formal adherence" with them? Don't you also wish that you could simply twist the facts and prove that my Pope was wrong in having EXCOMMUNICATED trads? BTW, will modernistic trads make it to heaven? If it looks like a fruit loop, rolls like a fruit loop,and tastes like a fruit loop, hmmm what could it be?
@
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 16, 2005.
I was wondering: does this indicate that you are the same person as the @@@@ poster?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
"Now it's clear, Emmie. You dictate what God has to do."How so? Nothing I said can in any way possibly be construed such that I'm dictating to God what He has to do.
Man, you're really grasping for straws.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
Emerald, how you could possibly misinterpret Church documents is now apparent -- Oliver is a Protestant and I'm a Catholic -- would you rather that he's a Catholic and I'm a Protestant?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.
You goofed up pretty bad there, didn't you?You're the same poster as Oliver Fischer.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
Emerald my friend, please don't be paranoid; honestly, Oliver and I are not V2 documents, so do not have OBSTINATE DOUBT or DENIAL that Oliver is a non-Catholic and I'm a non-trad -- Father Paul, Deacon Paul M., & Eugene are Catholics; Ian is a trad -- Lesley, and Steve are Catholics -- aren't you, Pete, and Paula trads?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.
Look, it's obvious to anyone that you've shown your hand here.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
Traditionals are a term that Catholics, (real catholics), have to use to differentiate themselves from the "church" that left the church through the instrument of vatican II.Those traditionals refused to follow their shepherd into error.
Following the pied piper over the cliff was not an alternative.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 18, 2005.
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; OR IF ANYONE SAYS THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER IN THE SAME PRIMACY, ANATHEMA SIT." (The First Vativan Council, Fourth Session, Dogmatic Constituion PASTOR AETERNUS on the Church of Christ, 1870 [emphasis added])"the members will be joined as members UNDER ONE HEAD [the Pope]" (Ibid.)
"We declare that the judgment of the apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANYONE; NOR IS ANYONE ALLOWED TO PASS JUDGMENT ON ITS DECISION." (Ibid., emphasis added)
"the supreme power of teaching is also included in this apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the apostles, holds over the WHOLE CHURCH." (Ibid., Chapter IV: The Infallible Magesterium of the Roman Pontiff; emphasis added)
And this ought to put an end to it all:
"as she is bound above all to defend the truth of faith, so too, if ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ARISE REGARDING THE FAITH, THEY MUST BE DECIDED BY HER JUDGMENT." (Ibid., emphasis added)
Anybody who goes agianst the Chair of Peter goes against Christ Himself and faces grave danger. Need I say more?!!!
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.
I believe -- (@.@.@.@), is ''David@ excite''. I know his insolence of style; with contempt written all over it. He's a Catholic, alright. But somewhat reactionary. He's attacked me with this same spiteful attitude.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
Yes, Father Paul; you nailed it.BRAVO ! ! !
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
" 'the FATAL flaw of the Church'???????????????????????????? What???" -- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.Lesley, Do you deny that the Church in Her humanity is flawed?
The human element is indeed flawed, and this flaw can prove fatal, not to the Church Herself, but to individual members; such as those who quote Church Teaching (they know what the Teaching says, literally, but they do not know what the Teaching IS, i.e. what it means), interpret it literally, and then denounce the official interpretation of the Church.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.
Lesley,Prior to Vatican II most of the 'knowledgeable' laity defended their Faith by simply quoting Church Teaching. As they couldn't defend it in any way because they didn't understand it, those with whom they argued (non-practising Catholics and Protestants, etc.) couldn't agree. When you can put your faith in your own words and show true understanding, others are more apt to listen and come to understanding themselves.
The Pharisees and scribes didn't understand Jesus' parables, He didn't explain them to them, He only explained them to the Apostles. There is a big diference in knowing what He spoke (the words He used), and what He said (the divine truth He was giving).
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.
Father;
In several years of contributing to the forum, I've admired possibly a half dozen Catholic exegesists and apologists.Now we welcomed you and you've become a standout. I can't tell you how much I your concise and authoritative work impresses me to date. God bless you in every way, and may your vocation surpass all hopes. Thanks so very much!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
does it all matter?
-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.
Emerald, I was the one who made the fruit loop comment. I was making fun of the @ nick. Anyway, I repented for that. If you had been reading carefully, throughout this thread I was actually trying to support your case. Maybe I failed miserably but I was trying to stick up for u and Ian because I think u guys take a lot of flak here. Anyhow, please be quite clear that I am not @.@.@.@ I always post with my real name. I've contributed to this forum for quite a while and I think everyone is pretty clear that I'm an ex-catholic
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 18, 2005.
Father Paul..thank you for your clarification..since you did say "THe fatal flaw OF THE CHURCH".. I was quite surprised at the wording there..I didn't see anything to indicate that you were speaking about individual members at the time.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.
That makes sense Oliver, thanks.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; OR IF ANYONE SAYS THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER IN THE SAME PRIMACY, ANATHEMA SIT." (The First Vativan Council, Fourth Session, Dogmatic Constituion PASTOR AETERNUS on the Church of Christ, 1870 [emphasis added])I've used this very section of text to attempt to convince the sedevacantists to let go of their errant theological speculation that the Chair of Peter is vacant.
My question to you is this, Paul: who are you directing this at? In other words, who on this thread has denied the above text?
"the members will be joined as members UNDER ONE HEAD [the Pope]" (Ibid.)
Of course. This is the stuff of basic Catholicism.
"We declare that the judgment of the apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANYONE; NOR IS ANYONE ALLOWED TO PASS JUDGMENT ON ITS DECISION." (Ibid., emphasis added)
Explain exactly what you think this means. It should be interesting to hear your particular take on it. Make it as explicit as possible, if you would.
"the supreme power of teaching is also included in this apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the apostles, holds over the WHOLE CHURCH."
Right.
"And this ought to put an end to it all: "as she is bound above all to defend the truth of faith, so too, if ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ARISE REGARDING THE FAITH, THEY MUST BE DECIDED BY HER JUDGMENT."
Of course. But what in particular are you referring when you say "it all"?
"Anybody who goes agianst the Chair of Peter goes against Christ Himself and faces grave danger."
No kidding. Like when they say there's salvation outside the Church.
"Need I say more?!!!"
Yes you do. You need to say who on this thread has disagreed with any of the above texts.
You quoted some excellent text.
I guess I'm kinda waiting to hear your private interpretation of it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
"Yes, Father Paul; you nailed it. BRAVO ! ! !"haha! All he does is quote some text. When trads do the same thing, and you rend your shirt and call it private interpretation.
Make up your mind.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
Eugene, so what if I AM "David@excite"? I'm NOT. YOU ARE attacking me. With a fellow Catholic like you, who needs an enemy? C'mon, aren't you the INDISPUTABLE EPITOME of SPITE and INSOLENCE and CONTEMPT in this forum?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.
Father Paul has nailed your intransigent opposition to our Church after Vatican II--You adamantly insist your own textual quotes justify just your (so-called) trad liturgy and/or practices. But these other Catholic rulings you choose to downplay ? ? ? ? The priest here is showing you a pertinent selection. Now you refuse to accept them ????
BTW, you persist in posting insolent messages addressed at Fr. Paul. I wish you'd have more respect.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
Dear (@.@.@.@),I honestly believe you are David.
No, I'm not that ''epitome'' you describe. David is; and you're running a close second.
If you AREN'T David, more power to you. My mistake. You're still a NEGATIVE voice around here, for an ostensible faithful Catholic.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.
"Father Paul has nailed your intransigent opposition to our Church after Vatican II--"Actually, what he did was box himself into a corner. He spoke of the "fatal flaws" of the previous Catholic Church. Then he quoted this:
"We declare that the judgment of the apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANYONE; NOR IS ANYONE ALLOWED TO PASS JUDGMENT ON ITS DECISION."
Which is true. Well, he's done that... he's judged the Church to have been the promulgator of "fatal flaws".
So people get a little tweaked when he says this, right, so he backpedals a bit and basically says the equivalent of 'hey, I was only talking about the Church in its humanity. That's not what I understood him to be talking about.
But at any rate, if that's the case, that statement in itself pretty much blows the whole argument that says people should be critical of the Pope.
Either way you look at it, no matter what he meant by that statement, it completely ruins the very basis for his main gripe against the trads. He he has to agree that their concerns and the expression of those concerns is legit, or he has to admit that he's guilty of the very thing he wants to charge others of.
Told you a million times, Gene, the latter always turns out to be the case.
"You adamantly insist your own textual quotes justify just your (so-called) trad liturgy and/or practices."
You watch what you say about my liturgy. Pope John Paul II has given it his blessing. I don't need any justification.
"But these other Catholic rulings you choose to downplay ? ? ? ?"
Absolutely not. These are excellent texts. I'm just saying to Paul: "look, use these against me or anyone else, in the specific... find out you're wrong. Watch them come back to bite you".
The priest here is showing you a pertinent selection. Now you refuse to accept them ????"
You make it look like I don't accept them, and I'll show you to be dishonest in doing so.
"BTW, you persist in posting insolent messages addressed at Fr. Paul. I wish you'd have more respect."
They're only insolent in your own head. That's not the same as reality. Clearly.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
Correction: "But at any rate, if that's the case, that statement in itself pretty much blows the whole argument that says people can't be critical of the Pope."
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 18, 2005.
C'mon, Eugene, aren't you the INDISPUTABLE EPITOME of OSTENTATION and NEGATIVITY in this forum?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 18, 2005.
Do you really think that it was a formal excommunication when you can read it for yourself and see that it clearly referenced latae sententiae excommunication? You didn't really read it that carefully yourself, did you?Sorry to be a pain Emerald, but perhaps you missed my question beforehand. Could you please explain a latae sententiae excommunication? I'm not picking on you, I just want to understand what it means, because you brought the point up when responding to the accusation that some traditionalists were formally excommunicated.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 18, 2005.
Sorry for accusing you of being @.All it means is "broad sentence", or a general or wide sense of a sentence of excommunication which arises from the intrinsic evil nature of the act itself. Because of the intrinsic nature of the act, it does not require a formal pronouncement in order to effect an excommunication from the Church.
For instance, anyone who commits let's say for instance an abortion, is automatically excommunicated latae sententiae, even though they haven't been formally excommunicated by Rome in a decree of some kind.
In the case of Ecclesia Dei, it references 1983 Code of Canon Law #1382:
Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
It would be interesting probably at some point to go through Ecclesia Dei in detail.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
Emerald,
Insolence from you is no surprise when you come at me. I've gotten used to it.You're being insolent to a priest now; Father Paul. I say it's shameless. This last post from you settles it.
''. . . insolent in your own head. That's not the same as reality. Clearly.''
You even become insolent replying to the charge. It's nothing if not REALITY. It's becoming apparent, Emmie. Your main character flaw is hubris. No one is important in your eyes; the world is at your feet. As long as you have the keyboard, you bash whoever presents himself. ,u> Even a priest. You've passed insolence, Boy. You're radioactive with human pride.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.
In all honesty, this personalization of every single conversation bores the living Hades out of me, Gene. You think I'm a nasty person? Whatever. What difference does it make? There's an immutable truth out there.If you want me to admit that I'm insolent, then fine. I'm insolent. Everybody's been insolent at least once I'm sure. I've got a problem with my left hubris? I'll see the doctor right away.
We may have a bit of a practical problem with determining that I'm radioactive, though. Crunching the numbers on a Hazmat cleanup, it's way outside my pocketbook and probably yours too. So let's just kind of sweep that one under the rug and keep a low profile... keep the overhead low.
"You're being insolent to a priest now; Father Paul."
I think it's kind of silly for you to expect me or anyone simply believe every personal claim made by posters on an internet forum. The forum is an excellent tool for discussion whereby one can test the validity and strength of arguments made for or against something... anything, really. The premises and conclusions stand on their own merit.
But believing every personal claim made by individual posters? That's completely absurd.
I'm not necessarily buying that fact that he's a priest. But maybe he is a priest. Even if so, I'm discussing something with him. We disagree. What is it about your understanding of the Holy Orders is it that makes you believe that one cannot debate a topic with a priest?
"I say it's shameless. This last post from you settles it."
It doesn't bother me that you think that. Look, you might not like my style. But that's me. Is it a sin? The truth of the matter really is this simple: I'm interested in my Catholic Faith.
My suggestion is this... offer it up.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
Of all the blow-hards to give us this:''Test the validity and strength of arguments made for or against something... anything, really. The premises and conclusions stand on their own merit.''
What is there in your premises that's indestructible, Emmie? Or their ''merit''--? ? ? -- They crumble. your conclusions are outright schism.
''What is it about your understanding of Holy Orders is it that makes you believe that one cannot debate a topic with a priest?'' --Your royal style, Emerald the Elitist. Your ''style''--? --Would anyone EVER appreciate it? Hardly; and I KNOW you don't care.
But you didn't seem to be DEBATING. You were MOONING a priest here. Being a SNOB in a priest's face. That's what's unpardonable about your ''topic debates''. You say I should offer it up? OK; except the joke's on you. Nothing you ever post here again (unless you show real RESPECT) shall go un- poked and un-prodded as phony and specious while your buddy Gene is alive to poke & prod your monstruous ego. You earned your notoriety and I'll pay you tit for tat, Radium.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.
"your conclusions are outright schism."The definition of schism is generally understood as this: the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal of communion with those who are subject to him.
I haven't refused submission to the Roman Pontiff. What's more, I haven't written you off. Innocent on both counts.
"Your royal style, Emerald the Elitist. Your ''style''--? --Would anyone EVER appreciate it? Hardly; and I KNOW you don't care."
When you harp on posters instead of addressing the merits of the points made in the course of discussion? Right. I really don't care, of course not. I'm going to want to know what the truth is, and what it isn't. That's the focus. Not some hyper-focusing on personality traits and all that accidental stuff. What is this, a tea party?
"But you didn't seem to be DEBATING. You were MOONING a priest here."
With all that goes wrong in life, at the very least, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will go to my grave not being guilty of at least a few things. One of them being "mooning a priest". I have never done this. I never will.
Especially these days.
"Nothing you ever post here again (unless you show real RESPECT) shall go un- poked and un-prodded as phony and specious while your buddy Gene is alive to poke & prod your monstruous ego. You earned your notoriety and I'll pay you tit for tat, Radium."
If I'm that bad off, perhaps the time would be better spent praying for me.
Traditionally, of course.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
What a moral wastrel! Instead of a glimmer of humility, MORE bombast!''You harp on posters instead of addressing the merits of the points made in the course of discussion?'' I haven't seen you MAKE points; and I keep track, Emerald. I saw only one-sided replies from you, not courteous discussion. Anyway, --What are your MERITS?
You're always HARPING about ''trads'', aren't you? Why don't you and your so called trads get another forum site? One into which Catholics who faithfully assist at Holy Mass in the vernacular WON'T be caught dead going in? Isn't it all you truly want? Stone-cold DIVISION?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.
"Isn't it all you truly want? Stone-cold DIVISION?"Absolutely not. Any more than I would kill one of my own kin.
Good night, Gene.
Oliver, I'm feeling bad about accusing you of being the other poster. Please accept my apologies. There's this element about the forum where it so often seems like a lot of the posts are more for the sake of gameplaying than honest discussion; you've probably noticed that as well. I try to overlook that element as much as possible, but it seems I've failed you by imagining your posts to be somehow tangled up with it. I'm sorry.
Gene, you want unity? Ask the Virgin Mary to petition for it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
No hard feelings bro, I forgive you. 8-)I agree with u, things have gotten quite out of hand on the forum here. It seems almost impossible to have a thread with sensible discourse and no ad-hom's. Anyway, just from the responses you've made to many posts, I really feel the spirit of one who really contacts God, and it's a joy for me.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 19, 2005.
"Please accept my apologies."goodness!
"No hard feelings bro, I forgive you."
gracious!
nice people saying nice things to each other. lovely, guys, just lovely!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2005.
Emerald, thanks for acknowledging that I'm not Oliver -- wasn't that a gross misinterptation of this written thread -- how much more multiplied your chance of misinterpreting V2 & post-V2 documents which require both the infallible Teaching Authority of the Holy Catholic Church and the total guidance of the Holy Spirit? Are you still testing, after thousands of posts, the validity and strength of V2 & post-V2 documents and the validity and strength of the inerrant "Novus Ordo Church"? In Ecclesia Dei, the Pope stated that trads and all those in union with them were schismatic thus he excommunicated them. I agree with you -- for a trad, you have failed a Protestant -- BUT you have failed the Holy Catholic Church as well for defending trad schism -- not to mention you are not united with other trads like the sedevacantists. Haven't you been gameplaying here in this forum for years?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 19, 2005.
The words of Father Paul: ''The human element is indeed flawed, and this flaw can prove fatal, not to the Church Herself, but to individual members. Such as those who quote Church Teaching (they know what the Teaching says, literally, but they do not know what the Teaching IS, i.e. --what it means),''. . . interpret it literally, and then denounce the official interpretation of the Church.'' One of several trenchant warnings this good priest has given our pretend trads. MORE:
''Time and time again, you (pseudo-traditionals) have . . . conclusions of various theologians here, but not teachings of the Church. --In fact, there are saints who spoke against it. You've seen these quotes provided. You just don't want to acknowledge that this topic lies in the domain of theological conclusion, but not in the domain of the Deposit of Faith." And, what's wrong with THIS gem of Catholic apologetics:
''The infallible dictum that teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths the Church has always taught and will always teach. -- *** BUT THIS DOGMA IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE CHURCH ITSELF UNDERSTANDS IT. FOR THE SAVIOUR DID NOT LEAVE IT TO PRIVATE JUDGMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, BUT TO THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. *** (Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1949)--
Father is appealing to our faith. You poor souls need the Church, she doesn't need our ''holy stamp of approval''. I sounded a well-deserved Bravo for Father Paul, and the most guilty parties here in this forum became deeply annoyed, not to say envious. ENVIOUS because a Catholic priest--!!! --receives congratulations and thanks from one of us. I've denounced the obnoxious manner in which Emerald has been communicating with this honest and holy man. And now, for all our faithful who meet here, I extend sincere apologies to Father for those affronts to his priestly dignity. May God bless forever bless him, and grace our Church with many more vocations like his!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.
Oliver, this is what happens in cyberspace when you mix faithful Catholics, who are one with the Shepherd/Pope, with dissenting trads/ex-Catholics who disobeyed the teachings of the Magisterium and/or who rejected Jesus Himself in the Eucharist -- as you said you side with the heretical trad camp which unceasingly lies about the Holy Catholic Church. Not too long ago you slandered me but you sincerely repented and were forgiven. Are you saying that faithful Catholics do not contact God the way Protestants and excommunicated trads REALLY do? Are you also saying that when excommunicated trads attack the Holy Catholic Church, it's because of their real contact, a joy for you, with God?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 19, 2005.
Ian, isn't it lovely when nice schismatic trads and nice protestants unite against faithful Catholics in a Catholic forum?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 19, 2005.
@.@.@.@ , I was speaking only concerning Emerald himself. I in no way am saying that modernists or V2 catholics don't have a proper contact with God. If you felt this to be the tone of my post then I apologise for not making it clearer. There are some people in the forum who at least appear to me, to be very sober and in the spirit when they post here. Some who are traditionalist, some who are v2 catholics, some who are non-catholics. I consider Emerald to be such a person. This is just from my observation. Of course, God knows people's hearts much better than I.Please don't think that I am here to stir up the traditionalist camp and unite them to attack the rest of the catholics here. That is not my style. I have many times tried to bring some peace to the forum here. I also worked very hard on programming a forum script in Perl when it looked quite possible that we were Philip Greenspun was going to shut down his server. So, please, don't think I wanna destroy this place. Quite the contrary, though I be non-catholic, I want people to get the most out of this forum.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 19, 2005.
"I consider Emerald to be such a person."Oliver Fisher, if you really believe this statement you made, then you haven't been reading Emerald's posts objectively. Such a person as you consider Emerald to be would not address a priest by his first name and refuse to acknowledge his Holy Office, such a person would not flippantly dismiss the interpretations of Church teaching by one who is well trained to interpret them within the Church Herself, such a person would not twist the words of another poster around such as Emerald has with mine in regards to the "fatal flaw" of the Church prior to Vatican Council II. Emerald is a sedevacantist who denies the validity of the Office of John Paul II as well as denying the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders I received less than two years ago and again less than nine months before that. Emerald professes to be more Catholic than Holy Mother Church who it is that decrees what makes for a valid Sacrament and what does not - but of course, Emerald probably has never heard the term 'the discipline of the Sacraments' and believes that aside from the actual teaching on the Sacraments, that their matter and form are part of the irreformable Deposit of Faith. Emerald is indeed playing devil's advocate trying anything and everything to destroy the validity of the entire Church by showing that She can err. Emeralds arguments are full of fallacious reasoning and dubious dishonesty, knowing that many who will read his/her posts are impressionable enough to turn from truth into that ever unfaithful realm of doubt.
Emerald's remarks cannot stand against the time honoured Teaching of the Church no matter how much Emerald tries to twist those Teachings around to mean what the schismatics want them to mean. They cannot be consistent, this, if no where else is where they always fail.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
"Emerald is a sedevacantist who denies the validity of the Office of John Paul II..."You're a flat out liar.
-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 19, 2005.
"I've denounced the obnoxious manner in which Emerald has been communicating with this honest and holy man."Perhaps then, in keeping with your view, he should retract his false statement that I am a sedevacantist.
This isn't looking real good for your side of the debate.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
True I have confused you with Pete, and I apologise; but if you deny the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the validity of any of the Sacraments as celebrated in the New Missal, and my Holy Office, then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II, which makes you a sed. Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are. I have, and continue to deal with others like you on other forums who claim to be in communion with the Holy See and recognise John Paul II as Pope, but their posts reveal a truth that they care not to admit.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
"You're a flat out liar."Very serious and vcery strong charge, can you back it up? Define a liar.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
"Such a person as you consider Emerald to be would not address a priest by his first name and refuse to acknowledge his Holy Office..."I don't know that you are a priest. All I know is that a person has entered this conversation with a nickname meaning to indicate that they are a priest.
Yes, I do refuse to acknowledge that which I do not know. Perhaps now is as good a time as any for you to provide some sort of evidence. I'm going to be needing that.
By the way, nearly everyone seems to call priests by their first name anymore. But you know what? This particular point is a complete waste of time anyways. It's dumb. In fact, as this point is pressed further, I'm more inclined than ever to believe that you aren't what you claim to be. Show me wrong... provide some evidence, please.
"...such a person would not flippantly dismiss the interpretations of Church teaching by one who is well trained to interpret them within the Church Herself..."
Ooops! Another mistake. A priest does not have the authority to interpret the teachings of the Church either. That's not included in what would consitute the Ordinary Magisterium.
"...such a person would not twist the words of another poster around such as Emerald has with mine in regards to the "fatal flaw" of the Church prior to Vatican Council II."
I didn't twist your words. You talked about the "fatal flaw" of the Church prior to Vatican II, and you spoke of it in the context of the presumption that if the Faith itself was somehow in want of understanding. But Faith, by definition, is the holding of divinely revealed truths which are beyond human understanding. Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy:
"Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine. For, as the enemies of the Catholic name, when about to attack religion, are in the habit of borrowing their weapons from the arguments of philosophers, so the defenders of sacred science draw many arguments from the store of philosophy which may serve to uphold revealed dogmas."
There is absolutely no problem with a Catholic who holds and practices the Catholic Faith in the simple acceptance of all the dogma of Faith, and in simple and sincere practice. God particularly loves these sorts of people. This is not a fatal flaw.
"Emerald is a sedevacantist who denies the validity of the Office of John Paul II as well as denying the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders I received less than two years ago and again less than nine months before that."
You need to retract the statement that I'm a sedevacantist. But as to whether you have received the Holy Orders, no, I don't know that you have. And it's perfectly ok before Almighty God Himself not to believe whatever a poster on the internet claims about himself.
"Emerald professes to be more Catholic than Holy Mother Church..."
I professed this? I said this? Give me the reference where I've ever said this. This is the standard, last ditch, and really goofy claim made by people who are running out of arguments against the honest holding and practice of traditional Catholicism. You will be needing to show me where I have ever professed such a thing. Run and get it.
Now what comes next is nigh on unbelievable at first glance:
"...who it is that decrees what makes for a valid Sacrament and what does not - but of course, Emerald probably has never heard the term 'the discipline of the Sacraments' and believes that aside from the actual teaching on the Sacraments, that their matter and form are part of the irreformable Deposit of Faith."
Let me get this straight. I want to make sure I have this absolutely clear. Are you saying that the matter and form of the Sacraments are changeable?
You're saying I believe that they are part of the irreformable Deposit of Faith. If you are saying I believe they can never change, you are indeed correct. I believe them to be unchangable.
Are you saying that they are changeable?
"Emerald is indeed playing devil's advocate trying anything and everything to destroy the validity of the entire Church by showing that She can err."
I never did such a thing. I'm not just trying anything and everything here. I've been very specific, and imho, pretty straightforward.
"Emeralds arguments are full of fallacious reasoning and dubious dishonesty, knowing that many who will read his/her posts are impressionable enough to turn from truth into that ever unfaithful realm of doubt."
This and the rest of what follows are just a lot of accusations. None of it really addresses the items for discussion which are on the table here.
I really do want to know if you think that the matter and form of the Sacraments is "reformable".
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
Before I respond to Emerald, I wish to post something I posted in "Dogmatic Interpretation":Pete,
"[T]he apostles baptized 3000 Jews on the day of Pentecost. Did they waste their time, when they were already saved through their own religion? First baptism of water went. In came baptism of desire. Now that went, and there is no need for even that. What will they do next? Don't worry Eugene, the Vatican now has a greater understanding."
Actually the understanding has been there for years, unless you want to deny the validity of the papacy of Pius IX also:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX, AUGUST 10, 1863)
Speaking of "invincible ignorance" Pius IX had this to say:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." (Singulari Quadem, 1856)
and
"it must likewise be held certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, WHO COULD PRESUME IN HIMSELF AN ABILITY TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH IGNORANCE, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice." (Singulari Quadam, 1854 [EMPHASIS ADDED])
He especially calls to mind this as regards God's plan of Salvation according to His Divine Mercy on the same subject:
"Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to dare set limits to the divine mercy, which is infinite. Far be it from Us to want to penetrate the secret plans and judgements of God, which are a great abyss (see Ps. 35:7), impenetrable to human thought." (Ibid.)
Here's one you better take to heart:
"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. ETERNAL SALVATION CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE AUTHORITY AND STATEMENTS OF THE SAME CHURCH AND ARE STUBBORNLY SEPARATED FROM THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND ALSO FROM THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER, THE ROMAN PONTIFF, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Saviour." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (Ibid.)
Lucky for you, we cannot set a limit on invincible ignorance, except to say that you as a 'Catholic' are bound to obedience which would make your ignorance vincible, but then again as your finite mind is unable to comprehend your own error, maybe your ignorance is invincible. There's hope for you and your fellow seds and anti- Vatican II lot yet.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
"True I have confused you with Pete, and I apologise"Apology accepted. But your entire post is a doggone lot to confuse. You have read the thread, right? Look:
"...but if you deny the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the validity of any of the Sacraments as celebrated in the New Missal.."
You're on a witch hunt, and it's not working out so well for you. Kindly scroll upthread where I stated this:
"As for the issue of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, the form of the words of the Consecration is still intact. The actual form consists of This is my Body and This is the chalice of My Blood. The words for all or for many do not affect the form, and therefore, do not affect validity. That is, of course, if all other conditions having been satisfied: valid matter and intention."
Look carefully at this:
"but if you deny ... and my Holy Office, then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II, which makes you a sed."
Let me get this straight. Because I deny that I know that you have received the Holy Orders (I notice you keep saying "Holy Office" btw), then I deny Pope John Paul II, and I've also become a sedevacantist? That's patently absurd.
"Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are."
Uh... no.
"I have, and continue to deal with others like you on other forums who claim to be in communion with the Holy See and recognise John Paul II as Pope, but their posts reveal a truth that they care not to admit."
Mission from God.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
italics off
-- (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
Singulari Quadem was 1854, not 1856, and you are selectively taking that one sentence completely out of context.Go drag the whole text of in here and see for yourself. For instance, Pope Pius IX stated this in that same allocution:
"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion ... For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood ... Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls."
Pius IX also said this:
"It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Since he was the one that convened Vatican Council One, I just remembered: I wanted to find out exactly why you believe that there have only been two Ex Cathedra pronouncements in the history of the Catholic Church.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
Emerald,"As for the issue of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, the form of the words of the Consecration is still intact. The actual form consists of This is my Body and This is the chalice of My Blood. The words for all or for many do not affect the form, and therefore, do not affect validity. That is, of course, if all other conditions having been satisfied: valid matter and intention
This is what you said. I do not like disagreeing with you but even if the consecration is valid, is it not a sacrilege?
Changing many to all is testifying falsly agains Our Lord. Every time a novus ordo priest or bishop, or even the pope say all, they are committing sacrilege. Trent says so.
Valid or not, I would not knowingly take part in sacrilege.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 19, 2005.
Emerald,Fr. Paul is NOT a nickname. Before me I see "Your Email Address" and I oblige; below it is "Your Full Name" and I offer all but my last name, but anybody with half a brain can see it's there too in the email.
I really don't feel that I should have to prove I am who I say I am since somebody else in this forum already did a little investigating and even knows my location - but then again, I've stated this already.
Will this do to prove I am me?
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/pjd61261/
If you want I will try and provide a link to some photos of me playing hockey on a famous priests' hockey team, or you can link to the diocesan home page and look me up there.
Now to the real stuff of your errors and spin:
" '...such a person would not flippantly dismiss the interpretations of Church teaching by one who is well trained to interpret them within the Church Herself...'
Ooops! Another mistake. A priest does not have the authority to interpret the teachings of the Church either. That's not included in what would consitute the Ordinary Magisterium."
---Tell me Emerald, how does "one who is well trained to interpret" come to be a claim to "Ordinary Magesterium"? Did I say it was an official interpretation? I said you "flippantly dismiss the interpretations of Church teaching by one who is well trained to interpret them". Need I spell everything out for you? The focus of my statement is "flippantly dismiss".
"I didn't twist your words. You talked about the "fatal flaw" of the Church prior to Vatican II, and you spoke of it in the context of the presumption that if the Faith itself was somehow in want of understanding"
---You just proved my point once again - "you spoke of it in the context of the presumption that if the Faith itself was somehow in want of understanding." There was no mention of "want" in regards to "the Faith itself", but the faithful themselves. Are you a politician by chance, you are good at putting spin on what others say tin order to change the meaning?
"There is absolutely no problem with a Catholic who holds and practices the Catholic Faith in the simple acceptance of all the dogma of Faith, and in simple and sincere practice. God particularly loves these sorts of people. This is not a fatal flaw."
---First sentence - True. Second sentence - True. Last sentence - oh, but it is when that simple faith is challenged and the holder does not have sufficient strength to battle the doubt that can be planted by the cunning one. The internet testimonies of so many who have departed the Catholic Church is plenty proof of that. It is also a failure to provide a life line to help draw others back into the Ark of Life. I've seen it all too often, insufficient explanation fails to convince of the truth. I ask the children in my parish to answer in their own words so I am sure it is not just vain repetition. One very young lady defends her faith often as she resides surrounded (literally) by others who continually try to 'convert' her and prove Catholicism wrong. It's quite cute really to hear her describe some of her 'ordeals'.
"You need to retract the statement that I'm a sedevacantist."
---I repeat: if you deny the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the validity of any of the Sacraments as celebrated in the New Missal,...then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II, which makes you a sed. Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are. I have, and continue to deal with others like you on other forums who claim to be in communion with the Holy See and recognise John Paul II as Pope, but their posts reveal a truth that they care not to admit.
---I added the part about Holy Orders before because others have denied my Office by denying the validity of the Sacrament as it was conferred.
" '"Emerald professes to be more Catholic than Holy Mother Church...' I professed this? I said this?"
---Not literally, but it is certainly a valid conclusion one can make based on your posts against Vatican II and John Paul II, and I might add me, because I am Ordained to speak on behalf of the Church when it comes to instructing the laity on the Deposit of Faith. The interpretations I give are not my own, they are indeed the Church's that I repeat and/or restate in my own words.
"Are you saying that the matter and form of the Sacraments are changeable?"
---You answer this: we have unleavened bread, the Orthodox do not. Do they have valid Eucharist?
---A lesson in Sacramental Theology for you - what constitutes validity falls in the realm of discipline (that's why you find it in the Code of Canon Law), not the Deposit of Faith. The celebration itself of the Sacraments is discipline, what happens at the celebration is Doctrine. It is true, however, that validity in certain circumstances is a matter of Faith (such as Holy Orders and men only).
---Straightforward? I think not, being straightforward means not putting your own spin on others' words.
---I must confess that at times I get my adversaries confused, perhaps you are not one of the others who is trying to invalidate the Church by claims of error in Vatican II, but somehow I feel that if I go back through the many posts here and elsewhere that you are one of them. If not, I apologise.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
"This is what you said. I do not like disagreeing with you but even if the consecration is valid, is it not a sacrilege?"Feel free to disagree any time. I'm not really sure what to call it, to be honest. Here's a key thing to keep in mind, though, and that what was actually promulgated by Rome didn't say "for all", but it actually said pro multis just the same as the Latin Mass has always had it, and same as the other 22 rites have always rendered the equivalent of. Always.
"Changing many to all is testifying falsly agains Our Lord. Every time a novus ordo priest or bishop, or even the pope say all, they are committing sacrilege. Trent says so."
It doesn't say what Our Lord said, that much is clear. I think I know what document you're referring to, the one which spells out the validity of matter and form, right? It goes into great detail about what's acceptable and what's not, if it's the same one I'm thinking of. Do you have that handy?
"Valid or not, I would not knowingly take part in sacrilege."
I'm not sure what to call it specifically except to say that there's no doubt it's meant to accommodate a new and universalist view of salvation, and that it's not found in the other 22 rites and cannot be found at any other time in Church history previous to the translation of the 1975 Novus Ordo Cum Populo, which in all reality, simply didn't translate it what it said. It translated it as something other than what it said.
As far as disagreements, please do if you do disagree. There's a world of difference when people disagree while honestly conversing in an effort to come to the truth of a matter. Speak thy mind.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 19, 2005.
"Singulari Quadem was 1854, not 1856"Sorry, you are mistaken, that would be Singulari Quadam you are referring to of 1854 - notice the "e" and the "a", and it is not out of context because I know what the context is because Holy Mother Church teaches me what it is.
"Catholic Church"
---Please define the Catholic Church, I know what the Church Herself has defined it as. Need I quote the Catechism, or do you accept it?
"why you believe that there have only been two Ex Cathedra pronouncements in the history of the Catholic Church"
---Because that's all there has been, other infallible teaching you propose was not Ex Cathedra (the Pope alone) but the entire Magesterium (Councils). Actually, I argue that His Holiness' statement on the invalidity of the Ordination of women is Ex Cathedra, but the Church Herself says it is "Ordinary Magesterium". Who am I to argue?
"Every time a novus ordo priest or bishop, or even the pope say all, they are committing sacrilege. Trent says so."
---Pete, Trent said so ABOUT INDIVIDUALS ACTING ON THEIR OWN, not the Pope and Bishops exercising there Office.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdooucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
Wow! Father; get the holy water; there are demons in the house!Pete is blaspheming now. Earlier he called John Paul II an anti-pope. Now the Mass a sacrilege. He says he doesn't like disagreeing with Emerald. Haha! WONDER WHY? Good company you're keeping now, Emmie. The lunatic fringe! I would distance myself from this one, you're already damaged goods around here.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.
"Pete, Trent said so ABOUT INDIVIDUALS ACTING ON THEIR OWN, not the Pope and Bishops exercising there Office."Let me clarify, as I will undoubtedly be asked to do - Pope and Bishops exercising their Office TOGETHER AS THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM; i.e. not an individual Bishop or even conference of Bishops, as to the Pope alone there are things within his competency that he can do (like the discipline of Celibacy, he can continue it or halt it as a requirement for Ordination to the Priesthood in the Latin Church).
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
but it is when that simple faith is challenged and the holder does not have sufficient strength to battle the doubt that can be planted by the cunning one. The internet testimonies of so many who have departed the Catholic Church is plenty proof of that.In those cases.......in any case, faith is lost because those people simply spend too little time in prayer.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 19, 2005.
How much is too little?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.
Ah, that may be different for each person.But the kicker is this.........you can pretty much guarantee that those who abandoned the faith did not fly to their Mother for help when the first seeds of doubt tried to take root. They did not pray to her for grace, for if they did, she would have protected them under her mantle.
That would be too little prayer.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 20, 2005.
Who determines all this, Chabella?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
Do you disagree Gene?
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 20, 2005.
Will this do to prove I am me? http://mywebpage.netscape.com/pjd61261/Sure, that's fine, Fr. Paul.
"---Tell me Emerald, how does "one who is well trained to interpret" come to be a claim to "Ordinary Magesterium"? Did I say it was an official interpretation? I said you "flippantly dismiss the interpretations of Church teaching by one who is well trained to interpret them". Need I spell everything out for you? The focus of my statement is "flippantly dismiss"."
I'm not going to be focusing on flippant or otherwise, but rather, on what's said.
In general, if you or anyone else is under the impression that because you're a priest I am under the obligation to simply believe whatever you say, that's not going to happen. There is no such obligation if that believing were in any way to mean that one must let slip on any article of Faith. Like I told you before, my own brother is a priest. I would engage him the same as any other person in the course of these conversations, and I'm not changing anything for you here. I'll simply keep it focused on the content of the conversation as best as possible, as always. That's what's going to happen.
"---You just proved my point once again - "you spoke of it in the context of the presumption that if the Faith itself was somehow in want of understanding." There was no mention of "want" in regards to "the Faith itself", but the faithful themselves. Are you a politician by chance, you are good at putting spin on what others say tin order to change the meaning?"
Here's what you actually said:
You see, that was the fatal flaw of the Church before Vatican II, the focus was on knowledge (memorise your catechism), rather than on understanding (truly knowing what the teaching means).
The holding of the dogma of Faith is knowing. When someone accepts by Faith the things of divine revelation, the dogma of the Faith, it is knowing. In fact, it is Thomism 101 that this particular knowing is to be considered to be of a certainty that surpasses any unqualified scientific knowledge or any of the best knowing and understanding of human reason. It is the very teaching of the Church itself that to hold the principles of Faith (you put it loosely in terms of 'memorizing the catechism', which doesn't really do the concept justice) is not the same as to understand them, though some understanding can be had, and that no understanding is to be esteemed more worthy than simply holding these principles of Faith to be the Truth.
Much of the encroachment of rationalism against the simple holding of the dogma of the Faith is defended very eloquently not only by Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane, but was also exactly what Pius IX was fighting against in the allocution Singulari Quadem which you referenced above.
I think it's a gross misrepresentation to say that there was this big problem before Vatican II with people "memorizing" the catechism and understanding nothing, and that Vatican II fixed all that, even though if you were to ask your average Catholic the most basic questions found in any decent catechism, they wouldn't be able to even define the terms presented to them.
"There is absolutely no problem with a Catholic who holds and practices the Catholic Faith in the simple acceptance of all the dogma of Faith, and in simple and sincere practice. God particularly loves these sorts of people. This is not a fatal flaw." ---First sentence - True. Second sentence - True. Last sentence - oh, but it is when that simple faith is challenged and the holder does not have sufficient strength to battle the doubt that can be planted by the cunning one."
There's this thing called Actual Grace.
We trads have the same problem, trust me.
"You need to retract the statement that I'm a sedevacantist." --- I repeat: if you deny the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the validity of any of the Sacraments as celebrated in the New Missal,...then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II, which makes you a sed. Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are. I have, and continue to deal with others like you on other forums who claim to be in communion with the Holy See and recognise John Paul II as Pope, but their posts reveal a truth that they care not to admit."
Maybe you should just retrect it, instead of alluding to some grave state of soul on my part for reasons that aren't really true, that aren't really there. If you have a particular accusation to make, make it, and make it stick. Otherwise, don't allude to them.
"---I added the part about Holy Orders before because others have denied my Office by denying the validity of the Sacrament as it was conferred."
As soon as you find any place where I've denied validity of Holy Orders in the new rite, let me know. It'll won't happen, because I never did. I can't be expected to apologize for everyone else.
"Emerald professes to be more Catholic than Holy Mother Church...' I professed this? I said this?" ---Not literally, but it is certainly a valid conclusion one can make based on your posts against Vatican II and John Paul II, and I might add me, because I am Ordained to speak on behalf of the Church when it comes to instructing the laity on the Deposit of Faith."
No, it is not a valid conclusion. It's an assumption on your part, and it also happens to be wrong.
As far as your obligations according to the Ordinary Magisterium, your job is to pass on the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled, to pass on everything in the same sense and same meaning that Holy Mother Church has once and always taught. Nothing more, nothing less.
If by saying this, btw, you mean to imply that because you showed up that I have to shut up, that's not what your Office entails.
"The interpretations I give are not my own, they are indeed the Church's that I repeat and/or restate in my own words."
I haven't found that to always be the case. It certainly wasn't when you said that the Church has only made two Ex Cathedra pronouncements in its entire history.
"Are you saying that the matter and form of the Sacraments are changeable?" ---You answer this: we have unleavened bread, the Orthodox do not. Do they have valid Eucharist?"
Could you just please answer the question?
"---A lesson in Sacramental Theology for you - what constitutes validity falls in the realm of discipline (that's why you find it in the Code of Canon Law), not the Deposit of Faith. The celebration itself of the Sacraments is discipline, what happens at the celebration is Doctrine."
Sorry, that's wrong. What constitutes validity in regards to matter, form and intent is most certainly not a matter of discipline, and is most certainly not therefore changeable. In fact, what constitutes these were instituted by the Savior Himself. They are not changeable. In fact, a little walk through the Council of Trent's section on the Sacraments would completely undo this thought altogether.
"It is true, however, that validity in certain circumstances is a matter of Faith (such as Holy Orders and men only)."
It's unclear what you mean here.
"---I must confess that at times I get my adversaries confused, perhaps you are not one of the others who is trying to invalidate the Church by claims of error in Vatican II, but somehow I feel that if I go back through the many posts here and elsewhere that you are one of them. If not, I apologise."
It's not good enough to feel something. You have to know it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
---Emerald, I forgot to respond to this little twist of yours:" 'but if you deny ... and my Holy Office, then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II, which makes you a sed.'
Let me get this straight. Because I deny that I know that you have received the Holy Orders (I notice you keep saying 'Holy Office' btw), then I deny Pope John Paul II, and I've also become a sedevacantist? That's patently absurd."
---Let's put the whole thing up again "but if you deny the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the validity of any of the Sacraments as celebrated in the New Missal, and my Holy Office, then you must also by extension deny the validity of the Office of John Paul II,"
---"my Holy Office" is within the context of "the validity of the Sacraments...". Denying my Holy Office, that of Priest of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of some question of internet identity, but by a denial of the Sacrament I have received, is to deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff who decreed the proper Form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I didn't say that "Because [you] deny that [you] know that [I] have received the [Sacrament of] Holy Orders," that you therefore deny John Paul II's Supreme Office. And you continue to deny that you don't spin others' words? Be honest...for once.
Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
"Singulari Quadem was 1854, not 1856""Sorry, you are mistaken, that would be Singulari Quadam you are referring to of 1854 - notice the "e" and the "a"...
Singulari Quadam, with the "a", was a different pope. It was Pope St. Pius X, 1912, and it was concerning labor unions, not rationalism and indifferentism.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
"I would distance myself from this one, you're already damaged goods around here."Gene's over-personalized view of the Catholic Faith. Who's in and out of the Church arises by popular concensus, something with a sort of an Americanist feel to it.
If that were the case, Christ Himself would have been voted out. In fact, I think that's what the Sanhedrin tried to pull off, feverishly playing the crowed deep into the night so long ago.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
"And you continue to deny that you don't spin others' words? Be honest...for once."Yes, I deny that I was spinning your words. Because that's certainly what it looked like.
Why do you spin my words in an attempt to make it look like I'm being intentionally dishonest?
After getting me mixed up with sedevacantism and calling sacramental rites invalid, you want to nitpick on what anyone else could have likewise thought you were saying?
Give me a break. You're spinning my posts to make me look dishonest.
Perhaps now you understand how seriously deficient you are.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
"Singulari Quadam, with the "a", was a different pope. It was Pope St. Pius X, 1912, and it was concerning labor unions, not rationalism and indifferentism."Nope, you got it wrong. Singulari Quadam of 1854 was an Allocution by Pius IX, Singulari Quadem of 1856 was an Encyclical on the Church in Austria. Do your homework.
I did make one error above though, I mistaken placed an "Ibid." where I should have put an "op cit" as the longest of those paragraphs was not from Singulari Quadam as the "Ibid." would indicate, but instead from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - how did you miss that one? Could it be that you simply do internet searches to check for verrification?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
Actually, what you got wrong was that I was wrong in my reference. Now that I go back over my post it appears that I could be saying you are wrong about Pius X having a document by the same name, which I am not because he did.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
"..I believe -- (@.@.@.@), is ''David@ excite''. I know his insolence of style; with contempt written all over it. He's a Catholic, alright...."Yes, Gene, I am a Catholic. But, I am NOT @.@.@.@. So you don't know my style as good as you think bro!
I haven't had as much time to post in forum, but I'm glad I got a chance to read your slander of me. Same old Gene.
Have a blessed Lent to you and yours.
-- - (David@excite.com), February 20, 2005.
"If you AREN'T David, more power to you. My mistake. You're still a NEGATIVE voice around here, for an ostensible faithful Catholic. "REALY? And your such a "positive voice" Gene with your "watered down" version of Catholicism?
I read your post asking for the Mod to help you earlier today.LOL.. You're a FUNNY dude, "little man".
-- - (David@excite.com), February 20, 2005.
Actually, I was grappling with the problem of conflict between Vat I and Vat II in my heart and brought to God many times. I am at peace with the answer that came.The Church during the Vat I times had in mind just the catholics and all proclamations were directed just towards them.
The Church during the Vat II has a bigger mission. God has asked her to come out of the closet and address teachings to the entire world. God wants her to be the "Light of the World" and "Salt of the Earth," not just hide under the cosy bushel of her wonderful salvific truths and relax herself up to heaven.
This is the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us support Him by supporting our Church!
-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
"The Church during the Vat I times had in mind just the catholics and all proclamations were directed just towards them. "not sure that's true.
VI was called to counter 19th century atheism and rationalism. the Greeks were invited, but didn't come. the Old Catholics were flushed out.
Lateran V was directed at a schism [Pisa].
Trent was directed at protestantism and its errors.
The Greek participated at Florence -- and nearly came back to the Church. other smaller oriental congregations were re-united.
etc etc
the only Council that didn't really have a point was VII. its purpose: "aggiornamento". modernisation. how do you modernise a Church that is, by design, rooted in the first century?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.
David@excite;
I said I BELIEVED it was you writing in that familiar insolent style you are known for. You give no respect to anyone, once you think he's your foe.If that's what I believed and it turns out wrong, I should say Excuse me. That's all.
Yes, you're a right-wing extremist Catholic; but thank God not one of the schismatics. Over a year or two you've made yourself famous around here for posting CRUDE, DISGUSTING things about homosexuality. Also for blasting me over my belief in the existence of Limbo.
You write about other Catholics with open contempt more often than not; if they disagree with you. Over simple differences, not serious ones.
You call it slander. I call this evaluation of your conduct simple fact. (@@@@@ seems almost your clone so I figured you were him/her.) Keep the faith and stop your quarrelling, BIG Man.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
Emerald;For the umpteenth time this must have been posted here. Who listens? You must know this by heart, as I certainly do.
Council of Trent, Dogmatic council, (not pastoral). Good enough for Gregory the great and a couple hundred other popes, but not for Paul 6th.
"The additional words for you and for many are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of his Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When, therefore, Our Lord said for you, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added and for many, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of and to the elect only did his Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb 9:28) when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many," and also the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine" (Jn 17:9)."1
Note; "Under the guidance of the Spirit of God". They explained it and no modernist twisting the meanings can change that. Pacify the Protestats, make them like us. This" for all "thing was just a part of the new ecumanism.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.
It's undeniable.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
Father Paul, thank you for your wisdom and guidance and thank you for correcting the adversary -- of the Church of St. Peter and his Successor, Pope John Paul II -- whose nickname is Emerald. He has used derogatory terms like "modernist" and "subversive" to describe the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church; and he adds new ones every so often. He dislikes the authoritative Catechism but he doesn't mind quoting it once in a while just to use it as a stepping stone for his corrupt end. I agree with you -- Emerald is here to sow doubt and to propagandize his errors among faithful Catholics. We Catholics respect and love our Priests -- our Fathers and our Guides.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 20, 2005.
Emerald, you deserved the spanking you got. You are a schismatic trad through and through, as confirmed by Father Paul. You're only pretending to be a Catholic in the latin indult masses your body attends -- your heart is heretical through and through -- obstinately doubting the teachings and Sacred Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church. Are you saying that the Novus Ordo is valid but the Novus Ordo in English is a mistranslation?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 20, 2005.
Oliver & Ian & Pete, the HOLY Catholic Church is NOT "modernist"; how can the very Church who upholds Sacred Tradition and who condemned modernism be one Herself?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 20, 2005.
Eugene the Clone, c'mon aren't you the INDISPUTABLE EPITOME of INSOLENCE and DISRESPECT and CRUDENESS and DISGUST and CONTEMPT and QUARRELLING in this forum?
-- (@.@.@.@), February 20, 2005.
Yawn.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
''It's undeniable.''-- Emerald ----------------------- Very debatable, and in part deniable.
The Popes are not in opposition one to the other. This is a figment of your imaginations. The devil hopes to divide us, and tempts YOU all to an unjust appraisal of our Holy Church today. He works by stimulating first, your inborn contempt for protestants. Then by arousing pride and elitism amidst a small band of muck-rakers. You're almost all in plain sight, there's no hiding the fruits of your dissent.
DOUBT in our Holy Father. Hatred for your own Catholic brethren who are sinners. And false pride in your own Pharisee's brand of Catholicism. Everyone but yourselves is unworthy of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
A scattered few of you have impugned our holy priesthood as total unbelievers and even judged Mother Theresa a fake saint. Yesterday one of you blasted John Paul II as a heretic and anti-Pope; and you ''little giants'' never admonished him for that sin. I did; because, GUESS WHY?
I'm truly a Traditional Catholic, faithful to the Church and Saint Peter.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
There is disagreement whether the new mass in Eglish is valid.Ther is far more agreement that it is a lie.
Mass objectively displeasing to God in itself? Every time a priest says the New Mass in the vernacular translations (like English), he is telling a lie
Let us consider the words spoken by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (26:27-28) and that of St. Mark (14:23-24) both say that Jesus said that His Blood would be shed "for many," whereas the Consecration of the New Mass says that Jesus said that it would be shed "for all men." Now either the New Mass is right and the gospels are wrong, or the New Mass is wrong and the gospels are right. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is free from error and hence we know that Jesus really did say "for many" at the Last Supper, and thus the text of the Consecration of the New Mass is wrong, even telling us a lie that Jesus said something at the Last Supper that He didn't say.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.
"Very debatable, and in part deniable."Hardly. That whole section of the Roman Catechism gives an extremely good treatment of the whole issue, some 400 something years in advance of our present time.
Here's more:
"That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.
Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord's body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.
Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,' partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.
Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages."
This further illustrates, in a more particular way, the all vs. the many.
This is my opinion: God has allowed this to happen to the Church. Let them grow up together, the weeds and the wheat. He'll do the separating.
"The Popes are not in opposition one to the other."
Let me point something out: none of the recent popes, including the present pope, have ever moved to define or declare any of the things of the conciliar Church. Not one.
The gripe, in all reality, is not that the conciliar popes did, because they never did. The gripe consists chiefly of an irritable and persistant ommission. A failure to cut away from the faithful those ideas and those actions which are harmful to them, harmful to their belief and practice of the Catholic Faith, and a failure to anathemetize those things, ideas and persons which are in fact at odds with, and enemies of, the Catholic Church.
"This is a figment of your imaginations."
It most certainly is not.
"The devil hopes to divide us, and tempts YOU all to an unjust appraisal of our Holy Church today."
I cannot imagine anything to more divisive than what the ambiguity of the Council has allowed for.
"He works by stimulating first, your inborn contempt for protestants."
I deny that I have this contempt for Protestants. I don't.
"Then by arousing pride and elitism amidst a small band of muck- rakers."
I deny this as well. Do I have pride problems? Most everyone does, so in that sense, you're not really on to something unique to our discussion. Of course I'm a sinner. Of course I have to suppress pride, just as anyone else does, as well as the other deadly sins as well.
I deny that pride is the basis for the traditional Catholic battle cry.
Let me blow away this pride objection completely. How? I'll admit it. It was a lousy objection, and it is merely a tangent to the essence of the discussion, so it hurts nothing of the main argument to concede this point, to just let you have it since you want it so badly. I'm prideful. There. The objection is gone; let's proceed then.
"You're almost all in plain sight, there's no hiding the fruits of your dissent."
I'm going to call your bluff for the billionth time. What do I dissent against? You cannot answer. I am not guilty of dissent.
"DOUBT in our Holy Father."
Doubt that he's the Holy Father, or have problems with the way he's handled certain things? These are entirely different considerations.
"Hatred for your own Catholic brethren who are sinners."
Now that's just a flat out false accusation. That's not true, and you know it.
"And false pride in your own Pharisee's brand of Catholicism."
Well if it's false pride, then it isn't real pride, which I guess means I don't have much to be concerned over.
"Everyone but yourselves is unworthy of Our Lord Jesus Christ?"
Of course not. Stop personalizing a legitimate conversation.
"A scattered few of you have impugned our holy priesthood as total unbelievers and even judged Mother Theresa a fake saint. Yesterday one of you blasted John Paul II as a heretic and anti-Pope; and you ''little giants'' never admonished him for that sin. I did; because, GUESS WHY?"
I honestly didn't read the anti-Pope thing. Show me where you read it, and I'll put my two cents in in favor of Pope John Paul not being an anti-Pope, but the real pope.
"I'm truly a Traditional Catholic, faithful to the Church and Saint Peter."
"I like me. I think I'm fine." My grandmother used to say that constantly. We all thought it was pretty funny.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
"There is disagreement whether the new mass in Eglish is valid."Just to be clear Pete, I think the for all thing is ridiculous, but it doesn't invalidate the consecration.
I'll tell you one thing; I'm sure glad I don't have to listen to it or condone its usage. Believe or not, other things bother me far worse than this.
Was it meant to accommodate the new ecumenism? Absolutely.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
"There is disagreement whether the new mass in English is valid."A: Not any disagreement that matters. The Church defines it as valid. No-one else has the authority to define it at all. Case closed.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2005.
I think Pete's point was this: that there are some who say that it is invalid, but that there are far more who say that the words for all is not what Christ actually said.Correct me if I got what you were saying wrong, Pete.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
Emerald fancies himself qualified to dispute with faithful Catholics, myself among them, ''This is my opinion: God has allowed this to happen to the Church. Let them grow up together, the weeds and the wheat. He'll do the separating.-----Emerald's private opinion. Yet, we hear, ''Stop personalizing a legitimate conversation.'',
OK, Emmie-- Keep your private opinion private; don't personalize WHAT is truly Catholic and WHAT ISN'T. As I've taken pains to tell you many times, our hierarchy (the See of Peter) is our sole authority. --Not the rank and file. If the weeds and wheat must be parted, let God do it. Don't play Holy Spirit around your brethren. It just offends God. And-- Please. Just for my sake, --your Pal--
Desist from posting screeds of 500 words at a time? COMPACT, ECONOMICAL, SHORT messages go straight to the heart. Save the soap-box oratory, Emmie???
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
No. I prefaced that particular item as my opinion, and it clearly is just that. I told you my opinion. It wasn't supposed to be any kind of reiteration of what the Church has always taught.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
Hubris and pride: Not a valid objection, says Emerald. And then, look at our boy's feisty rhetoric: ''I'm going to call your bluff for the billionth time. What do I dissent against? You cannot answer. I am not guilty of dissent.''He really thinks ''I'' tells the whole story! It all revolves areound HIM! --Dang, Gene! Everything you've been saying centered on just one man. EMERALD. No self-absorption, no pride?
I speak to others, Sir. Not only to you. Maybe you aren't up to your neck in dissent, and have yet to Cry Heretic at our Pope. Maybe you haven't bashed the Novus altogether. You are just a born elitist and can't help it..
But plenty of your cohorts do attack our Church. We had John Smith, your companion Trad; instigating Catholics to withhold financial support for the Catholic Church. Calling Mother Theresa a fake; --and he's just the most recent one. PLENTY of you have acted here as disloyal dissidents against our priests and bishops. Yesterday one of you said our Holy Mass is sacrilegious! Did you intervene? No-- you were complacent.
The last thing I--Gene-- want to see is a schismatic Emerald. I don't want to believe you will ever be that. If you say you aren't I'm JOYFUL at the word. But don't say trads are all faithful Catholics, merely sending us a message of peace and unity. I've addressed the MANY of you. You're only one.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
You.ve got it right Emerald. I personally would not attend an N.O. even if valid. I could not tolerate them saying "And then He said" and finish with "For All". Especially when I have to say amen to that lie. Nope, not for me.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.
Ask God if He cares.Your displeasure is not God's displeasure, Pete. Take a pill.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.
Eugene, is it possible that the Novus Ordo, although permitted, may not necessarily be ordained by God, in the same way that God permits us to do things, but doesn't necessarily ordain them, or approve of them.One example, divorce. God permitted it because of the hardness of people's heart's, yet from the beginning it had not been so?
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.
"One example, divorce. God permitted it because of the hardness of people's heart's, yet from the beginning it had not been so?"Shame on you Oliver Fisher, GOD did not permit it, but MOSES did. You better have another look at what Jesus said.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
"Shame on you Oliver Fisher, GOD did not permit it, but MOSES did."A fortiori.
You just made what Oliver said make yet even more sense than it already did.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
The language of the Sacraments seems to be a hangup for Pete. You are so concerned about Jesus' words and the Sacraments, where is the formula for Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
Give it your best twist Emerald. I can't wait to see this one.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
"Give it your best twist Emerald. I can't wait to see this one."If you insist.
Moses and all the patriarchs were, in type, prefigurements of the papacy itself.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
I didn't realize Moses et al enjoyed the charism of infallibility.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.
I didn't say that he did.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.
The language of the Sacraments seems to be a hangup for Pete. You are so concerned about Jesus' words and the Sacraments, where is the formula for Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick?-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005
I'll take one of your nasty pills Eugene.
To Father Paul. At your ordination did the bishop say "Receive the power to offer sacrifice"
Did he say "Whose sins you forgive, they re forgiven"?
What makes you believe that you have these powers if the bishop did not say that you have them?
At the consecration would you omit "This is My Body", "This is My Blood".
Would that be a valid consecration? If one of your older priests (about age 62 or so), ask him if he received these powers. Bet he says " I sure did".
-- TC (Chas@charlie.com), February 20, 2005.
Shame on you Oliver Fisher, GOD did not permit it, but MOSES did. You better have another look at what Jesus said.Rather than just pounce on me and say shame on you, you could be a little more charitable. Anyhow, let's discuss this point you brought up.
Do you consider all the laws and statutes given by Moses at that time to have originated from himself or from God?
Taking your comment, I would suppose you believe that they originated from Moses Himself.
The certificate of divorce referred to in Matthew can be found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4
When a man takes a woman and marries her, if she does not find favor in his sight, because he has found some indecency in her; and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house and she goes forth from his house and goes to be another man's and the latter husband despises her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house or if the latter husband, who has taken her as his wife, dies; then the former husband, who sent her away, may not return to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled. For that is an abomination before Jehovah, and you shall not cause the land to sin which Jehovah you God is giving you as an inheritence.
Let us see what Deuteronomy 26:16-19 has to say.
16 This day Jehovah your God is commanding you to do these statutes and judgement; therefore you shall keep them and do them with all your heart and with all your soul.
17 It is Jehovah whom you have today declared to be your God and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes and His commandments and His judgements, and will listen to His voice.
18 And it is Jehovah who has today declared you to be a people for His personal treasure, even as He promised you; and that you will keep all His commandments;
19 And that He will set you high above all the nations which He has made, for praise and for a name and for honor; and that you will be a holy people to Jehovah you God, as He has spoken.
With all due respect sir, it does seem to me that although Moses spoke the commandments and statutes, and although He was God's deputy authority at the time, none of the laws or statutes or ordinances originated from Him but from God Himself, and that would include the matter of handling certificates of divorce. Yes God hates divorce, that is clear in Malachi 2:16, and yes Moses permitted certificates of divorce, but he didn't do it of himself, he only went according to the word he received from God. If God would have spoken differently, and said that those who divorce are to be stoned, then surely Moses would have spoken the same thing.
Do you find my argumentation flawed? If so, I'd be happy to stand corrected with a perhaps more accurate interpretation.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.
Pete,I forgot one - Reconciliation. Where and when did Jesus say: "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit."???
If you want to play the literalist game, I can only find Him saying "Your sins are forgiven" not "I forgive".
I suspect what your and others' replies will be, and I am prepared to use such reply to prove the validity of "all" versus "many". Actually, I don't really have to as it has already been done by others.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.
Here are the old and new rites of ordination.
Priestly Ordination: The New Rite Vs. The Old Rite Strange Changes
On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.
The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.
The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest: 1) In relation to the power to offer Mass:
Old Rite New Rite “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.” “Let our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed by the Holy Ghost and by fortitude, guard you in order that you may offer the sacrifice to God and sanctify the Christian people.”
2) In relation to the power to hear confession:
Old Rite New Rite The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord Himself: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22) Abolished completely
These two ceremonies in the traditional rite of ordination indicated clearly that the priest has two powers:
1. The first, on the physical Body of Christ, consisting in offering the Sacrifice for the living and the dead.
2. The second, on the mystical Body of Christ i.e. the sanctification of the faithful, especially by the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Confession.
While these two powers are mentioned in the new formulas, it is not done very clearly:
- The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead.
- The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace.
WHY WERE THESE CHANGES MADE? It is now manifest that the intention leading all these changes in the new rite of ordination is the same intention which lead all the changes in the new order of Mass, i.e. the desire to get closer to the Protestant doctrines.
For Luther, founder of Protestantism
-- Pete (TC) (Chas@charlie.com), February 21, 2005.
Oliver,I'll get back to you. I don't feel like staying up until 3 or 4 am again so I'm goin' nite nite while the gittin' is good..
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.
Father Paul;Some logic, and words, ( or lack thereof) mean something.
As the two ordinations show a marked diference. One says what you are getting, the other does not.
Take any of the 7 sacraments, the form specifies exactly what is being offered. Baptism without the words is not valid. Marriage without the words is not valid. confession without "I absolve you" is not valid. Last rites somewhat puzzling. It was called extreme unction. It is now sacrament of the sick.
Ordination without specifying what you do is at the very least questionable.
Our Lord gave direct power to the apostles. "Do this in memory of Me". (the power tooffer sacrifice)
'Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven". A direct giving of power.
The new ordination rite does not have the force of the old. You can't beat 'RECEIVE THE POWER to offer sacrifice. New rite kind of wishy wshy.
Even more so on forgiving sins. 'RECEIVE THE POWER to forgive sins.
That beautiful word "Power". New rite is totally silent. That has to be a stretch.
If it doesn't disturb you, it doesn't disturb me either. You gave your life to this and I did not.
In any event God bless you. You seem to be a good person, even if I have my doubts about your ordination.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 21, 2005.
You have overspilled the reservoir, Pete. This cascade of words you posted here requires hours, DAYS, to refute (It can be done.)To single out the worst of your spiritual hernias, take this one:
''WHY WERE THESE CHANGES MADE? It is now manifest (a fifty-cent word for clear)
''--that the intention (it's INTENT, Professor) leading all these changes in the new rite of ordination is the same intention (sic) which lead all the changes in the new order of Mass, i.e. the desire to get closer to the Protestant doctrines.'' NOT AT ALL, Pete.
You say ''to protestant DOCTRINES,'' --What doctrines? Name the protestant doctrine into which Catholic doctrine was converted. NOW. Just name one? You invent this PRETEXT for dissenting, Pete.
We must still concede that of the considerable changes (reforms) effected in our Catholic rubrics, both external and liturgical, a number of them were in specific intent of settling some long-standing protestant doubts. After all; we want these Christians to come home to Mother Church! It's THEIR HOME!
Why must you and other Pharisees insist on permanent division? For the sake of EXTERNAL things that CAN'T change our divine worship? -- You invite yourselves a major HERNIA-- carrying that burden of prejudices. Quite a ponderous load!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.
Eugene; Blessed are the peacemakers, lets give it a try. one minute at a time
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 21, 2005.
Peace to you too. My hope is that peacemakers like yourself desist from making incendiary remarks about our Church and her prelature. I often kneel before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament --at peace. This is the world. This forum is the world, Pete; not the holy of holies.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.
Armistice Eugene. So far so good.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 21, 2005.
Pete, you are a zealous defender of trad schism; you believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the vernacular is a "'sacrilege," a "lie," and "wrong."
Emerald, you are a zealous defender of trad schism; you believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the vernacular is "ridiculous" and a mistranslation ("It doesn't say what Our Lord said." "It translated it as something other than what it said.").
Oliver, you are a contemporary descendant of Luther's protestant heresy; you even consider the possibility that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the vernacular "although permitted, may not necessarily be ordained by God".
-- (@.@.@.@), February 21, 2005.
Hi BlackElk.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 21, 2005.
When the Protestants and the Jews begin in large numbers to convert to the Catholic Faith, they will be converting to the Catholic Faith of dogma and tradition, to traditional Catholicism.We will accept them with open arms.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 21, 2005.
Indeed they will. There is no other Catholic faith.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2005.
Oliver,Well now we know (or at least I do, as I didn't before know) that you are A Jehovah's Witness.
Anyway...where do you see that these statutes of God permitted divorce? Actually, Moses didn't even permit it.
You say so yourself: "yes Moses permitted certificates of divorce" - NOTE even you DO NOT say 'permitted divorce'.
Deut. 24:1ff refers to this situation: a man finds some physical (NOT MORAL, as adultery would be [that was punishable by death]) fault with his wife so he divorces her. Moses says: 'Fine, if you are going to do that, divorce her, then you must give her a writ of divorcement so that she is indemnified.' Actually, I cannot even find Moses 'commanding' that the certificate be given, he just acknowledges that if one has been given and she remarries, then she is off limits to her former husband(s). The whole point of the law (which is not a diverce law BTW) is that the man CANNOT TAKE HER BACK IF SHE REMARRIES.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.
Last line should have "divorce law" not "diverce law".
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.
Question for the Trads. What do you think of the following line?"At the altar, let prayer always be addressed to the Father."
"At the altar" refers to, of course, "all liturgical prayer"
Unrelated question, how do you get 'bold' type, etc. to work here?
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.
Paul M."Indeed they will. There is no other Catholic faith."
Correct. It is unfortunate, however, that there are those who think they ARE the Traditional Catholic Church. They think that a break from tradition (small 't') is a break from Tradition (big 'T'), and that a change in expression of the Church's Teaching is a change in the Church's Teaching.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.
I am not Jehovah's Witness. I reject their teachings as heresy.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 22, 2005.
Your 'scripture' quotes say "Jehovah" - this has well been refuted as a mistranslation as God's name is "Yahweh", usually changed to "Lord" because God's name could not be uttered for fear of using it in vain; it is not "Jehovah".I therefore assumed you were JW. I should live by my own and others' advise: "Never assume because it makes an "ass" with "u" and "me".
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 22, 2005.
Father Paul,html commands link
-- (@.@.@.@), February 22, 2005.
Father Paul,html commands link 2
-- (@.@.@.@), February 22, 2005.
If other rites of the Catholic Church can and do and have for centuries had valid liturgies in languages other than Latin and rites other than the Tridentine...why is it impossible for the Latin rite to change languages and rubrics?And since Pius V changed what other Popes had established...why can't popes after him change what he established?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.
This will be the 185th posting on this thread. It's been tedious. We met with the virtual stone wall of intransigent Pharisees. They are silent tonight. Praise God!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Father Paul, you're welcome.+ May God bless our Pope, John Paul II, all our bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity. +
-- (@.@.@.@), February 23, 2005.
Father Paul; what you just said (below), is right out of the modernist handbook. I would venture to say that you are a fairly recent graduate of one of the few seminaries that are left. Don't you see what the "new understanding" ha done to the church? Our Lord told us that by their fruits we would know them. Well look and see. You probably graduated with one or two other seminarians. I"ll bet there used to be 50 or 60 grduates 50 years ago.**** Correct. It is unfortunate, however, that there are those who think they ARE the Traditional Catholic Church. They think that a break from tradition (small 't') is a break from Tradition (big 'T'), and that a change in expression of the Church's Teaching is a change in the Church's Teaching
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 23, 2005.
Please explain this accusation against Fr Paul. I don't see where making distinctions between small t and capital T tradition is of necesity a "modernist" position, ESPECIALLY SINCE ST PIUS V MADE CHANGES IN THE RITE AND RUBRICS AND OTHER CHANGES AFTER TRENT!Sure, some changes in tradition are unwarranted, especially if done in direct defiance of legitimate Church authorities...but this doesn't mean that any change is categorically wrong, in principle!
And I'm willing to believe some translations are wrong or inprecise...but this doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of Catholics whose Mass isn't in English are all heretics too!
Alot of the trouble is caused by lay people acting as though they are Popes, demanding instant hearings and instant obedience from their bishops....because they say so. Well, maybe they're right about something...but there are ways to do it and ways to do it...
I'm sure St Francis could have roasted plenty of Churchmen of his day and gone off the rails claiming that he alone had authority because he alone was "pure", but he didn't. He was humble, obedient, and patient, and he saved the Church. He didn't go into schism or revolt.
Look at Pius V and all the novelties he pulled - completely legitimately too, thereby proving that change is not in principle bad and some small T traditions can be done away with. He got rid of local liturgies which were centuries old - so obviously Popes have that authority! He changed the ways things were done in seminaries...again, doing away with small t traditions to better reflect the capital T Tradition...
Look at all the trappings of the 1950's "good old days" our schismatics harken too as PROOF of the wonderful fruits of their Traditional Church...parochial schools... NO WHERE MENTIONED IN TRENT OR BY PIUS V...but novelties developed in the 1800's!
Obviously developments, novelties, such as Fatima devotions are OK...but then who is the judge? self-appointed priests and laity or the Pope?
Hey, neither St Pius V (who was canonized by whom again?) nor Trent spoke of the precise rubrics and prayers and chaplets asked for by various Marian apparitions! Nowhere was the consecration of Russia or any other nation spelled out in the 1500s...
Yet many of these devotions and spiritualities have become habit for millions of Northern European Catholics.
Yet schismatics almost all accept those NOVELTIES and CHANGES and NEW small t traditions without a second thought while dumping on other small t traditions with gusto as though making any change is equivalent to apostasy and heresy.
Sure is nice that most churches built from 1850 to 1950 had the tabernacle front and center... but MOST Cathredrals in Europe, built in the high Middle Ages when the Church ruled society, DID NOT HAVE THE TABERNACLE FRONT AND CENTER.
Nor did they have altar rails.... Yet those churches somehow are granted Orthodox and Traditional status by our self-appointed Traditional Catholics!? Sounds like someone can't distinguish between things that are good and OK but expendible and things which are Deposit of Faith.
Chinese and Vietnamese Bishops have celebrated clandestine Masses in prison, according to the T-rite, but with a drop of wine and a crumb of bread on their hands...without any bells or whistles or smoke... and yet those Masses are valid.
Bottom line folks, those who complain bitterly about the problems since Vatican II are INDISCRIMINATE AND STUPID in their attacks...like trying to swat a fly with a Shotgun - sure you'll probably get it, but you'll punch a lot of holes in a lot of things and people in the process....
For once, just once, I'd love to see apples to apples quotes from some people about the problems they claim exist in the "institutional church" rather than probems that sure exist in the personnel that happen to have posts in the Church.
They take a diplomatic statement or gesture way out of context in accusing the Pope of apostasy... He kissed the Koran! Well well well...let's see... I saw some one kiss a Rosary once... does that mean the person idolizes the rosary? Worships a prayer bead?
What his intention was, they don't know so they ASSUME ONE AND PUT WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH AND HEART AND THEN GO ON AS IF IT'S A QUOTE.
He invites people to Assisi and they lie about shared liturgies.
I'm sorry, but I call "BS" on these peoples' claims and charges and their appalling lack of consistency, logic, and integrity.
Sure we have problems in the Church, but they aren't caused by a change of rite and language folks and if the Tridentine rite was suddenly imposed again, you'd still have the same problems.
The language and rubrics didn't keep Europe from falling away from the faith from 1570 to 1962, and it won't bring Christendom back if imposed in 2005. Other changes are needed that these folk rarely get their gander up about.
I've been around a lot and seen the Church in action in a lot of places...and let me tell you... the problems the schismatics go on about are almost always a North American and Western Europe phenomenon - and these lands make up less than 50% of Catholics.
Lots of dioceses and nations don't have the priest scandals, the vocation shortages, the rabid DREs and battle-ax nuns, watered down homilies and mixed up philosophies and theologies.
But you'd never know this from reading what the schismatics and self- appointed "experts" (few of whom have ANYTHING LIKE A SEMINARY FORMATION MUCH LESS PHILOSOPHY OR THEOLOGY DEGREE) have to say in their closed circle.
Whole conspiracy theories based on illogic fallacies such as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (which they never, ever explain). Complete misreadings of the forces involved, throwing out the baby with the bath water... taking rumors and 3rd hand gossip as though it was first hand eye witness testimony...breathlessly spreading accusations even when coming from Media sources they'd ordinarily denounce as "enemy propaganda" but taken as Gospel when directed at their enemies like the Pope or some other conservative group...
In short, appalling lack of honesty, and intellectual integrity.
Rant over, proceed as usual.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2005.
Excellent rant, Joe. Keep em coming.
HERE'S PETE, who rants: ''Don't you see what the "new understanding" has done to the Church? Our Lord told us that by their fruits we would know them. Well look and see. You probably graduated with one or two other seminarians. I'll bet there used to be 50 or 60 grduates 50 years ago.'' Out of the 50-60, some who molested altar boys who are only about 40 today? Boys who as acolytes to the same few said the Latin response, Et cum spiritu tuo, and Confiteor Deo, and other Tridentine floral bouquets?BUT HOW? Catholic seminaries weren't tainted by any Vatican II reforms back then!
They aren't NOW, either. We have a societal crisis, not a Catholic Church in crisis. And we still have holy priests being called now. We still recite the Creed, make the Sign of the Cross, pray the Holy Rosary.
It's never been otherwise. During the Rennaisance there were Borgia Popes as well as a Saint Francis Borgia. Their were outrages and there were saints and reformers. Some nuns wanted to kill Saint Theresa of Avila! Yet, the Catholic faith never dies. The Bark of Peter is tossed in these tempests and comes through fighting for more souls.
Not escaping the dangers; overcoming the devil and all his powers. --DIVISION is one of the devil's main strategems. He divides to RULE. First with heresies; again with the Schisms, and a phony ''reformation''. Each blow cost our Church millions of souls. --Now our own faithful want to discharge Satan's divisive power; rising up even against the Pope! Just read once more what Jesus says to Peter, our first Pope: ''Satan has desired you, that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, Peter . . . confirm your brethren.''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
*****They take a diplomatic statement or gesture way out of context in accusing the Pope of apostasy... He kissed the Koran! Well well well...let's see... I saw some one kiss a Rosary once... does that mean the person idolizes the rosary? Worships a prayer beadComparing kissing the rosary and kissing the Koran is like... kissing your wife, or kissing a prostitute.
-- Pete (Cgas@charles.com), February 23, 2005.
You're just blaspheming at the Vicar of Christ, Pete. You're saying he'd kiss prostitutes?Please remember, you can still be banned here definitively. Keep insulting our Holy Father.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Eugene; I am stating fact. The rosary was given to St Dominic from Heaven. Our Lady gave that to St. Dominic.The Koran is right out of hell. It does not recognize Our Lord as God. He is just a prophet. Is that what JP is acknowledging?
Threatening to ban me is just because your ears do not want to hear the truth. The Jews covered their ears when Christ said that He was God. He was also banned in their heads. We shall know the truth and the truth will make us free.
Question Eugene staight answer please yes or no. Would you kiss the Koran? Please Yes or no!
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 23, 2005.
Don't be a fool. A kiss is just a kiss; (Casablanca) and we don't even KNOW the real circumstances of that ''kiss''. No, my kisses are for the precious woman whom I love. I don't even feel the urge to kiss a Rosary! Never have.That ''Hell Kiss'' might be just an urban legend. Anyway-- if the Pope offended God in some way (You're desperate to prove it) let him confess his own sin. He's a sinner and we all realise that. But He's also Christ's representative in this world. YOU AREN'T.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Kissing the American flag isn't about worshipping America, but at most either showing allegiance or respect.Kissing the ground after stepping off a plane isn't to worship Mother Earth but to give thanks for a safe arrival, or to pay respect to the country whose earth it is.
But either gesture can also be a diplomatic sign of respect for a host, rather than a sign of personal belief in all they stand for and do.
Then you have the cultural differences which so-called Traditionalists simply don't get either.
Kissing a statue of the baby Jesus isn't idolatry is it? Yet every Christmas it's done in countries around the world. During Holy Week kissing a plain cross and singing the traditional Latin or old English, "This is the wood of the cross, come let us worship" isn't to worship a piece of wood either...
A kiss on your wife's mouth doesn't say the same thing or imply the same thing as kissing your mom does it? Nor does kissing a man on both cheeks mean the same thing as kissing your baby boy's cheeks.
Yet count on so-called Traditionalists to NOT GET IT, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE DISTINCTIONS. Applying the standard culturally deprived and ahistorical mindset of a so-called Traditionalist, let's look at the ancient rite during Holy Week of honoring the cross: those with no idea of custom and culture would easily mistake the actions (kissing a cross) and the words "come let us worship" to mean Catholics worship the wooden cross!
Catholics used to kneel in the presence of the Popes...does that mean they used to worship the Popes? Catholics have always burned candles on the altar...but we also burn them in front of statues... does this mean we worship statues?
Ah no. And most so-called Traditionalists will at once see that the same thing - a lit candle - can "mean" something else given a different context.
They surely will explain to shocked Protestants the differences of Dulia, Hyper-dulia and Adoratio with respect to actions that give honor, veneration and worship, yet outwardly appear to be the same acts...
Until the subject matter isn't their pet cultural habit and is the Pope kissing the ground or a book. Suddenly actions mean only one thing... the worst conceivable thing they can imagine.
But such criteria of judgment that they use on him, is never supposed to be turned around and used on them...until now.
If the Pope kissing a book means he agrees with the book, does this mean when you salute the flag you agree with everything the US Government does? No. Can a man not pay respect without agreeing to everything some thing or people stands for?
Traditionalists DO THIS ALL THE TIME...BUT DON'T REALIZE IT.
When in a foreign country and their national anthem is being played, it's polite to stand...a sign of respect. In some places people bow rather than shakehands... a sign of respect. In times past when ladies walked in the room all men stood and took their hats off - a sign of respect.
But some stupid, cultural-challenged so-called Traditionalist who really is the town idiot with a parochial mindset that claims universal knowledge based on local experience, would cry out that "bowing" means worship and he would refuse to bow! That standing for a strange woman is tantamount to prostitution yada yada yada...
Words and gestures can have more than one meaning, much depends on context and culture...and if you don't realize this, you will always make mistakes of judgment.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2005.
Pete,The Koran, right out of hell? And tell me of your studies of Islam. Permit me to give you a very short lesson on Islam as based on my studies - if Muhammed were living in these times he would have started a non-denominational Church or maybe even the Mormons. Many religious teachings were floating around the area where he came from - Christian, Jewish, pagan, and a good deal of Christian heresy. Quite the shopping basket.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 23, 2005.
Oh and one more thing...according to classic Catholic moral theory, in order to make a proper moral judgment of any one, you must take into account three factors: the action, the intention, and the circumstances.In all the rumor-mongering of the so-called Traditionalists, we never are given the clear action - so there's always a dispute over what actually happened.
THEY also assume to know the Pope's INTENT...despite all evidence to the contrary that a) they don't and can't know that and b) despite all the things he actually does teach "from the chair" to the contrary.
Finally, they typically don't know the circumstances - or appreciate diplomacy and tact and yes, TRADITION.
Look at the excommunication of the french Archbishop (who made him archbishop anyway?). Whole tomes were written in his defense, painstakenly attempting to show his acts, intent, and circumstances in the best of light...yet such care for details is typically lacking in ALL accusations against their enemies.
Well, hey, if you are consigning someone to hell, I think the least you can do is make sure you are right.
The only thing I do with respect to them is call them stupid and myopic - hardly a damnable offense.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2005.
Why would one show respect to a book that denies the Deity of Christ, let alone the truth of the divine trinity?If a Muslim asked you to kiss his Koran, or a protestant his 66 book bible, would you do it?
I find the reactions here to be rather interesting, considering the roasting that Zarove suffered when discussing bible history.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.
No one here has answered my challenge; Duck the issue. I asked Would you kiss the Koran? Please say Yes or no? Your silence says that you darn well would not.How many Muslims kissed the bible? Remember, to them we are infidels.
In desert storm they would not even allow it in their country. The military had to keep them on the ships.
You are really out of communication with the truth.
Even Oliver, a Protestant ,is shocked at this one.
Do you so soon forget how the Moslems overran Europe and killed every Christian they got their hands on?
Only the prayers of St. Pius V saved Europe from the Moslem hoards.
Of course they have changed. Ask the families of those who had their heads cut off.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 23, 2005.
No, you can keep the Koran. I would not kiss it. I really don't know if the Koran ever got a kiss from any Catholic. I only have the word of people who hate John Paul II.Having said this, I don't see the point of your laments. Is it a sin? Do you think our Holy Father committed a sin, by showing a sign of respect; NOT for the writings of a Muslim, but for those who invited him to sit in peace with them?
Because if it's a sin, then eating at the same table with Muslims is a sin. Speaking to them is a sin. I didn't say so-- You suggested it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2005.
Fides News Service, the OFFICIAL VATICAN NEWS AGENCY sponsored by the Congregation for Evangelization reported:Rome (Fides) – "At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and HE KISSED IT AS A SIGN OF RESPECT." This was said by Raphael Bidawid, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans who told Fides about his audience with Pope John Paul II on May 14th when he was received with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank and also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion.
THAT GESTURE WAS A SIGN OF THE HOLY FATHER'S RESPECT FOR THE BILLION AND 34 MILLION FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM, AS WELL AS HIS EAGERNESS TO MAKE A PILGRIMAGE IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ABRAHAM, THE COMMON FATHER OF CHRISTIANS, JEWS, AND MUSLIMS. [Fides News Service, 11/6/99]
-- (@.@.@.@), February 23, 2005.
Hey Joe. All the stuff about kissing is neither here nor there, really."Yet count on so-called Traditionalists to NOT GET IT, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE DISTINCTIONS."
Now come on. Is that really true? Trads can't make distinctions... That's not really true is it? Nah.
"Applying the standard culturally deprived and ahistorical mindset of a so-called Traditionalist, let's look at the ancient rite during Holy Week of honoring the cross: those with no idea of custom and culture would easily mistake the actions (kissing a cross) and the words "come let us worship" to mean Catholics worship the wooden cross!"
You posit that they would. I posit that that wouldn't happen at all. The underlined premise is hardly self evident, and one would have to virtually choose by force to believe it due to the prevailing lack of evidence. Trads can hold their own quite effectively. Any they are very aware of their history, comparatively.
There's a very simple way to disprove it. As if that was necessary to do. Here's a reductio: if people who are culturally deprived or lacking a solid background in history make these mistakes you claim they make, and for these reasons, then what you are really indicating is this: a Catholic has to be well educated in order to avoid such pitfalls as you perceive them, and therefore, a simple faith does not suffice. But this is absurd, because a simple Faith is most pleasing to God.
Secondly, I question your assumed premise that culture and knowledge of history are necessary to hold and keep the Faith. Helpful? Sure. But you make it seem a prerequisite.
That being said, there's a fundamental disconnect with what you put forth, and the prevailing reality: trads aren't morons. I think most people know this. They can hold their own just fine.
"Until the subject matter isn't their pet cultural habit and is the Pope kissing the ground or a book. Suddenly actions mean only one thing... the worst conceivable thing they can imagine."
Would it surprise you if I told you I didn't really care much about the Koran kissing thing? What if I said, however, hat it was not the actual act itself, but the ratio behind it that was open to debate? See, once we got into that, the whole spin of this "mindless, uneducated reactionism" of the trads, as an explanation of any depth, would turn to dust.
"But such criteria of judgment that they use on him, is never supposed to be turned around and used on them...until now."
That is, if you actually managed to get the criteria of judgment right in the first place. If not, you're going nowhere. I don't think your hitting anywhere close to home here.
"If the Pope kissing a book means he agrees with the book, does this mean when you salute the flag you agree with everything the US Government does? No. Can a man not pay respect without agreeing to everything some thing or people stands for?"
Joe, this is the stuff of platitudes. As if trads can't make distinctions. Do you really think that trads can't make distinctions and that idiocy drives their every thought? (yes?)
"Traditionalists DO THIS ALL THE TIME...BUT DON'T REALIZE IT."
You think they do.
"When in a foreign country and their national anthem is being played, it's polite to stand...a sign of respect. In some places people bow rather than shakehands... a sign of respect. In times past when ladies walked in the room all men stood and took their hats off - a sign of respect. But some stupid, cultural-challenged so-called Traditionalist who really is the town idiot with a parochial mindset that claims universal knowledge based on local experience, would cry out that "bowing" means worship and he would refuse to bow!"
I have never, in my entire life, seen an traditional Catholic do anything like this. Whatsoever. I do believe this is entirely all in your own imagination.
If you can dream up a situation where trads do things they don't do, why then sure, it would be easy to call them stupid and culturally deprived. All you have to do is invent the hypothetical in your head, and make trads do dumb stuff in your imagination. Then you can conclude that they are stupid.
Let me call your bluff.
1. Do you think I other the others would do such a thing as you describe in your hypothetical, and
2. Are you calling me an idiot?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 23, 2005.
Here's a further reductio for you, Joe.If the reasons for being scandelized are in fact of the origin you claim they are in traditional Catholics, then what has become of that practical axiom of the spiritual life whereby, if something done seems scandalous to those who are weak, even though it is not in and of itself, that we ought to refrain from it anyways?
This practical admonition is found in Scripture, repeated by saints, dealt with by theologians, and taught by the Church. If what you say is true, then there still exists no justification for it.
This is based upon your own determinations. Reductio.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 23, 2005.
Eugene equate having a meal with a Moslem with kissing the Koran.If I have lunch with a Moslem, I don't have to kiss the menu to show him that I enjoyed the meal.
However, a new and more dramatic fruit of the kiss of the Koran fell in the month of September 1999, after the elections in East Timor to determine its independence from Indonesia. After the elections, in which 71 % of the people chose independence, the troops of the Indonesian army, accompanied by an intense action of the militias, began a cruel massacre of the Timorese reaction. One of the reasons for this massacre was the fact that East Timor is Catholic. It has long suffered a religious persecution since Indonesia is a Muslim State. Therefore, the kiss of the Koran by John Paul II endorsed the religious convictions of the Indonesian State and its will to subjugate Catholic Timor. Here is the paradox: a Pope who kisses the Muslim book fortifies the State. In this way, the gesture fvors the bloodbath on the island.
It is true that the Holy See has tried to intervene to diminish the tragedy that assailed East Timor. The Vatican Information Service reported some facts in this sense. However, those diplomatic gestures were of little avail when, at base, the kiss of the Koran confirmed Muslim convictions everywhere and, therefore, also in Indonesia, the Balkans, Palestine, the Sudan, and many other ‘hot spots’ throughout the globe.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
"Therefore, the kiss of the Koran by John Paul II endorsed the religious convictions of the Indonesian State and its will to subjugate Catholic Timor. Here is the paradox: a Pope who kisses the Muslim book fortifies the State. In this way, the gesture fvors the bloodbath on the island.It is true that the Holy See has tried to intervene to diminish the tragedy that assailed East Timor. The Vatican Information Service reported some facts in this sense. However, those diplomatic gestures were of little avail when, at base, the kiss of the Koran confirmed Muslim convictions everywhere and, therefore, also in Indonesia, the Balkans, Palestine, the Sudan, and many other ‘hot spots’ throughout the globe."
I don't know where you studied logic, but you should get your money back. Your conclusions do not follow your premises, especially since you are employing a warped sense to the word "convictions".
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
Pete's a Catholic just starting the long pilgrimage. Unfortunately, he starts off on the wrong foot. Being judgmental and disingenuous. He knows the Pope hasn't offended God. But he offended Pete; and that's more important.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
bold off
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
It didn't work.How about now.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
--
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Try this again.Let's see if this works.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
Thanks Eugene, you beat me to it.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.
SCHISMATIC TRADS ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS -- PETE'S PLAGIARIZED POST: However, a new and more dramatic fruit of the kiss of the Koran fell in the month of September 1999, after the elections in East Timor to determine its independence from Indonesia. After the elections, in which 71 % of the people chose independence, the troops of the Indonesian army, accompanied by an intense action of the militias, began a cruel massacre of the Timorese reaction. One of the reasons for this massacre was the fact that East Timor is Catholic. It has long suffered a religious persecution since Indonesia is a Muslim State. Therefore, the kiss of the Koran by John Paul II endorsed the religious convictions of the Indonesian State and its will to subjugate Catholic Timor. Here is the paradox: a Pope who kisses the Muslim book fortifies the State. In this way, the gesture fvors the bloodbath on the island. It is true that the Holy See has tried to intervene to diminish the tragedy that assailed East Timor. The Vatican Information Service reported some facts in this sense. However, those diplomatic gestures were of little avail when, at base, the kiss of the Koran confirmed Muslim convictions everywhere and, therefore, also in Indonesia, the Balkans, Palestine, the Sudan, and many other ‘hot spots’ throughout the globe.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 24, 2005.
"Pete's a Catholic just starting the long pilgrimage. Unfortunately, he starts off on the wrong foot. Being judgmental and disingenuous. He knows the Pope hasn't offended God. But he offended Pete; and that's more important."I love how you always personalize and sentimentalize the conversation in order to spin it away from anything based upon principle.
And the way you posit things as if you could possibly know that they are true about a person.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Emerald:
The way I personalize could be merely wistful in some posts. If my post were flattering you'd want me to be sentimental and personal, not dispassionate. Why should I act dispassionate when the message isn't so cordial? And you forget that Pete was not very kind coming in here. Nor have you ever cared to be loving. My heart bounces back. So should yours.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"If my post were flattering you'd want me to be sentimental and personal, not dispassionate."Actually, that's not really true. It's worthless either way.
"Why should I act dispassionate when the message isn't so cordial?"
Because it never gets anywhere. Because it's better to stay focused on principle.
"Nor have you ever cared to be loving. My heart bounces back. So should yours."
Ah, see, you just did it again.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Well, alright, if you insist. I'm going to hit the sack.But first, may Mary intercede for you to her divine Son, and ask that He may grant you a difficult Lent chock full of many small crosses for you to bear, so that you can suffer them well, and thereby participate in the Cross of Christ and the salvation of immortal souls, and gain a crown of glory for all eternity in the Heavenly Court.
Who says I ain't loving. lol. God Bless.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
TRADS ARE FANATICS -- ANOTHER PLAGIARIZED POST BY THE HERETICAL TRAD PETE: 3. Mass objectively displeasing to God in itself? Every time a priest says the New Mass in the vernacular translations (like English), he is telling a lie Let us consider the words spoken by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (26:27-28) and that of St. Mark (14:23-24) both say that Jesus said that His Blood would be shed "for many," whereas the Consecration of the New Mass says that Jesus said that it would be shed "for all men." Now either the New Mass is right and the gospels are wrong, or the New Mass is wrong and the gospels are right. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is free from error and hence we know that Jesus really did say "for many" at the Last Supper, and thus the text of the Consecration of the New Mass is wrong, even telling us a lie that Jesus said something at the Last Supper that He didn't say.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 24, 2005.
I an not plagerizing anything. Just transfering a news item,I will make announcements or disclaimers OK?
-- Pet. (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
Emerald,If you truly had a simple faith you'd not be visiting this chat room, and you wouldn't really care what language the Mass was celebrated in so long as it was celebrated and you were in a state of grace.
(And you wouldn't get your hackles up with me describing the holy sacrifice of the Mass with the word "celebrate"...no, your simple faith would meditate on what Eucharist means and ponder what the disciples on the road back from Emmaus were feeling after discovering the Lord in the breaking of the bread).
People with a "simple faith" don't go around quoting Popes from the 1500's, lifting sections out of context from the Council of Florence, cut and pasting recent Pope's words out of context and then claim to know with certainty the current Pope's intent. Traditionalists I know in person and online do this all the time when trying to insist that JP2 is a heretic and the Vatican is an anti-church and that some unknown priest is "really" the Pope.
They THINK they're vastly prepared intellectually because they can find source quotes from ancient Councils and Popes like Protestants can find quotes in Romans and Hebrews. But their arguments contra Papam don't hold up to scruitiny.
No, people with a simple faith (i.e. uneducated, ahistoric) don't seem to care whether or not Mass is in Latin, so long as they understand the words being said. They believe not because the rubrics are beautiful or pleasing to the senses, but because the rubrics are approved, and the sacrament brings Jesus to them.
As for Trads not being able to make distinctions, yes, my examples were meant to show cases of hypothetical people not distinguishing one thing for another - veneration for worship. Or changes in rubrics for fundamental changes in belief.
They accuse those they argue with as being "the modernists" and guilty of heresy because these people accept that the Church may change the language and rubrics of the Mass without changing the sacrament. I.e. the Trads can't see the difference between rubrics and sacrament, JUST AS MY HYPOTHETICAL PROTESTANT PEOPLE COULDN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RITE, SUCH AS KISSING THE CROSS, AND WHAT THEY'D SEE AS WORSHIP.
Protestants' lack of historical and theological culture make them think Catholics kissing a cross are "really" worshipping wood and statues. Because in their culture and theology is there no distinctions within the concept "worship" - there is no veneration, no honor, no adoration, just all in one, inclusive "worship". They call sitting around reading the bible and singing psalms a "worship service", when in reality, as we both know, to "worship" in the proper sense of the word, requires sacrifice - and from the time of Abel, that has meant the sheding of blood from lambs to Christ's sacrifice.
But they don't understand their error because their lack of historical and theological culture keeps them from seeing it.
It's kind of like homosexuals thinking that love is the same thing as self-gratification and giving people the blank stare when you roll out the classic Greek definitions and distinctions between sexos, eros, filia, and agappe.
Agappe would never, ever, seek self-gratification with someone not a spouse, or even a spouse in a way that would cause harm, as sodomy always does. But since they don't have the cultural tools with which to see this, and their minds are darkened by vice, they simply don't understand why Catholics are so mean spirited as to deny them "love".
Trads' lack of historical and theological culture make them think that should a Pope change the rite or language of the Mass that this ipso facto makes him a heretic because they confuse small t tradition for Deposit of Faith Tradition.
They grew up in the 1950s in Golden era America, and the Mass was in Latin, the nuns wore their habits, the family was strong, public morality was chaste and they didn't lock their doors at night.
Then all hell broke loose and there was a Council and then changes in everything and then the Mass was overnight in English and no one knew what to do and Fr Bob married Sister Joan and some theologian named Charlie said it was OK to be promiscuous so long as you really, like, felt good about it... and so, obviously, all this is the Pope's fault and the Council's fault, because heaven knows none of this would have happened without the modernists taking over.
And it makes sense to them because, a) their view of history is partial and they don't know all the grief their ancestors suffered through from 1570 to 1890, b) their understanding of the faith is monolithic - all is as it ought to be with no room for development because every last detail is a talisman - that altar rail is there for ontological reasons and if removed is a direct assault on the faith in the divinity of Christ and real presence! But they never notice that the Cathedrals they visited in Europe didn't have such altar rails... odd isn't it.
They claim to be bright bulbs yet their premise is that Pius V was able to change rites established by other Popes, but no Pope after him could change HIS, and they think this by taking his words literally when in fact it was a formula used by all his predecessors for stating that, while he reigns, no changes ought to be done. But whatever one Pope holds bound another Pope can loosen...in terms of rubrics and discipline. And rites of the Mass are entirely about discipline.
Surely you don't think the Gospel of John MUST be part of the Mass otherwise it's not a valid sacrament? Or that you MUST say the same prayer 3 times or it doesn't "work", or that there is an essential, ONTOLOGICAL as opposed to CULTURAL AND SYMBOLIC reason for priests to face away from the congregation (again, explain how this works in the Cathedrals of Europe when the high altar is in the middle)?
But for Trads, the ontological and cultural and symbolic is all wrapped up in one package - thus they think a man is a heretic for thinking that the Mass could be said any other way than in Latin according to the Tridentine rite!
And.thats.simply.nuts.
The sacrament is about the faith, the way it's done and the language it's done in are not part of the sacrament.
I have met and read many Trads who fall for the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy with respect to Vatican II - which they hold up as their trump argument for why they're right and the Pope is wrong....yet they don't seem capable of ANSWERING my simply historical point about all the horrible things that happened after Trent and the Mass of Pius V was implemented.
You claim they're bright bulbs. Tell me, how bright is it to suppose that what scandals they experience in Moss Bluff Idaho or Bucktooth North Carolina, or Boston MA, means that the whole Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has fallen into apostasy? The USA and EU do not make up the whole story of the Catholic Church, yet the Trads seem to think it does.
As I've stated previously, the Church isn't suffering the same types of problems commonly suffered here in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia... yet we're all in the same rite so...why the difference?
The difference is one of culture and formation - not of rite and rubrics.
How bright is it to confuse prudential differences with PRINCIPLE?
Trads want fulminating condemnations, excommunications, angry protests and the like - at least that's the impression the Wanderer articles seem to be rooting for - when dealing with "bad" Bishops and priests. And if the Vatican doesn't share their opinion, they take this as evidence that the Vatican a) knows all they know but doesn't care, b) knows all they know and agrees with the bad guy and c) must be "in" on the heresy too.
Never seems to dawn on some people that chances are very good that few people in the Vatican read the Wanderer, and fewer check out the dozen or so sites they frequent on the internet.
Nor does it seem to dawn on many Americans that the Vatican has to be concerned with 800 million OTHER Catholics who aren't found between the Rio Grande and the North Pole. So the CDF taking time to respond is taken as an insult or stonewalling or coverup.
Does it ever occur to the trads that frequent many sites, that run their own newspapers and found their own colleges that just maybe, just possibly, there's more than one way to skin a cat or rein in a problem bishop or right a given wrong?
They assume that if they, the trads want someting done a certain way then THATS THE ONLY CATHOLIC WAY TO RESPOND AND IF ANYONE - LIKE THE LC - DOESN'T SHARE THEIR VIEW, THIS MUST MEAN THEY'RE MODERNISTS TOO.
But that's just assinine. You want to fulminate and excommunicate and grandstand and split a diocese in two...I want to convert the guy, and/or just wait him out and get him replaced with a better guy without an open schism (since schisms tend to last centuries and pull families away for good).
Maybe your way is better, maybe my way is better, but Trads seem to think that pastoral solutions are dogmas - their ways are perfect and insuperable and anyone else's idea on how to deal with wayward brothers are garbage and not just garbage, heresy! apostasy! folly!
Is it ANY WONDER AT ALL THAT THE TRAD GROUPS THEMSELVES SPLIT INTO FACTIONS?
Sorry, Emerald, you're not an idiot, but your arguments don't hold water either.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.
Open up your bible, any bible, look for the words "for all". If you find them let me know. I mean at the last supper.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
OK, got it. And your point is?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.
Oh, and what language do you want me to look it up in?Spanish? Italian? Latin? Greek? or just your English?
Shall I look up the missal in these various languages too?
Wouldn't that be something if the English language translations are unfaithful to the Latin text of the New Missal! Why, if that's the case... then wouldn't the Trads actually be barking up the wrong tree!
And by not knowing that the Latin and other language translations don't repeat the errors found in the English version, wouldn't that make them look, well, parochial?
Just wondering.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.
Joe says: ''Sorry, Emerald, you're not an idiot, but your arguments don't hold water either.'' Thanks, Joe. Emerald needed it.He complains that I don't follow a strict recourse to principle, but ''personalize'' my answers to his ''principle''.
You have done so here and we thank you. You are the balance. I wonder if he appreciates that?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"Wouldn't that be something if the English language translations are unfaithful to the Latin text of the New Missal!"they're not. i checked this. the Vulgate - "pro multis". every English bible i have looked at says "for many". the KJV does not use the Vulgate - "for many". ditto other books of differing original text.
..if this helps.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.
TRADS/"NEW-PROTESTANTS" ARE HERE TO PROPAGANDIZE THEIR ERRORS -- YES, PETE, YOU HAVE BEEN SLYLY PLAGIARIZING YOUR POSTS -- LEAVE IT TO A TRAD TO TWIST PLAGIARIZING AS "TRANSFERRING" -- PETE'S THIRD PLAGIARIZED POST: Priestly Ordination: The New Rite Vs. The Old Rite Strange Changes On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination. The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better. The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest: 1) In relation to the power to offer Mass: Old Rite New Rite “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.” “Let our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed by the Holy Ghost and by fortitude, guard you in order that you may offer the sacrifice to God and sanctify the Christian people.” 2) In relation to the power to hear confession: Old Rite New Rite The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord Himself: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22) Abolished completely These two ceremonies in the traditional rite of ordination indicated clearly that the priest has two powers: 1. The first, on the physical Body of Christ, consisting in offering the Sacrifice for the living and the dead. 2. The second, on the mystical Body of Christ i.e. the sanctification of the faithful, especially by the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Confession. While these two powers are mentioned in the new formulas, it is not done very clearly: - The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead. - The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace. WHY WERE THESE CHANGES MADE? It is now manifest that the intention leading all these changes in the new rite of ordination is the same intention which lead all the changes in the new order of Mass, i.e. the desire to get closer to the Protestant doctrines. For Luther, founder of Protestantism
-- (@.@.@.@), February 24, 2005.
Joe; Yo can look anywhere you want to. In any language or whatever. It comes down to this;Either the Mass was a sacrilege intil 1970.. or it is a sacrilege after 1970. By the way even Paul 6th mass in latin is " For Many', so only vernaculr is sacrilege.
Mayb this could be a reason;
I plagerized this from the bible.
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
"Wouldn't that be something if the English language translations are unfaithful to the Latin text of the New Missal!"sorry Joe. cute point. i get it now. no, i have never checked that one. maybe someone needs to Google the Missal and check it out.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.
What is your rationale on the following? The Budhist religion is a treasur from God!
Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’ (Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p. 8.)
Buddhism is a false pagan religion of the East which believes in reincarnation and karma. Buddhists hold that life is not worth living, and that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhists worship various false gods. Buddhism is a disgusting, idolatrous and false religion of the devil.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 24, 2005.
How do you know? Buddhism is first and foremost a philosophy. Not religion. Yes, we see how it holds out much false hope to souls, but you overstate the case.Our Holy Father is not subject to your feeble scrutiny, Pete. He has never advocated any change to Buddhism from our Catholic faith; but the welcoming to our faith of all ASIANS. Many of whom are now Buddhists. You seem rather a pinhead. Do we need pinheads here, cursing the Pope?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"I plagerized this from the bible."Exactly, Mr. Plagiarist -- IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF YOUR COPIED POSTS -- most likely you plagiarized in more than three posts.
-- (@.@.@.@), February 24, 2005.
Why don't you go to professor Google and try to learn something instead of reveling in your ignorance.Emperor Shomu (701-756) made Buddhism the official state religion and built the temple Todaiji at Nara along with its huge statue of Buddha. Six Nara sects, which were predominate in Buddhism at this time, were responsible for carrying out rituals to promote national welfare. They were basically academic by nature and didn't have any great influence on the general population. Priest Saicho (767-822) introduced the Tendai sect to Japan in the Heian period (794-1185), while the Shingon sect was introduced by Kukai (774-835), who is also known as Kobo Daishi. These last two esoteric sects became the most important Buddhist sects at the imperial court.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
Buddha is not a god. Buddhists follow his teachings. That means it's not religious faith, but a love of ''wisdom''. All Asians practice some form of ancestor worship. But not as if their ancestors were divine. And so, it cannot be termed idolatry. Going into Google for a ''fix'' is rather superficial, wouldn't you say? Is that where you get Catholic truth?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Try it sometimes. Is Islam a religion? The pope lauds them even more than Budha. He never met a religion that he did not praise except for the traditional religion.
-- Pete (Chas@charlie.com), February 24, 2005.
If the Pope ''praised'' somebody for his faith, it means he loves them, not the religion. This is a no- brainer for rational Catholics. You, however, are a muck-raker and anti-Vatican II bigot; ready to ascribe only what's dishonorable to God's servant. Shame on you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
"They accuse those they argue with as being "the modernists" and guilty of heresy because these people accept that the Church may change the language and rubrics of the Mass without changing the sacrament. I.e. the Trads can't see the difference between rubrics and sacrament, JUST AS MY HYPOTHETICAL PROTESTANT PEOPLE COULDN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RITE, SUCH AS KISSING THE CROSS, AND WHAT THEY'D SEE AS WORSHIP."No it's not the case that the Church can change the language and rubrics of the Mass. Some things yes, but certainly not all things. If you were to say it could change anything it wanted about them, then it would be you who did not understand the distinction between the language and rubrics (you ought to define how your using this term here) and the form of the sacrament, or perhaps a should say instead, the truth of the relationship that does exist there. There is a certain form which absolutely cannot change, and spoken words are integral to it's very nature.
In all bluntness, I wonder if it is you that is blurring distinctions here. Now there may be some traditional Catholics who fail distinctions here and there, but this in no way whatsoever lends support to your side of the debate, which seems to presume an over- arching power of the Church to change language, even language integral, or at least touching on, the form of a Sacrament. I take issue with your view as being further from the truth than any well intentioned but still deviant view of any one individual traditional Catholic.
"Protestants' lack of historical ... But they don't understand their error because their lack of historical and theological culture keeps them from seeing it."
I think like so many others, you're hellbent on making a comparison of traditional Catholics to Protestants, and you'll stretch however far is necessary to get it accomplished. Imho, in doing so, you actually run headlong into doing the very thing you're complaining about. For instance:
I see no difference between someone calling kissing the wood of the Cross an instance of idol worship, and you observing someone talking or practicing Catholicism of dogma and tradition, and calling them Protestants for it.
It's nothing more than an excercise which consists of scouting for similarities whereby you can you can incorporate the trads and the Protestants under a single genus. You want to believe it, so you're going to force it to fit. When you have to use hypotheticals instead of actual instances in order to pull it off, perhaps that's the time back up and take a second look at the truthfulness of the endeavor itself, the truthfulness of the conclusion which you wish to justify.
"It's kind of like homosexuals thinking that love is the same thing as self-gratification and giving people the blank stare when you roll out the classic Greek definitions and distinctions between sexos, eros, filia, and agappe."
I think you're reeeeaaaalllllyyyy stretching to make these comparisons.
"Trads' lack of historical and theological culture make them think that should a Pope change the rite or language of the Mass that this ipso facto makes him a heretic because they confuse small t tradition for Deposit of Faith Tradition."
Not around here. In fact, some I know, of the ones who write, are so incredibly rich in their understanding of history that I sit in awe and listen to them. I just sit there and listen. They write things such as this. If you want a copy, I'll have you know who send one along for you. Even liberalized Catholics would love this one. You'd see as the end-all, for instance, to the baseless accusation that the trads don't love and understand their popes. At least I hope you would. Probable a groundless hope, but I do like to keep a positive attitude.
What I'm getting at is this: the knowledge of history is support for traditional Catholicism, not the enemy of if. Many of the trads are so soaked in their history, and honest and complete treatment of it that is, that they clearly understand that only the Catholicism of dogma and tradition is the true archtype into which all of history cascades into seamless union with.
"They grew up in the 1950s in Golden era America, and the Mass was in Latin, the nuns wore their habits, the family was strong, public morality was chaste and they didn't lock their doors at night."
I don't believe this myth.
"Then all hell broke loose and there was a Council and then changes in everything and then the Mass was overnight in English and no one knew what to do and Fr Bob married Sister Joan and some theologian named Charlie said it was OK to be promiscuous so long as you really, like, felt good about it... and so, obviously, all this is the Pope's fault and the Council's fault, because heaven knows none of this would have happened without the modernists taking over."
You're treating of the part here and calling it the whole. Obviously an understanding of what took place both at the council, what occurred centuries before, where we are at today, and what the future holds, goes far, fare deeper than the conclusion of the scenario you provide above. You're positing that the above is the sum and substance of the traditional mind. I'm saying, no it isn't. You just believe that it is.
"They claim to be bright bulbs yet their premise is that Pius V was able to change rites established by other Popes, but no Pope after him could change HIS, and they think this by taking his words literally when in fact it was a formula used by all his predecessors for stating that, while he reigns, no changes ought to be done."
There's so many distinctions which you are failing here that it might even being interesting to start a separate thread on this topic alone. I think you are slurring some important distinctions when you talk about changes made to the Mass, both now and way back then. If you want to start a thread on that, I'd read it and post to it.
"But whatever one Pope holds bound another Pope can loosen...in terms of rubrics and discipline. And rites of the Mass are entirely about discipline."
Again, you have to clarify in greater detail here, and make the proper distinctions. That's not really a comprehension treatment of the subject. I'd say, hold on a second... the rites of the Mass are not ALL discipline. Then we'd start defining our terms, and the conversation would go on from there.
"Surely you don't think the Gospel of John MUST be part of the Mass otherwise it's not a valid sacrament? Or that you MUST say the same prayer 3 times or it doesn't "work", or that there is an essential, ONTOLOGICAL as opposed to CULTURAL AND SYMBOLIC reason for priests to face away from the congregation (again, explain how this works in the Cathedrals of Europe when the high altar is in the middle)?"
Don't be ridiculous. It's statements like this that make me stop and say, hey... Joe's the one that's not getting it.
"But for Trads, the ontological and cultural and symbolic is all wrapped up in one package - thus they think a man is a heretic for thinking that the Mass could be said any other way than in Latin according to the Tridentine rite!"
Same response again here. Just take the last one and add eye-rolling for effect. This doesn't represent the position of any traditional Catholic I know.
"And.thats.simply.nuts."
Well no kidding. Good thing it's an imagined hypothetical that doesn't exist in reality, at least on this end of the keyboard, Joe.
"The sacrament is about the faith, the way it's done and the language it's done in are not part of the sacrament."
Well hold on there, again. Stop long enough to draw up the necessary distinctions and to carefully define your terms. Depending on the details, language actually may be a part of the sacrament. Again, you fail important distinctions with such a broadbrushed statement. The form is part of the sacrament, and the language is integral to the form. Clearly you have to ask what kinds of changes.
Secondly, when you say "the sacrament is about the faith", what exactly do you mean? This is more than a little fuzzy. Why shouldn't it be "the faith is about the sacraments"? Would it not be better to approach the discussion from the understanding that the Sacraments are indeed realities?
"You claim they're bright bulbs."
I did? Who? Not anyone who believes the things you put forward; no I don't remember doing that.
"Tell me, how bright is it to suppose that what scandals they experience in Moss Bluff Idaho or Bucktooth North Carolina, or Boston MA, means that the whole Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has fallen into apostasy? The USA and EU do not make up the whole story of the Catholic Church, yet the Trads seem to think it does."
And if you argue that it ain't so because you can show signs of growth elsewhere... then aren't you yourself a slave to the same argument, only, on the other side of the equation? Same bird, other wing. See, I wouldn't allow myself to argue from people, events and statistics in the first place. The right way is to argue from principle.
If you argue properly from principle, and you're the only one one God's green earth that does so, numbers will never matter. You're still right. Since when has anyone on either side of the trad/neo debates been believable when they came to conclusions based upon statistics and numbers? Never. We all know full well that the truth is not had by concensus.
"As I've stated previously, the Church isn't suffering the same types of problems commonly suffered here in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia... yet we're all in the same rite so...why the difference?"
A numbers argument. Won't work.
"The difference is one of culture and formation - not of rite and rubrics."
Actually, no. In fact, traditional Catholicism which is argued in the arena of liturgy actually isn't as successful as traditional Catholicism argued in the arena of dogma. It is most certainly true: lex orandi, lex credendi. But to successfully argue for traditional Catholicism is to argue for the keeping of the Deposit of Faith whole and undefiled. When this is done, superb liturgy will follow, or shall I say, be retained, as a matter of necessity, as in, it follows or flows from it.
Like I told you a long time ago, the heart of the battle of our times is the dogma of the Faith. Liturgy is the auxiliary battleground which comes on line only subsequent to a loss of belief in dogma, only after belief in dogma has lost a foothold. To illustrate: I have my fair share of experience with and love for the Eastern's Divine Liturgy. But many of today's Easterns, while their liturgies remain largely intact, suffer from the same or similar acceptance of the certain evolutions/devolutions of dogma which the Wests has been ailing from.
"How bright is it to confuse prudential differences with PRINCIPLE?"
Who did this?
"Trads want fulminating condemnations, excommunications, angry protests and the like - at least that's the impression the Wanderer articles seem to be rooting for - when dealing with "bad" Bishops and priests" Never seems to dawn on some people that chances are very good that few people in the Vatican read the Wanderer, and fewer check out the dozen or so sites they frequent on the internet."
The Wanderer stinks. I just wanted to make sure you understand that I'm not fan of theirs. Hoped that made it clear enough...
"Nor does it seem to dawn on many Americans that the Vatican has to be concerned with 800 million OTHER Catholics who aren't found between the Rio Grande and the North Pole. So the CDF taking time to respond is taken as an insult or stonewalling or coverup."
I'm not part of group of American yelping for anything in particular. You kind of lost me here.
So did the rest of your post. Lose me, that is. You keep making up this characature of what all trads are like, most of which I can't even identify with or fit with my common experience.
You're setting it up like a straw man, and knocking it over like one, too.
"Sorry, Emerald, you're not an idiot, but your arguments don't hold water either."
You mean, the arguments that you've pretended I made. All the stuff you talk about in your post doesn't really come close to what I think or to any position I hold. I think it's more the case that you have the average, liberalized misunderstanding of exactly how a genuine traditional Catholic mind operates.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Pete don't make a fool of yourself. Did the Pope - in the quote you provided claim that Buddism was equal to divine revelation? No. He acknowledged that it was a "treasure" JUST AS ARISTOTLE AND PLATO AND THEIR PHILOSOPHIES ARE HUMAN TREASURES.Think real hard there Pete, St Paul quoted Pagan poets, culling wisdom from their words - uninspired by God, but true nonetheless, as a way of introducing a pagan audience to the Good news.
That a Pope says "Hey, that 4000 year old religion has some good points and has done some good for people" isn't to claim that morality or religions are relative at all. AGAIN AN APPALLING FAILURE TO READ THE ACTUAL TEXT AND MAKE PROPER DISTINCTIONS.
What you think Buddism is ENTIRELY EVIL AND WRONG? What about Aristotle's work - he was a Pagan! Is every word and theory wrong?
How about Plato? All those words written about what the Just Man - words that clearly presage the Messiah - all wrong because the author was Pagan? According to your criteria of judgment they would be, yet lo and behold St Augustine baptized Platonism and St Thomas Aquinas baptized Aristotelianism.
St Paul found some truth in pagan poets - and since God is the author of all good....it follows that some cultural things and human inventions in other lands can also be means by which God prepares peoples to hear the Gospel.
Come on, give me a really good stumper.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.
"How about Plato? All those words written about what the Just Man - words that clearly presage the Messiah - all wrong because the author was Pagan? According to your criteria of judgment they would be, yet lo and behold St Augustine baptized Platonism and St Thomas Aquinas baptized Aristotelianism.St Paul found some truth in pagan poets - and since God is the author of all good....it follows that some cultural things and human inventions in other lands can also be means by which God prepares peoples to hear the Gospel.
See, there you go again. You believe that your opponents think things which they don't think.
In fact, I agree largely with a lot of what you say here. With the exception of the way in which the origin of legitimate philosophical handmaidens to the Faith are characterized as having been baptized. I hear that one a lot; it doesn't seem to do the concept justice as far as an expression is concerned. A minor gripe.
But at any rate, there's not much in your lines there that the trads would disagree with.
There's your stumper right there. You're not really understanding the traditional mind. You have put forth a characterization of them, or imagery of them, as some they are not or thinkers of things they don't.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Emerald has that old fixation: ''--acceptance of the certain evolutions/devolutions of dogma which the West has been ailing from.''And concludes by telling you: ''You're not really understanding the traditional mind. You have put forth a characterization or imagery of them,'' Suuure. You mean like ''evolutions/devolutions of dogma which the West has been ailing from.'' -- A pet theory you put forth; a characterisation no more factual than your misunderstood ''traditional mind?''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
Even if that were actually the case, that I had mischaracterized anything, logically speaking it does not address the claim that Joe has has mischaracterized the traditional Catholic's position.Either way, the claim holds. He claims they think things which they don't really think.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.
Emerald....First of all, when I say "Language" in the context of Peter talking about translations, I meant "Language" as in Latin or Greek, or Spanish, or Hebrew or English, NOT WORDING.
Sure, wording - (what is being translated from one language to another) is vital to the meaning and thus, form of the sacrament.
But Language itself is merely a vehicle, not the payload itself. If it were otherwise the Gospels themselves would have to be spread not in Greek or Latin or English, but solely in the language that Jesus actually spoke them in.
Secondly, you presume by calling the Trads "Catholics of dogma and tradition" that you're the only ones who believe in dogma and tradition whereas other Catholics don't?
That's some deft use of wording and definition! Or is it begging the question? I forget.
The whole beef I have with the trads is that they FAIL TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS DOGMA AND WHAT ISN'T, WHAT IS CAPITAL T TRADITION AND WHAT IS ONLY CULTURAL, LOCAL, NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH!
The fact remains that the Catholic Church has always had rites which performed the sacraments not in Latin and not according to the ways that the Latin rite did things... ergo, DOGMA isn't affected by differences of language and culture and differences of rubrics!
The capital T tradition, the Deposit of Faith, is just as validly maintained in the Coptic rite as it is in the Chaldean rite and just as it is in the Armenian, etc.
But who decided that those rites were legitimate expressions of the dogma and tradition of the Church? The Popes.
The mere fact that such rites exist must tell you that the Tridentine rite of the Mass is not the last word in liturgy and that Latin is not ontologically superior...in other words: THEY COULD BE CHANGED WITHOUT LOSING THE DOGMA AND WITHOUT DROPPING THE PAYLOAD OF TRADITION.
I think you confuse the "what" with the "how".... The what is the truth, the commands all nations are to be taught by the successors of the apostles to obey until Christ comes again... but the how is the cultural vehicles of expression - language, rite, etc. by which this truth is communicated and shared...
So yes, a give language and rite is good and useful - insofar as it carries the payload to the person.
But if the language no longer serves that purpose...then junk it! Why did the Church in the West do away with Greek Emerald? BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE IN THE WEST SPOKE LATIN...
But what happens when hundreds of millions of new Catholics come into the Church who DON'T SPEAK Latin as their native tongue or even a language based on Latin? Are they to be forced to simply become Westernized?
Is there simply no way IN PRINCIPLE to translate the Mass from Latin to a venacular language, like Korean? Is there no way to translate the Western European customs and traditions into customs and rites that make more sense to the sensibilities of Africans and Asians and Latin Americans?
I see the Principle loud and clear Emerald, it's the so-called Trads who don't get it.
It is my experience that when asked what's wrong with the New Mass or the Church - especially it no longer being in Latin, many will point to scandals here and there, loss of faith here and there, and generally point to all the problems... the numbers game, quoting scripture that a good tree doesn't produce bad fruit, ergo, the New Mass and all the changes must be bad.
I point to all the good that is being done (thus disproving the simple post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) and you suddenly claim that trads DON'T appeal to the numbers game? THEY APPEAL TO IT ALL THE TIME AS PROOF OF THE "MODERNIST" HERESY'S FRUIT!
So now we shall talk of principle.... dogma. Fine. How is this dogma to be taught to all nations?
Our Lord commanded the apostles to make disciples of all the nations... and in Revelation we see a crowd from every language and place... odd that they're not all singing in Latin huh?
Odd too that after Pentecost the gift of tongues didn't work in reverse - so that the hearers would suddenly all learn Aramaic rather than hear the apostles speaking in their various languages!!!!
Got you! Right there in the scripture, is a template of the Church in action, telling the Good News, your blessed Dogma and Tradition IN LANGUAGES THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD COULD UNDERSTAND, NOT IN ONE LANGUAGE.
In one age the Church's language was mainly Aramaic and then Greek and then Latin etc. Jewish customs clashed with Greek and Latin - we see it all over the place in Acts. St James and St Paul had congregations consisting mainly of different types of people from different cultural backgrounds, representing different languages etc.
Paul insisted that the newly baptized didn't have to first become Jews and live like Jews....whereas St James' people insisted that insofar as the Messiah was a Jew, indeed the King and fulfillment of the Old Testament, and called the Choosen People to a higher standard, that all his followers ought to at least keep the lower standard - including all the law.
In other words my friend, your blessed "Catholics of dogma and tradition" are alot like the people who didn't think changes could be made in their traditions and customs! They failed to see what was Dogma (look at those agast at Peter meeting with the Centurion - and of his vision whereby he came to understand that all foods are clean!), and what isn't Dogma!
Both Protestants and so-called Traditionalists fail in the same way to distinguish what is to be handed on (TRADITION) and the MANNER OR WAY IT'S HANDED ON...what is Tradition as in essential and what is local custom, something which is NOT essential.
And both you and the Prots are self-authenticating...they claim to derive moral authority from the Bible (but really from their interpretation of scripture) whereas the self-proclaimed "Catholics of dogma and tradition" take their guidance from church documents - according to their own interpretation and not that of the current Pope and his duly appointed bishops in union with his Magiserium.
And what did the people of St James do? They argued with St Paul, based on their own interpretation of dogma known to the Jews and Jewish tradition....but in the end it was a COUNCIL and Peter who solved the dilemna was it not?
It wasn't solved by sola scritura (as though some proof text would win the day) and it wasn't solved by brute force either, but both by argument and by authority.
In our days we had a Council and 3 great Popes who likewise - if listened to and honestly read would lead you and Protestants out of myopic error and out of PRESUMPTION as to your supposed "principles" which aren't so infallible because at the end of the day it's your own interpretation of centuries old documents which you really obey, not the interpretation of the Pope.
-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.
Joe and Eugene. JP2 lauds the Budhists, Moslems, Shintos. and on and on.I know that you have read Cantate Domino but you don't digest it.
Those that JP2 is praising are condemned to hell by all popes before vatican 2.
This is not your personal choice or for that matter even JP's. He is blatantly going against dogmatic declarations. It is a no brainer.
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into EVERLASTING FIRE which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
THIS POPE CAN KISS THEM, PRAISE THEM PET THEM, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT HE WANTS TO DO... tHE ABOVE STILL STANDS.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 24, 2005.
You make my point perfectly. All you are is a muck- raker,Only interested in smearing the Pope and pronouncing sentence on other souls.
Has it occurred to you this is the same mission on earth of Satan? To cover Christ's Church with manure; curse her; and to accuse human beings of sin? He is called our Accuser!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2005.
No Pope has ever had the power to condemn anyone to hell. That power resides in God alone. His Church now acknowledges that fact more fully than it has in the past. The Church sometimes states that certain persons are definitely saved, through the process of canonization. But the Church does not say that anyone is definitely condemned, since the Church lacks the authority to make such a statement. Better to leave such decisions to the One who hold that authority.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2005.
Then what's an excommunication?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
An excommunication is, to translate the Latin, to expell someone from the communio, and thus, from access to the sacraments of the Church until such time as the person repents and returns.It's not a rite of damnation - unless I suppose you excommunicate someone on the scaffold and then immediately hang or shoot them.
After all, while there is life, there is hope... to claim Baptism or excommunication mean instant salvation or instant damnation is to commit a heresy that human beings have no freedom in this life and can not change.
Some Baptized are lost, some now lost later get baptized. Some in communion now lose this by sin, others cast out repent and return before the end... so excommunication can't be seen as "basically" saying a man is damned.
As far as Peter having a cow over the Pope saying nice things about foreign peoples and confusing diplomacy and noticing, like St Paul, some good quality or some human virtue in their culture and religion so as to open their minds to what He has to say.... with the Pope saying that their religions are true revelations.... that's the problem: Peter doesn't know how to read and can't make distinctions.
St Paul praised the Athenians for being a very religious people, and then launched his discourse by mentioning that he spotted an altar to "the unknown god" and so, there he was, to announce to them this unknown God.
Notice, Peter, that St Paul DIDN'T come out swinging with "All y'all are pagan scum destined to hell and damnation unless right here and now you prostrate yourselves before ME and beg mercy!"
Something tells me that that approach only works with people who are "part of the family" and know they're wrong *(such as when Peter speaks to the crowds after Pentecost) and NOT with complete strangers.
The Pope's messages to complete strangers, people outside the family, are gentle and kind...not fulminating and condemming. But elsewhere, for example in Veritatis Spendor, he doesn't preach that all religions are one or that Revelation came to Buddha or Mohammed!
No, like Pius XII and St Thomas Aquinas before him, the Popes acknowledge that all men can by light of their natural reason come to know that God exists and some attributes of God and of basic true human values and morals (natural law, cf. Book of Wisdom and Romans).
The Pope also knows as Catholic dogma and tradition attest, that men whose minds are not enlightened by the Gospel and souls are not strengthened with sanctifying grace, can't either come to know certain essential truths about God and man, and can't persevere in the basic human good values for long.
St Paul's epistles make it clear that he was well aware of the sin and vice and error to be found in Athens and Corinth and Rome...and Jerusalem! But still he saved his fire and brimstone homilies for the family, to keep them in, he didn't use those words with strangers!
So here's the Pope following St Paul's lead in dealing with pagans, praising what is praiseworthy as an introduction to diplomacy and you read it out of context as if that's the sum total of his speech and discourse and words towards them!
Gentlemen, please read carefully, and in context, and with an eye on the Catechism and big picture.
Emerald, it may help if you specify which dogmas are supposedly jettisoned in the modern Church by not following which traditions.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 25, 2005.
Follow up to Emeralds question on scandal. It's true that everyone ought to be careful not to do or say anything which could lead a weak brother to lose heart and faith... but this works two ways...By stirring up controversy and constantly taking Papal texts and actions out of context, how many trads have harmed peoples' faith in the Church itself? I've heard of many people who left the faith entirely thinking that if they can't trust the Pope, the whole kit and kaboodle must be wrong.
Doesn't this mean the trads ought to simply shut up and stop scandalizing people with their inappropriate diatribes?
Personally, I don't see why there can't be established a rite within the Catholic Church that respects those Catholics' cultural sensibilities who prefer the pre-1962 Mass and all the trappings... why not give them their own rite? This is probably what will happen in our lifetimes.
They would get their own bishops and chain of command outside the Latin rite and everyone could pick and choose which one to belong to, just as people are basically free to leave the Latin rite and join the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church.
If they don't want their own rite, they could create a personal prelature such as military dioceses or Opus Dei - whereby those who prefer the Tridentine rite and pre-1962 texts report to their own bishop, etc.
That would seem to be the ultimate solution.
There is talk of Jews forming their own rite - a Jewish rite so to speak which would incorporate the Hebrew Language and those traditional elements from the other rites that speak more closely to their sensibilities... why not? Go for it.
So long as the WHAT we believe in is the same, there are any number of reasonable and valid WAYS for this to be transmitted to the nations....but obedience and patience and humility will always be required, something our French Archbishop lacked.
Besides, don't use the threat of "scandal" like some people use their threat of suicide to get others to obey them! The way out of the risk of scandal is through growth in the truth. Our Lord himself talks about this in his discourse with the Apostles when he answers their dismay and repeatedly tells them "let not your hearts be troubled".
Their inability to appreciate the truth he was talking about didn't lead him to conclude "OK, well, I don't want to scandalize you so I'll just not go on". No, he went on...but told them that they weren't ready for some things so he'd send them His Spirit, or explain it later.
Ditto with alot of people today...they're not ready for alot of Papal teaching because they haven't been reading and keeping up on it from the start and they haven't been properly catechized and so think Dogma is no different than doctrine and every little custom is the same thing as "Tradition" handed down from the Apostles...
These folk are scandalized all the time when they jump from first grade explanations of the faith to post-graduate level... but the solution is not to let them stay uninformed but to tactfully and gently lead them in all truth step by step.
Again look at the Protestants... Luther was SCANDALIZED by the immorality he witnessed in Rome. But instead of growing out of this shock by taking things in perspective, making proper DISTINCTIONS, he went off the deep end.
Sure, the local abuse in Germany of selling indulgences was wrong...but Luther confused a local and true abuse with the very practice and doctrine of indulgences! He confused bath water for the baby.
It was his reaction and stubborness that really led to his demise.
Sure, there were lots of rebels and apostates and heretics that came swarming out of the woodwork in the early 1960s... communism and masonry had something to do with it, as did simply poor training in theology and philosophy and a lack of discernment on the part of religious superiors... but to think all those peoples' ideas were PRODUCTS of Council and Pope is to allow scandal to cloud one's mind.
All those apostates were there festering away before the Council - they all went to seminary before the Council... and a majority of Europe's people left the Church and faith BEFORE the Council... so something bad was happening that wasn't caused by the Council and new Mass.
Cultures change Emerald! And as I mention above, if a given traditional form of expression, the vehicle by which a given payload is carried is no longer accepted or readily understood by your market, then you change or modify the MEANS or MEDIA of expression so as to better get across the MESSAGE.
It's obvious to me at least that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church had gotten too large by 1960 for one single language and the customs in vogue in Western Europe in the 1600's to be effective in transmitting the faith. The Council was concerned therefore with a better, more effective transmission of truth, not concerned primarily with combatting evil.
It's not like the Popes hadn't already clearly taught that Communism and Masonry and all the other isms were bad, because they had. No further explainations were required. But in 1960 whose swaths of humanity were falling behind iron curtains of atheism and totalitarianism, threatened with nuclear annihilation from without or intellectual subversion from within and it was clear that the 400 year old customs weren't preserving people or winning alot of converts from the maw of communism and secularism.
So change your mode of expression! They did, and viola! Every Church in countries such as Latin and South America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe experienced a BOOM in numbers and quality of members... only North American and Western Europe experienced CONTINUED decline.
But the decline was as much a result of bad or non-existent leadership and lack of general knowledge and application of the council as it was the fruit of ongoing attacks from within of the apostates, heretics, and others who were active BEFORE the Council...
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 25, 2005.
what is sungenis?what is matatics?
what is a novus ordo mass?
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 25, 2005.
''What is Jeopardy?''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
Fine posts, Joe; keep that up!
One factor little understood by these critics of our Church; and still at work in the western world right now--Immediately after World War II we began such a giant surge of economic growth & material expansion, especially in America; arrived along with a baby boom like few others ever known. By the 50's and 60's this had become the monster consumer society of all time. Materialism: love of riches and the market's exploitation the young; all brought banality, weird styles and unbridled hedonism. --The first thing to fail was self-denial.
When even in Catholic homes the main concern is buying, enjoying and coveting; where is there time for spiritual growth? Or the moments of contemplation which bring young men to see their true vocations? They can hardly pay attention to their grades in school! All the children want is their own car, entertainment, fashions and money! Hell, even our own parishes become competitive! It's a vicious circle, circulating around wealth.
This strict time- line is from 1945 and the end of the war, to NOW. That's when all the declines in morals, in vocations, in the love of God and neighbor have happened. Certainly NOT because God reformed the Church's services, or inquired after our separated brethren. Those have been meant as holy works. It's really the surfeit of riches that's caused men to forget God.
I believe that until there's a call back to self- denial and sacrifice we'll stay corrupt, and indifferent to God's anger and His demands.
We have in the world a monsterous counterpart; China and all of the Orient. Given the opportunity, the hordes of Chinese invaders could populate our land mass forty times over, very swiftly. After years of ZPG and abortions, our present society may well become the insignificant minority under a Chinese dictatorship. I know this seems too fantastic to even consider. We're such a powerful nation.
But man can't defy God's Will indefinitely. God can and WILL, overturn nations in one day. If we look into the Old Testament for clues we realise what happens to God's people when they worship idols. They remain His people. But He chastizes them severely for their own good. He did it to Israel. An entire nation sold into slavery. They pined away for the homeland they were taken far away from. As slaves. They lived a very long time in bondage, until at last God took pity on them and their children.
It might happen to us. We must all PRAY there is a return to the true love of God, and self-denial. A love for the Cross, instead of the love of money.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
"After all, while there is life, there is hope... to claim Baptism or excommunication mean instant salvation or instant damnation is to commit a heresy that human beings have no freedom in this life and can not change."When you say things like this, it is clear to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're completely failing to understand what it is that the trads believe and think in the first place.
I already know what excommunication is. The reason I threw that out there to Paul is that he often refers to the binding and loosing passage from Scripture in relation to the papacy. I mentioned to him that it had primarily to do with the institution of the Sacrament of Confession, while still having something to do with papal authority. The particular case of excommunication brings both principles together nicely in a single example. I just thought it kind of curious that after using that Scripture passage all the time, he says this: "But the Church does not say that anyone is definitely condemned, since the Church lacks the authority to make such a statement." ...when the Church most certainly does have that authority in a certain sense. Note that I said in a certain sense. Please don't fail a distinction here. Non-trads are always missing the distinctions.
"Follow up to Emeralds question on scandal. It's true that everyone ought to be careful not to do or say anything which could lead a weak brother to lose heart and faith... but this works two ways..."
For many people, that's exactly what this Koran kissing thing did. Admit it. I'm right about that, as are the others. It should never have been done.
"By stirring up controversy and constantly taking Papal texts and actions out of context, how many trads have harmed peoples' faith in the Church itself?"
Not many. Because they aren't taking them out of context.
"I've heard of many people who left the faith entirely thinking that if they can't trust the Pope, the whole kit and kaboodle must be wrong."
That's called despair. While it can't be condoned and is to be rejected as even a remote possibility, a leading cause of this despair has to be at least in part caused by the incessant deafness of bantering liberalized Catholics. Conservative Catholics, they're sometimes called. I just call them right-wing liberals. They go on and on and on trying to justify the unjustifiable in the face of the most outrightly obvious situations. They habitually deny what's clearly observable. They blame the trads for everything they are guilty of themselves, from pharisaicalism to lack of charity to stupidity, blindness, hatred, rage and self righteousness. It's the grandest example of all cases of the emperor's new clothes in the history of mankind. It could very well be the disorientation that Sister Lucia spoke of.
I'm not singling anyone out here, just pointing to an observable phenomena. I'm just saying, it's no wonder that some trads lose heart and lapse into theological despair. That's no excuse; they need to snap out of it. But the causes for it are discernable. The blindness of liberalized Catholics drives them freaking crazy.
"Doesn't this mean the trads ought to simply shut up and stop scandalizing people with their inappropriate diatribes?"
No.
Nor are they inappropriate. They're good, and they are necessary. Your average modcath need to hear it.
"Personally, I don't see why there can't be established a rite within the Catholic Church that respects those Catholics' cultural sensibilities who prefer the pre-1962 Mass and all the trappings... why not give them their own rite? This is probably what will happen in our lifetimes."
I'll tell you why. Because the issue isn't about culture like you think it is. That's what I was trying to explain to you before. It's not about culture; so, your argument that if trads would just get a little culture and understand that culture properly, all the problems would go away.
Not so. It's not about culture, but about dogma. That's why I'm saying, hey Joe, your view of the trads lacks understanding. You're not really cluing in as to what they are on about.
"They would get their own bishops ... whereby those who prefer the Tridentine rite and pre-1962 texts report to their own bishop, etc. That would seem to be the ultimate solution."
No no no no no. No! That is not the solution. It entirely misses the ratio behind the gripe. The trads are saying hey, doctrine and it's proper liturgical expression. Credo. I believe these things. ergo, I live this way. I pray this way. Lex orandi, lex credendi. But the new Catholicism: I don't believe the new thing. I don't live that new thing. I don't pray that new thing. And nobody ever really said that you had to... people just pretend like you should, or pretend like somebody said you had to. Nobody has to believe or do anything other than what Catholic saints have always ever believe or practiced. No one.
But that's exactly what the coerciveness of the Conciliarist demand: believing something different, doing something different. And the whole time they're telling you it's actually really the same thing. No it is not.
"There is talk of Jews forming their own rite - a Jewish rite so to speak which would incorporate the Hebrew Language and those traditional elements from the other rites that speak more closely to their sensibilities... why not? Go for it."
For heaven's sake, Joe, what have sensibilities got to do with it? That's all stuff for a feminized Church, I suppose, but I have no interest in that whatsoever. Worthless. Sensibilities stink.
It's not sensibilities that are what's on the butchering block here, such that the solution would be some kind of proposed diversivity inclusiveness program. That's not what matters. It's belief. VERITAS. Because if you want to live like a good person and be holy you have to at least in a simple manner be a believer. Holding the dogma of the Faith is primary in order of causality and the only way to chart out a practical course of holiness which will lead to eternal life. In all things, remember the end: the four last things, Venissima.
"So long as the WHAT we believe in is the same, there are any number of reasonable and valid WAYS for this to be transmitted to the nations....but obedience and patience and humility will always be required, something our French Archbishop lacked."
That's the question. Is the "WHAT" really held in common across the board? Not really. That's exactly the gut of the topic we're discussing here. There can be no unity without veritas. Unless all hold the same Catholic truth, there will be no unity. Ever. Ut unum sint starts with the Creed.
"Besides, don't use the threat of "scandal" like some people use their threat of suicide to get others to obey them! The way out of the risk of scandal is through growth in the truth. Our Lord himself talks about this in his discourse with the Apostles when he answers their dismay and repeatedly tells them "let not your hearts be troubled"."
You're failing the observable. This incessant drive for dialogue has been like gasoline on a fire. And the whole time this process continues, we have become the incarnation of the very problem outlined in Pascendi Dominici Gregis... that "growth in truth" you're talking about. It's evolutionarily "good" to the so-called illumined mind, but devolutionary poison to the core doctrines of the Catholic Faith itself.
"Ditto with alot of people today...they're not ready for alot of Papal teaching because they haven't been reading and keeping up on it from the start and they haven't been properly catechized and so think Dogma is no different than doctrine and every little custom is the same thing as "Tradition" handed down from the Apostles..."
"Keeping up on it"? See, it's always headed in a direction. One has to keep up with it or get left behind. That's not the nature of the belief of the Apostles; that's not of the timeless, immutable beauty of a seamless and eternal truth.
"These folk are scandalized all the time when they jump from first grade explanations of the faith to post-graduate level... but the solution is not to let them stay uninformed but to tactfully and gently lead them in all truth step by step."
This is such an arrogant view. It's so presumptuous. It's the very pharisaicalness and the self-righteousness that the trads are always accused of. But I supposed what puts it into the arena of the comical is the contrast of this with reality: the theological and spiritual dullness that exudes from our right-wing liberal friends.
"Cultures change Emerald!"
Well so what. Catholic truth doesn't. Cultures will burn in the fires of the final judgment, never to be found again, or spoken about, or remembered. Vapor. But Catholic Truth will live for an eternity of Sundays. Every day is Sunday in Heaven, you know.
Let me put it to you straight: your view? I'll never buy it. It is impossible for me to buy it. It's wrong. It's dividing and tearing our Church apart. It's literally crucifying the Churhc. I'll always argue against it, and I'll die a Catholic.
At this point, we're probably pretty far afield from the main topic, but you brought up lots of issues. Just some thoughts back.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.
Wow; another 700 word binge. Barrage after barrage.My eyes glaze over, but I found ONE tea bag for the garbage can:
''Non-trads are always missing the distinctions.''
We are traditional in the finest sense of the word, Emmie. Don't call us Non-trads. Just say ''Bad Guys'' and be succinct. We do what all the disciples of Jesus Christ were taught to do. We are loyal to Peter. We know the distinctions of our faith. That's more trad than you have ever been here. You call that being Bad Guys.
Let it be so. If it tickles your fancy.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.
I'll check back tomorrow to see if you responded to the post, Gene.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 26, 2005.
Taking another of Emerald's volleys:
[Starts with Joe,]''-- anything which could lead a weak brother to lose heart and faith... but this works two ways,''Emerald ''--For many people, that's exactly what this Koran kissing thing did. Admit it. I'm right about that, as are the others. It should never have been done.'' Emerald says ''I'm right.''
To which: That ''kiss'' is strictly gesture, everyone has to admit THAT. It only scandalizes Pharisees. Now, we realise John Paul II pushed the envelope to see what would happen. But a truly traditional Catholic understands that's why Christ has a Vicar on earth. It's a better idea to have the Koran ''kissed'' ceremonially than what once was the Catholic custom, kissing the Pope's foot in plain sight of every non-Catholic, and parading him through Rome sitting in a massive gold-leafed throne. It was all ceremonial and harmless. We don't think it angered God in heaven, do we? It sure scandalized many earnest and God-fearing Christians. But it was ''trad''. So let's drop the subject.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
Emerald serving overhand smash:''Let me put it to you straight: your view? I'll never buy it. It is impossible for me to buy it. It's wrong. It's dividing and tearing our Church apart. It's literally crucifying the Church. I'll always argue against it, and I'll die a Catholic.''
Return volley: ''PAX, MacEnroe. Nothing can tear us apart because we have the Holy Spirit. You'll die a Catholic and so will we. Let me see;
+ + +
We all make the Sign of the Cross after two millennia
We believe the Creed
We all adore God
We forgive our debtors
We live in Faith, Hope & Charity
We love and honor the most Blessed Virgin Mary
We live in the Sacraments of Jesus Christ and His Church
Our holy priests and bishops succeed the apostles, ordained in the Catholic Church
The bishop of Rome is our Pope
We bring souls to Christ, by His Holy Gospel
We sin but we also repent.Play fair, my friend. Don't fail in any of these things, and --You're my brother in faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
When you come up with such lame excuses for kissing the Koran, you are indeed spiritually disfunctional.Emerald spends far too much time offering insight which is totally ignored.
Their minds are made up before they read a word. Don't confuse them with facts as they cannot handle them.
When the pope threw those cucumber peels to a snake, to be friendly with the Animists, that might have been a signal for us to go out and buy a snake for a pet. At least that is what Eugene or Joe would say.
As I remember, in the Passion, Christ stomped the head of the snake.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 26, 2005.
In fact, though-- Every human soul is made in the image of God. Human error can't change that. While these souls are in sin, we hold out no hope for them. Our Holy Father is maligned by you, his own people; for hoping they can be brought out of darkness.Your soul is a jewel of priceless value to Our Father in heaven. He loves you. He also loves the souls Satan is deceiving; and sends His Vicar on a quest to recover them for Jesus Christ. --It might be impossible, but he hopes.
You, our Wise Man, in your bigotry don't think we should worry about them. Quite a Christian you seem. Way to go, Pilgrim.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
I would like to think that in his parting he would say "Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father than by Him". If he does not ever mention the Holy Name of Jesus, what is he doing there, except to comfort them in their ignorance.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 26, 2005.
The fact is, you haven't been at the places he visited. You only know what a few reporters tell us. The Pope comes in peace first, to proselytize after.Those souls aren't totally STUPID. All of them are aware that He represents Jesus Christ and the Church of the apostles. You know it, don't you? And your mental capacity is no great shakes, Pete. That means they understand. He is a HUGE figure in the world; they know it. He changes the hearts of men of good will. Some of them will never see the Catholic religion in the same way again after meeting John Paul II.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.
Who is the most loved and respected man in the world today? Answer John Paul II.What did Our Lord Say? "If they hated Me they will hate you also">
Figure this one out for yourself.
-- Pete (Chas@Charlie.com), February 26, 2005.
You hate him; as you plainly show us. Many just like you hate John Paul II; and that fulfills the words of Jesus Christ. You would have hated Jesus in his place, apparently.I have no wish to place that stigma on anyone. But you bring it up, and it fits you in many ways.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.
What make you think that I hate him? I dont, and am not allowed to hate anyone.Do I hate what he is doing to the Church? You bet I do.
It is people like you that give him a pass on anything. The fact that the church is in so much trouble is not noticed. You think that Emerald, Ian and I are enemies of the church. Wrong!
We are the friends of the church. A true friend corrects you if you are wrong. The church does not need yes men like you to apple polish the boss.
Get with the truth Eugene. You are living in world of make believe that is crashing down on your head.
Even Father Paul is a product of the modern seminaries. You should know better than him as he is to young to know anything else.
The seminaries around here are teaching that the events in Jesus life are just untrue points to show something or other.
-- Pete (Chas@Charles.com), February 27, 2005.
Pete is being unjust again. Judgmental and impudent about matters he knows NOTHING about. Consider, for instance:''People like you that give him a pass on anything.'' THE POPE! He needs a pass from the laity! The inmate wants to run the asylum, teaching his pontiff all about religious truth???? And, we the sheep of his fold (He is called to be our shepherd by JESUS CHRIST) by simple co-operation and by praying for him are ''apple-polishing the Boss!''
Well, by no means, Pete-- Don't give anybody a pass, now that you're the judge and jury of this Church! Put John Paul II in jail, Saint Pete.
If YOU and emerald are ''friends of the Church,'' then the devil is a friend. OK??? And YOU have become very tiresome around here. I advised the Moderator once; about a phony who kept coming here over and over, denigrating and instigating against our Holy Father in the Catholic forum. It is absolutely insupportable to allow that, and our Moderator knows it. I believe in free speech; but who wants the devil abusing free speech in our site? You are giving him a platform; ----------SATAN. --To hell with him. You're the devil's advocate and we reject you emphatically.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.
You went from I to we in one paragraph. Who are you to speak of we.I believe that you are a man that is out of control of your tmper. You think and live on emotions, especially anger.
I think that woman was correct when she said that you must have been a spointe child who had to have your way.
Did you stomp, pout and throw your toys? You surely sound like it.
-- Pete (Chas@charles.com), February 27, 2005.
Dear Pete,
Let me assure you, I'm not in a bad temper. This afternoon in Mass I prayed for you and for a couple of other souls in this forum. When I received Holy Communion. I asked Our Lord to be merciful to you. And to us all; since we all need His mercy.It's because I worry about you. You need protection from the devil. Recall the prayer to Saint Michael Archangel; pre-Vatican II-- The devil prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. You are living bait for him; as you are today. He won't let you go once you listen to him. And, Pete: You've listened.
This week I saw something shocking and sad, in my driveway. I was walking to my back door and heard something cry. It startled me. Before I could turn full around a large bird flew from behind me very swiftly. I barely had seconds to see as he went right over my head, and turned into my garden, wings flapping hard. He flew away before I could do anything.
It was a hawk, with his claws around a poor starling who was crying out. A neighborhood bird, one from the flocks of starlings I feed bread to in the mornings. The little bird was going to die. It near broke my heart. I haven't been able to get him out of my mind.
My heart keeps telling me; it's exactly how all sinners are taken away by the devils to eternal punishment. They go in the devil's claws, crying for help. But they never come back. I feel so sad.
I prayed for all those in this forum who hurt Our Lord Jesus Christ each day; attacking His Holy Church. Ridiculing the Pope and our bishops; and causing division and anger among Catholics. I don't want them to be punished in the next life. I wish them --and you, eternal joy in heaven, a faithful and holy soul when you die. You must hurry and repent of all your sins, Pete. Don't endanger your immortal soul. Pray for me, too, if you will. The devil is a present danger to us all. --I prayed for all of you. You pray also; for me and every other good Catholic. And have faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.
"But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." --Isaias 40:31"O Jesus, Your little bird is happy to be weak and little. What would become of it if it were big? Never would it have the boldness to appear in Your presence, to fall asleep in front of You. Yes, this is still one of the weaknesses of the little bird: when it wants to fix its gaze upon the Divine Sun, and when the clouds prevent it from seeing a single ray of that Sun, in spite of itself, its little eyes close, its little head is hidden beneath its wing, and the poor little thing falls asleep, believing all the time that it is fixing its gaze upon its Dear Star. When it awakens, it doesn’t feel desolate; its little heart is at peace and it begins once again its work of love. It calls upon the angels and saints who rise like eagles before the consuming Fire, and since this is the object of the little bird’s desire the eagles take pity on it, protecting and defending it, and putting to flight at the same time the vultures who want to devour it. These vultures are the demons whom the little bird doesn’t fear, for it is not destined to be their prey but the prey of the Eagle whom it contemplates in the center of the Sun of Love.
--Saint Therese of Lisieux
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
Thanks for quoting the Little Flower, Emerald. I love her very much. My grandmother had a deep devotion to her ''Florecita'' --I am extremely happy around birds. I feed them bread every morning out on the street by my parked car. Mostly starlings and a few gulls (Nor Cal.) They love our neighborhood. All day they sing on the housetops. Losing one of them that way was very unexpected and actually horrifying. He seemed to be weeping as the hawk flew away with him. (Imagine how it sounded!) My wife says; Gee; Hawks have to eat OK? I don't care.
We hear hundreds of frogs in the evenings. Surely he might've eaten a few of them. I also noted --of all the places for it to take place. In my yard, over my own head! Like a sign. You have to feel it yourself to understand what I'm saying. -- About lost souls and the devil. It became so clear when I saw that.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.
Douay Rheims version:Luke 17:37 Who said to them: Wheresoever the body shall be, thither will the eagles also be gathered together."
Luke 17:37 37And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."
It's necessary to make a distinction. In this case, ornithologically. It also helps to have the right translation.
The good traditional Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien used the Eagles accordingly. At least, so I hear.
The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess...
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
Take heart, Gene.My brother had to give up something when he went into the seminary. He had a love of falconry; he loved birds. I always loved airplanes. Same, but different.
He just recently sent me a picture of an owl that he had trained, but will have to let go of soon in order to do his duties. He gave up a lot to be a priest, but much more than just these more natural and healthy pursuits.
Many things of our Faith make use of imagery which is a hair's breadth from the enemy's. The reason for this is that the enemy can do nothing against God but to mock Him and to draw up fool's gold in the face of His genuine gold. He's the deceiver, after all.
Thank you for the prayers; they are heard.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
Forgot: that second verse is from the New American Standard.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
Appreciate that, Emmie.
Hey-- I love planes too. My wife and I flew to Australia and back in November. Just awesome! Some folks are afraid to fly, but we love it. Someday maybe you'll visit Saint Mary's Cathedral, Sydney Aus., and you won't want to come back. Novus Ordo Lit; yet Trad and glorious like few others on earth. (I ought to know, Pal.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.
I wish I could visit it. I remember being in Rome and Lourdes, but I was a sophomore in high school and clearly not all there in the head, but I do remember certain things very clearly. I wish I could go back and see Rome again. I would also like to go to Germany to see castles.Maybe it's the German in me the we don't always get along. But have something of Seminole Indian so I hear, so at a minimum you and I have the Missions of California to hold in common.
About airplanes, in all honesty, the big ones scare me, especially at take-off. I have no problems whatsoever with small aircraft. That's statistically irrational of me, but it's still the case.
Just yesterday I was going about my job and came across this guy building an airplane in his garage, something I've always wanted to do. He was building one of these .
so I stopped to talk with him for a while and looked over masterpiece. Mostly wood with a light covering of fiberglass. It's more than just about airplanes and flying, it's woodworking; carpentry skills. St. Joseph would have been all over this. Super precise woodwork, each part with a purpose, and finished such that the viewer of the finished object wouldn't even be aware of the structurally beauty under the skin. Beautiful.
I'm a Neoplatonist by St. Augustine's model. We have to give up a lot of things in life to follow Christ; everyone, their own thing. I figure, if I love this natural thing, this innocent thing, as well as others such as music and so forth, there's no loss. These things are only shadows of what's to come. We give them up for now only, and get not just the shadow later, but the essence. Shadows crashing into essence.
Bear with us trads, Gene. We ain't all that bad. God bless.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
First of all, Hi. How are the wife and kids Emerald?Our kids are OK, baby boy #3 is due any day now. Hopefully not today during the blizzard but you know those low pressure systems...:-)
I think you, me, Pete, and Eugene have to make MORE distinctions. First of all, your side has to distinguish between those Catholics not on your side - we're not a dogmatic and doctrinal monolith. I distinguish the 3rd world from the 1st all the time... and even here in the 1st world there are Catholics and then Catholics...
Some who call themselves Catholics are certainly, verifiably heretics, apostates, and plain old nuts. I absolutely believe that - especially in the northern dioceses of the country.
And there are pockets of "dissenters" everywhere. Sure. Agreed. And many bishops are not or don't seem to be truly in union with the Pope's magisterium.
So I'm not saying all is well in Denmark or in the USA and that I wished the trads would just shut up. NO. But just as you can't expect us to shut up because YOU feel scandalized by people who we also disagree with, neither should WE have to shut up because you feel scandalized with the Pope.
Secondly...Pace Eugene, we DON'T know the Pope's intent. Hell, we don't even know the circumstances of the "kissing the Koran" bit. We don't know what he knew, when he knew it. It wouldn't be the first time a POPE was mistaken in protocol.
But this instantaneous jumping down his throat with AHA! triumphant cries of "heresy!" is unbecoming of everyone... you can't make a Catholic moral judgment of someone's moral state based solely on an action minus the intent and circumstances.
Emerald you keep going on and on about how culture isn't the point. But you imply with you lex credendi paragraph that the dogma we believe MUST CASUALLY lead to a single form of expression! And I take it this expression would be indistinct from your culture! Latin, rubrics, etc. all as you learned it as child?
But as we all agree, there are rites in the Catholic Church which have NEVER been Latin and NEVER had the rubrics used by the Latin rite prior to 1962, yet those rites have ALWAYS been considered authentically Catholic, maintaining the dogma of our faith VIA their own traditions...
And those traditions are pretty bound to their culture: coptic, armenian, chaldean, etc.
You quite simply haven't thought this through. Why even St Augustine and neoplatonism is the expression of a culture, the high Roman culture of the late 300's and early 400's.
And yes, it is possible for the single truth we all believe in to be expressed in multiple ways, via multiple languages.
In every thing there are extremes - people who run off the rails to the left or right. The same has occured in the Church after every council... as I mentioned, even in the times of the Apostles.
But where did the Catholic find safe harbor except following the Magisterium (*although not always the personal example) of the the successor of Peter?
Surely you know enough Church history to know that every single century was filled with wars and invasions, heresies and schisms? Long before Latin was the official language and the rubrics and devotions you and I so love came to exist, the Church was guided by Peter's successors.
It ain't pretty but it works.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.
Oh and you haven't answered my question about WHICH DOGMAS we liberal- conservative-modern Catholics supposedly don't believe in because we don't attend the Tridentine rite Mass and don't somehow also follow "other" *(always unnamed) traditions.Please do explain which dogmas from the creed and others we supposedly can't believe in based on our following of the magisterium from the Pope.
Naturally you won't be putting words in my mouth from people I agree I think are heretics such as the VOTF or SNAP or Call to Action crowd or the meanderings from various USCCB "committees", the editorial line from National Catholic Reporter or "America" magazine.
Those people may very well be total heretics. But then, they don't follow Papal magisterium either.
And you won't be pointing to the so-called Novus Ordo masses which are really NOT because their bishops or priests don't even follow the Misse as printed and officially interpretted from Rome!
No, I want to know where Catholics who follow the teaching of the Pope, as expressed in his encyclicals, the catechism, and directives from the various Vatican offices (such as on liturgy) have dropped DOGMAS as opposed to local customs.
Please help me see the error - if any - of my ways.
Thanks
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.
"I want to know where Catholics who follow the teaching of the Pope, as expressed in his encyclicals, the catechism, and directives from the various Vatican offices (such as on liturgy) have dropped DOGMAS as opposed to local customs."That's just it Joe, for these guys local customs are DOGMAS.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.
"That's just it Joe, for these guys local customs are DOGMAS."Wrong.
Nobody ever said that any local custom was a dogma. If so, I'd like to see it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.
No?-- Joe wants to know, then. Name those ''dognas'' -- for instance liturgical ''dogmas'' we may have have rejected. Why do you have to prevaricate?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
"First of all, Hi. How are the wife and kids Emerald?"Fine, thanks.
"Our kids are OK, baby boy #3 is due any day now."
Congratulations.
"I think you, me, Pete, and Eugene have to make MORE distinctions."
I'd say so.
"First of all, your side has to distinguish between those Catholics not on your side..."
I don't know what you mean.
"- we're not a dogmatic and doctrinal monolith."
Not sure what you mean by this either.
"I distinguish the 3rd world from the 1st all the time..."
Why bother? Is that important? We all assume room temperature. I don't see how this relates to a conversation on dogma or liturgy or the relationship between them, either.
"...and even here in the 1st world there are Catholics and then Cathlics. Some who call themselves Catholics are certainly, verifiably heretics, apostates, and plain old nuts."
Of course.
"I absolutely believe that - especially in the northern dioceses of the country."
I don't have to worry about which diocese is worse than another. I'm not comparing them. Nor do I have a desire to do so, or see a benefit in doing so.
"And there are pockets of "dissenters" everywhere. Sure. Agreed."
Why do I get the feeling you're trying to cheer my up? Joe. I'm not feeling particularly down or discourage. I feel fine.
But I would like to ask why you use the broad, common term dissenter". Why not use any of the explicit terms which the Church uses to describe the various kinds of error? I know why the term gets used so much, but, I was wondering if you did.
"And many bishops are not or don't seem to be truly in union with the Pope's magisterium. So I'm not saying all is well in Denmark or in the USA and that I wished the trads would just shut up. NO."
I'm not particularly put out right now about how well things are going or not going. But if I was, I wouldn't be comforted. You're trying to establish common ground with me here. If we have to descend to this low a common denominator to establish it... namely, that "not all is well"... then whereas I wasn't depressed before, now, I am.
"But just as you can't expect us to shut up because YOU feel scandalized by people who we also disagree with, neither should WE have to shut up because you feel scandalized with the Pope."
In other words, you are placing yourself somewhere in the happy middle of things, between two extreme positions. That's not surprising.
"Secondly...Pace Eugene, we DON'T know the Pope's intent. Hell, we don't even know the circumstances of the "kissing the Koran" bit. We don't know what he knew, when he knew it. It wouldn't be the first time a POPE was mistaken in protocol."
Whatever. I'm not worried about it.
"But this instantaneous jumping down his throat with AHA! triumphant cries of "heresy!" is unbecoming of everyone... you can't make a Catholic moral judgment of someone's moral state based solely on an action minus the intent and circumstances."
Jumping up and down. Triumphant... notice the picture you paint is of someone out to discredit the Holy Father for it's own sake, for pleasure or something.
"Emerald you keep going on and on about how culture isn't the point."
It's more like this, Joe. You keep going on and on about how it IS about culture. I don't care about the culture thing. I don't think it has some fancy to-do role when people's immortal souls are on the line. After all, that's what Catholicism is all about, huh? Salvation? And if that isn't the big deal it's cracked up to be, then, why bother being Catholic?
"But you imply with you lex credendi paragraph that the dogma we believe MUST CASUALLY lead to a single form of expression!"
Meaning that the only rite could be the traditional Latin liturgy? No, I never said that.
"And I take it this expression would be indistinct from your culture!"
The doctrines which a liturgy expresses are same for all rites and cultures.
"Latin, rubrics, etc. all as you learned it as child?"
All I learned as a child? You mean, the Kumbaya stuff? I was born in 66.
"But as we all agree, there are rites in the Catholic Church which have NEVER been Latin and NEVER had the rubrics used by the Latin rite prior to 1962, yet those rites have ALWAYS been considered authentically Catholic, maintaining the dogma of our faith VIA their own traditions..."
Right. Did you think I didn't know this?
"And those traditions are pretty bound to their culture: coptic, armenian, chaldean, etc."
Of course.
"You quite simply haven't thought this through. Why even St Augustine and neoplatonism is the expression of a culture, the high Roman culture of the late 300's and early 400's."
I haven't thought what through?
"And yes, it is possible for the single truth we all believe in to be expressed in multiple ways, via multiple languages."
I would... hope so. After all, we do conduct international business. I'd hate the be the recipient of 4 hogs and 2 milking cows when the contract clearly stated five grand. Joe, you're talking platitudes with me. You're talking to me as if I were a complete idiot.
"In every thing there are extremes - people who run off the rails to the left or right."
Wrong. Totally wrong. Distinctions are failing here. This is the heart of the discussion right here. This is it. I bolded this portion to make it stand out, because this... this, I'd like to talk about. The other stuff is fat. This is worth talking about. Actions may lie in the mean between extremes, but the truth never does. Never.
"The same has occured in the Church after every council... as I mentioned, even in the times of the Apostles."
Not true. Nothing like this has happened before.
"But where did the Catholic find safe harbor except following the Magisterium (*although not always the personal example) of the the successor of Peter?"
You use the term magisterium in a strange way. But that's nothing new.
"Surely you know enough Church history to know that every single century was filled with wars and invasions, heresies and schisms?"
You know better than to ask this question.
"Long before Latin was the official language and the rubrics and devotions you and I so love came to exist, the Church was guided by Peter's successors."
You think I'm hung up on the Latin liturgy. I could try to tell it's about doctrine all day long. But you'll still insist that everything I believe comes from a love of smells and bells. Will you quit it? It's about doctrine. I told you that a long time ago.
"Oh and you haven't answered my question about WHICH DOGMAS we liberal- conservative-modern Catholics supposedly don't believe in because we don't attend the Tridentine rite Mass and don't somehow also follow "other" *(always unnamed) traditions."
I never said anything like that.
"Please do explain which dogmas from the creed and others we supposedly can't believe in based on our following of the magisterium from the Pope."
Why do you keep using the term magisterium in this way? At any rate, do I know you're following the Pope? Give me a for instance. How is it that you are following the Pope? Are you? What exactly are you doing that makes you someone who follows the Pope? Where are you and the Pope going?
"Naturally you won't be putting words in my mouth from people I agree I think are heretics such as the VOTF or SNAP or Call to Action crowd or the meanderings from various USCCB "committees", the editorial line from National Catholic Reporter or "America" magazine."
Who cares about this people.
"Those people may very well be total heretics. But then, they don't follow Papal magisterium either."
I'm getting follow you, follow me by Genesis stuck in my head at this point. Everything is follow the Pope with you people, and I guess what amuses me most is that nobody, and I mean nobody, seems to have any clue exactly what they themselves are even talking about. "Follow the Pope". Alright, what do you mean?
"And you won't be pointing to the so-called Novus Ordo masses which are really NOT because their bishops or priests don't even follow the Misse as printed and officially interpretted from Rome!"
Right. I won't, because I don't have that problem. I don't have to be burdened with it.
"No, I want to know where Catholics who follow the teaching of the Pope, as expressed in his encyclicals, the catechism, and directives from the various Vatican offices (such as on liturgy) have dropped DOGMAS as opposed to local customs."
What teachings of the pope in particular? List them. Two or three or four would be enough.
"Please help me see the error - if any - of my ways."
What is your way? I'm not even sure.
Look, I believe that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I believe I'm supposed to rid myself of vices, stay in a state of grace, raise my kids Catholic. I'm supposed to pray, suffer what God sends me to suffer, do my daily duty, and order my thoughts and actions towards eternal life. I'm a sinner. I have lots of vices and weaknesses.
Getting talked out of Catholicism isn't one of them, though.
"Thanks"
You're welcome.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.
Amusing little exchange, "Please do explain which dogmas from the creed and others we supposedly can't believe in based on our following of the magisterium from the Pope." --JoeEmerald, sly old fox: ''Why do you keep using the term magisterium in this way? At any rate, do I know you're following the Pope? Give me a for instance. How is it that you are following the Pope? Are you? What exactly are you doing that makes you someone who follows the Pope? Where are you and the Pope going?''
He ignores --"Please do explain which dogmas from the creed and others we supposedly can't believe in,'' Didn't register, I guess?
Once more-- WHICH DOGMAS FROM THE CREED ETC., DO YOU SAY WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN? --According to you-- Emerald???
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
"WHICH DOGMAS FROM..."*ahem*.
Which dogmas from the creed etc., do you say we can't believe in?
You can, and should believe all of them, of course.
Don't worry, I know what you mean to say, even though it's ambiguous. You mean to ask something like this: "as post- conciliar kinds of Catholic thinkers, what do we not believe that Catholics have always believed?" or something along those lines.
I can answer that, and will. But first, can we clear up a 3 or 4 year matter of a similar question, as yet still unanswered?
What are the teachings of Vatican II?
The way I figure it, if we answer that one, we can have the answer to both questions. Saves time; more efficient.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 03, 2005.
Meet me HALFWAY. Give us half the teachings of Vatican II; the half you can't understand. Basta la tua cretineria!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.
Emerald, you do recall of course the first dogmatic council that dealt with the Arian heresy...didn't solve the Arian Heresy. Catholics and Arians fought each other with words and swords for two more generations and it took more than one more Council (and various civil wars in various parts of the empire) to "solve" the controversy and stamp out that heresy in the West.Vatican II thus WASN'T the first council to pass with seemingly more doctrinal problems AFTER than before.
If men can't (or rather won't) accept the clear teaching of the first Council dealing with Arius, and Protestants didn't fall over themselves to return to the Church after Trent was concluded and the documents compiled...why do you mean to assert by way of asking the question you do about Vatican II that it was especially disasterously "ambiguous"?
It's the false reading (or ignorance of) history - and dare I also say your philosophy? - that seems to undergird your assertions. I won't say "your arguments" because up to now you haven't made any. You assert "X is Y" without showing how this is so.
We are somehow not Catholics of dogma and tradition, but you are...because you say so? Vatican II was uniquely destructive of Church unity in the history of the Councils...because you say so?
I believe all the dogmas taught by the Catholic Church, as expressed in the Creed and explained in the Cathechism. It just so happens that so does the Pope. How about that! Coincidence? Or maybe He believes and teaches, and I follow the man whom Jesus promised to be with until the end. The "You" to which Jesus made that promise WASN'T all the followers or all the apostles, but to Peter.
I ask what other Dogmas are there? And if a Catholic can not trust the Pope to teach which is what, who can he trust? Certainly NOT the Bible as though this was a self-interpreting document as Peter himself noted in his epistle. And if we can't self-authenticate our own interpretation of Sacred Writ then we certainly can't self- authenticate our own interpretation of any writing of a saint or father or Council!
Or is there some Dogma always believed by Catholics that Catholic laymen are endowed with infallibility in matters of faith and morals? To be sure we are assured of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation of Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding, as well as Counsel...but none of these gifts are the same thing as Papal Infallibility nor are lay men ontologically equal to those who have received the fullness of priestly authority and grace of state.
Laymen can ask questions and seek better answers - even provide some of our own...but we can't claim that a Pope is a heretic or apostate or that Councils approved by Popes were bad root and branch because someone claims or asserts that they are!
whew. I know, you will dismiss all that with a "I don't know what you're talking about". Oh well. Others won't and I'm not only writing to you.
Secondly (I know, a bit long into this for a "secondly"), you are the one who claims we aren't Catholics of dogma and tradition, so it behooves you to tell us which dogmas and traditions we are guilty of dropping.
It ought to be easy to do, if you are so sure of yourself. That you're not just coming clean with a "a, b, c, and oh yeah, h" response speaks volumes.
Thirdly about following the Pope. Huge amounts of scripture and councils and church father writings on the good idea it is for Christians to follow the successor of Peter to whom the Keys were entrusted and the duty to shepherd the flock. St Irenaeus of Lyon for one person explains the good idea it is for Christians to look to the Church of Rome for the Catholic truth in times of heresy.
"Follow the Pope"...well, in all things related to faith (dogma, doctrine) and morals. Not his opinions or likes. Not his personal example (though on the main, JP 2 is a holy man) as holiness is not the same thing as utter perfection. Saints can still make tactical mistakes - John Bosco comes to mind with his working to get a prelate elevated to Archbishop of Turin - while still being holy.
So I think you owe us more explanations, rather than rhetorical blow offs. Unless this really is'nt about saving your soul and is just a past time to blow off steam. In which case, sorry for being long winded.
We agree then that the Latin Mass isn't a dogma. The real presence of Our Lord IS a dogma.
We agree that local customs aren't dogma - though they certainly may do a fine job at passing on the belief which is a dogma, for example, Marian devotions helping people come to know or accept the Immaculate Conception or that she is Mother of God.
We agree that some traditions are small t and others, which deal with the What rather than the how are non-negotiable.
So what do we not agree on? You don't think culture has a big part in this? So why Matthew take all those pains to traslate certain Hebrew words into Greek so that his readers would "get" the deeper meanings which are loaded in the Jewish culture?
No, obviously, culture IS important. First Council of Jerusalem nailed that one down pretty well in fact, with the reference to Moses being preached in synagogues all over the empire...
My point is this: I think you are confusing the payload (the what) with the vehicle (the how) when writing about "Tradition".
Or, that you fail to read a given Papal text or Counciliar text within context, footnotes and suppositions and all and instead think each phrase and sentence ought to stand alone in clarity and certainty, so when it doesn't you think this is evidence of the Pope or Council going astray?
Or...what? Somehow you have come upon a Gnosis of your own about what the "catholic Church" REALLY has taught for 1930 odd years, but that this dogma and tradition was hidden away on magic, golden tablets sometime after the Great Apostasy which erupted in 1962? I'm just kidding about the golden tablets stuff. But seriously, where have you found your "dogmas and tradition" apart from Pope and Council?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 06, 2005.
Just scrolled up and re-read the whole back and forth discussion about baptism... and need for the sacraments for salvation...I think I answered this conundrum on another thread last year... it all boils down to your definition of "Baptism" and the economies of salvation: what we are to do and what is theoretically possible for God to do.
Yes, many northern European theologians took the theoretical possibility and tried to spin it as though the sacramental economy wasn't normative. Fine, agreed. Nuts. Heresy. But that's not what the Church (Pope's John XXIII, Paul VI, and JP2) have taught.
In the 1300's when Eugene IV was thundering on and on...the whole of the known world was either Catholic, or Muslim with a small minority of Jews. Sure, IN CONTEXT it makes sense for him to lay down the sacramental law...since all men had by that time heard the Gospel or had the chance to hear and believe, Catholic doctrine would hold that should they fail to obey it, they'd be lost if they die in such a state.
But that thundering proposition DIDN'T take into account hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who NEVER heard the Gospel and hence, couldn't be condemned for not obeying it.
Nowhere is it implied or stated affirmitively that millions of American indians and Chinese were certainly damned from the time of Adam until the first generation were baptized into the Roman Catholic Church!
That's what some people CONSTRUE the document to say, but that ain't what it says, and that's not what it implies.
But sure, if you were a European in the 1300s and you refused to obey the Church or join it, knowing the Gospel, well, then yeah, absolutely, damned baby. Damned. But God doesn't damn people for not doing what they couldn't possibly have know was important to do, namely be baptized into the Catholic Church!
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 06, 2005.
Well spoken, Joe; your thoughts are fresh and totally Catholic. We can see that the only possible retorts will be supercilious boilerplate.I said some prayers in Mass this PM; hoping God will preserve us from all error. Thank you for treating Emerald as if he were always a man of good will. I've had to wonder if he deserves a platform in any good-will forum. Maybe he'll listen to you. Peace; God be with you, Joseph.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.
"If men can't (or rather won't) accept the clear teaching of the first Council dealing with Arius, and Protestants didn't fall over themselves to return to the Church after Trent was concluded and the documents compiled...why do you mean to assert by way of asking the question you do about Vatican II that it was especially disasterously "ambiguous"?"Because clarity is intrinsic to Catholic doctrine. One might not comprehend the doctrine, and in fact no one can fully understand the doctrine... which is why it is of the Faith as it is beyond the grasp of human reason; but as to clarity, they are always clearly stated. What's of the Deposit of the Faith, what is an article of Faith, is always clearly stated. Always. It is impossible to posit that what is of divine revelation comes to us via packaged in ambiguously.
"It's the false reading (or ignorance of) history - and dare I also say your philosophy? - that seems to undergird your assertions. I won't say "your arguments" because up to now you haven't made any. You assert "X is Y" without showing how this is so."
You know where I got my philosophy. Your sibling was my classmate and a friend. I don't mean to needlessly personalize this, but you know I'm not ignorant philosophically speaking. As far as arguments made or not made, I'd have to go look upthread. It's a long thread. What particular issue did you have in mind, where "X is Y" was asserted withoug reasoning?
At dead minimum, there's the issue of pro multis somehow getting translated as "for all". That's messed up, Joe. It's pretty clear it's not just a bad translation, but actually merely an erronious one. Funny, though, that it also happens to be completely in line with the new ecumenism, this forcing of a square peg into a round hole, translation-wise.
How can you justify an outright lousy translation such as this? And get this: pro multis is actually in the text of the Novus Ordo Missae! Even the official latin promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae itself doesn't even say "for all". It says "for many".
That was the original argument made. There have been others in the thread, but this... this was the main point. It's irrefutable. It's a bad translation. There's no way around this. What's more, the Novus Ordo itself didn't promulgate "for all".
There were other issues brought up as well. You may want to specify which issues where discussed without adequate arguments, or a lack of arguments. You're going to need to be more specific as to topic or issue.
"We are somehow not Catholics of dogma and tradition, but you are...because you say so? Vatican II was uniquely destructive of Church unity in the history of the Councils...because you say so?"
That's pretty close to the truth. But not because I say so, no. Not for that reason, of course. But I agree with the statement, yes.
"I believe all the dogmas taught by the Catholic Church, as expressed in the Creed..."
Lots of people say this. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. More often than not, you'll see the claim fall apart the more they talk. This is just an observation, that's all.
"I ask what other Dogmas are there? And if a Catholic can not trust the Pope to teach which is what, who can he trust? Certainly NOT the Bible as though this was a self-interpreting document as Peter himself noted in his epistle. And if we can't self-authenticate our own interpretation of Sacred Writ then we certainly can't self- authenticate our own interpretation of any writing of a saint or father or Council!"
There you go equating the two again, Sacred Scriptures and the Councils. Where in the world did people ever get such an idea? They are not the same.
As for the Pope, we already know what our Faith consists of. The pope is not going to offer us anything in addition to the Catholic Faith which has been handed down to us from the apostles. In fact, he himself, the Pope, is bound in allegiance to that same Deposit.
My question is this: why do you portray the laity as potentially confused Catholics who are dependent upon the pontiff himself for the procurement of the stuff of their basic catechetical formation? How did this come about?
"Or is there some Dogma always believed by Catholics that Catholic laymen are endowed with infallibility in matters of faith and morals?"
There is no such dogma.
"To be sure we are assured of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation of Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding, as well as Counsel...but none of these gifts are the same thing as Papal Infallibility nor are lay men ontologically equal to those who have received the fullness of priestly authority and grace of state."
Who said otherwise?
"Laymen can ask questions and seek better answers - even provide some of our own...but we can't claim that a Pope is a heretic or apostate or that Councils approved by Popes were bad root and branch because someone claims or asserts that they are!"
I wasn't quoting anyone else's claims.
"whew. I know, you will dismiss all that with a "I don't know what you're talking about". Oh well. Others won't and I'm not only writing to you."
Well, what are you talking about? Those others you're writing to... I've got a better idea. Encourage them devote themselves to Jesus and Mary.
Ok, here's where it gets fun:
"Secondly (I know, a bit long into this for a "secondly"), you are the one who claims we aren't Catholics of dogma and tradition, so it behooves you to tell us which dogmas and traditions we are guilty of dropping."
Easy. First and foremost, the dogma that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, and that the sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation. There are others. Americanism is a virtually untouched subject around here, but is an whole new pandora's box... but not at all unrelated. In fact, integral to the issue. Actually, it may quite well be, in certain ways, even closer to the heart of what ails the Church: a repudiation of the principles of the social kingship of Christ. Add this.
"It ought to be easy to do..."
Done.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 07, 2005.
"Pro Multis". I have no stake in the whole English translation business because quite frankly, I spent 11 years attending Masses said in Latin, Italian, and Spanish. Didn't seem to have any problems in those idioms. I think there ARE many serious problems in English which proves my point that most of the problems in the Church are local ones spawned in the Northern European and North American dioceses.My hobby horse includes the translation of the Gloria to end as "world without end, amen". Not exactly what "In secula seculorum" or "for the centuries to the centuries" or "ages and ages" means.
Or translating part of the creed which specifically mentions the Word being conceived and made man as "was born...and made man".
Why the bad translations? For that matter why the dragging of feet on ex Corde Ecclesiae, Humane Vitae, etc? BECAUSE there are still alot of prelates who were ordained BEFORE the council who either don't know their Latin, or theology or philosophy or believe.
But you go to other countries and other languages within the Latin rite and you listen to Masses in their languages wherein the Latin is spot on translated, the bishops are holy and wise theologians grounded in solid philosophy and not afraid to rein in wayward Catholics be they politicians or not.
Here we're fat dumb and lazy - or cowardly. But I see this as an American, Canadian and Western European phenomena, not as a fault of the Pope, Vatican II, or some apostasy of 90% of the Latin rite, especially when well over 50% of Latin Rite Catholics don't speak English at all!
This is as dumb a debate as those protestants who claim "Peter" means pebble because of the greek or latin and ignoring the fact that his name was "Kephas" in Aramaic, which means "Big Rock". If you know the original language and understand the original CULTURE, then it's not at all ambiguous and tricky. If you don't then the scripture is baffling.
I don't know what the rest of the people here have claimed but I'm with you to the degree that the ICEL people screwed things up in the English. But there isn't this problem in the Latin or other romance languages.
As for your assertions that ecumenism is something it's not...or that this Pope or recent magisterium claims that the Church ISN'T essential for salvation...that's flat out wrong. CCC 846 doesn't repudiate the earlier formula of "extra ecclesia" but explains it better - as I just did. CCC 836 IS the essential doctrine: those who know the Gospel, know that this is Christ's church, must remain in her in both body and heart to be saved. If they should leave her for any reason, they'd be damned - just as the pope stated in the 1300's.
But the Church had to account for souls who never heard the Gospel and never had a chance to enter the Church prior to 1492.
You think this waters down the teaching or is ambiguous? I don't. So it's your COMPREHENSION, not the document's intrinsic "ambiguity" that is the problem!
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005.
JOE: ''tell us which dogmas and traditions we are guilty of dropping." '' ''First and foremost the dogma that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation and that the sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation.''Of course this is false. You're either mistaken or lying. Take your choice, there's no others.
Furthermore; you chose your words poorly. There's no dogma teaching us the Catholic Church is the only *means of salvation*'' --
The dogma is there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Something we've never contradicted. We're Catholics, you see.) The only means is Christ; His Passion Death and Resurrection are the means. The Church serves us; and our salvation in Jesus Christ.
I had a row recently with a young Messianic Jew; (I think he is) because I dared to say David the Prophet is now a Catholic. NO WAY, He's a Jew!
But all salvation is in Christ. His Church on earth is the Catholic's channel of sanctifying grace which is crucial (no pun intended) to all salvation.
In essence then, we can see that sanctifying grace was also crucial to David and the prophets. How did they get it? From the source? I guess. Nobody else has it other than the Church (No salvation outside the Catholic Church)
It must mean David is in the Church Triumphant. Did he enter by way of the Church Militant? Hard to say, truly; it might have been the Church Suffering. But it's all one Catholic Church, under the same Divine Head. -----And Christ is the Head as well as the Source of all the Church's store of Grace.
This is nothing I've read in the Church's holy books or studies of any theologian. I merely contemplate the vast mysteries of Christ and his Church, outside of whom is no salvation! But it stands to reason. If a soul is in heaven at all-- it's through Jesus Christ Our Saviour ONLY-- and He is the Church!
P.S. We've never denied the sacraments are necessary for salvation; and definitely Baptism is one of them.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.
"There's no dogma teaching us the Catholic Church is the only *means of salvation*'' --"Yes there is.
Like I said...
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 07, 2005.
Not so. If you see one, let us read it. It says outside the Church No salvation. God is the means, not membership in our Church. He works through her; but she isn't the salvation of men.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.
Is the Mass valid? Of course it is. The Church can change words as long as it does not change the substance of the Sacrament. Where does She claim the authority to do this? 1 Cor. 4:1.Why do I bring this up? The words have to do with the administration of the Sacrament, and that administration falls under Her authority as steward (for that is what stewards do, they administer).
What is the substance of the Eucharist?
The sharing of the Body and Blood of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine.
But of course, all this has probably been said again and again one way or another.
-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.