FIFTH COLUMNISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Edward Thorne
There is a Fifth Column at work in the Church. It takes several forms.
Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
phrase, useful idiots.
One dissident nun, when asked why does she stay, replied that she wants
to stay within the church to tear it down, piece by piece. Many of
these Fifth Columnists are nuns and ex-nuns who have let themselves
fall into a ki
nd of Gaia-goddess worship, with their own liturgies, which are
travesties of the Mass.
Other Fifth Columnists are Modernists, who believe that the church
should remake its doctrines to “conform with the findings of modern
science.” For example, they deny the reality of the Resurrection,
asserting instead t
hat the Apostles were somehow deluded into believing that Jesus really
rose. It goes without saying that they deny the reality of any
miracles as recorded in the New Testament. Catholic participants in
the Jesus seminar
are of that ilk.
Then there are those who deny the church’s teachings in the area of
marriage and sexuality, expecially in the areas of remarriage after
divorce, cohabitation, and homosexual sex. The Father Currans fall
into that categor
y. While he was singled out and fired from Catholic University, there
are still more like him that have not been brought to light.
In some seminaries, recruits are rejected if they affirm there belief
in the church’s teachings concerning marriage and the family.
Even though he was a known pedophile, had his marriage annuled, and had
already been rejected by one rector at the seminary of the Diocese of
Dallas, Fr Kos was later admitted by a new rector who is now the
controversial
bishop of Santa Fe.
So,we see, that the church’s guidelines for the management and
curriculum of seminaries are sytematically perverted by those who have
a different agenda.
The bishops declined to implement in any meaningful manner the church’s
guidelines for what is taught at Catholic colleges and universities.
Then there are those who refuse to assent to Humanae Vitae, this
despite the fact that it is part of the ordinary teaching authority of
the Church, and hence, infallible, as Pat has so well shown us.
They withhold their assent because they do not agree with it, but,
evidently, they believe that the church cannot err. That position I do
not understand at all.
These are those, with the exception of those in the last paragraph, who
were excommunicated by Bp Fabian of Lincoln.
It is the Modernists who have given us a set of religious education
text books, every one of which, excepting for one, fails to meet the
standards set for such books by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So, what has been the result of all this Fifth Column activity?
o 2/3rds of Catholics who no longer believe in transsubstantiation.
o Catholics whose attitude towards artificial contraception and
abortion is not markedly from that of their non-Catholic neighbors.
o Fall-off in Mass attendance
o Fall off in confessions, but with a growth in holy communions in
inverse proportion.
o A failed system of catechetical instruction.
I don’t know where it is all going to end, but I do believe that there
many souls are being lead to shipwreck by many of those same Fifth
Columnists.
That is why I keep asking: “Why don’t they just up and leave?”
Or, why don’t the bishops exercise their spines and just do what the Bp
of Lincoln did, excomunicate them?
That is what Paul did. He “turned over to Satan” those who were not
living up to what was expected of them as Xtians.
People who want to publicly voice their opposition to the teaching of
the church should expect that their continued loyalty to the church,
and their continued right to be called Catholic will be called into
question, publ
icly. They will even have it pointed out to them that there are plenty
of churches whose teachings have been transformed by Modernism, yet
they have liturgies, vestments, nice songs, incense, Catholic
lectionaries, femal
e and practicing homosexual clergy, and all the rest, and which would
be suitable for them to join.
That is not the best solution for them; the best solution would be make
the assent of will to the teaching of the Catholic church as coming
from God and put all this other nonesense behind them. Just like Jesus
said, “Not
my will, Father, but Thine be done.”
“Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me.”
--Ed
RJ England
Edward Thorne wrote:
>
> There is a Fifth Column at work in the Church. It takes several forms.
> Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
> phrase, useful idiots.
>
> One dissident nun, when asked why does she stay, replied that she wants
> to stay within the church to tear it down, piece by piece. Many of
> these Fifth Columnists are nuns and ex-nuns who have let themselves
> fall into a ki
> nd of Gaia-goddess worship, with their own liturgies, which are
> travesties of the Mass.
Ed good post. I remember reading something like this a couple of years ago and
I think Pat posted the same article I read last month or so form the Catholic
World Report about this very issue. I read the rest and believe that you make
good points.
RJ
janet
In article <6gukh4$j...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>There is a Fifth Column at work in the Church. It takes several forms.
> Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
>phrase, useful idiots.
Ed, is this the thread you said you were going to start as a follow on
from the conversation with Steph and me?
Tell me it ain't so....
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth
Mark Johnson
RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>> There is a Fifth Column at work in the Church. It takes several forms.
>> Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
>> phrase, useful idiots.
>> One dissident nun, when asked why does she stay, replied that she wants
>> to stay within the church to tear it down, piece by piece. Many of
>> these Fifth Columnists are nuns and ex-nuns who have let themselves
>> fall into a ki
>> nd of Gaia-goddess worship, with their own liturgies, which are
>> travesties of the Mass.
>Ed good post. I remember reading something like this a couple of years ago and
>I think Pat posted the same article I read last month or so form the Catholic
>World Report about this very issue. I read the rest and believe that you make
>good points.
Right. It sounds harsh, doesn't it? It grates? Janet was incredulous.
We're all standing below as Saruman waxes eloquent. Gandalph says a
few words of warning or protest, and it's like nails on the
chalkboard.
But it's true! Gosh darnit. I mean, The Church is plagued by the worst
heresy it's ever faced. On the other hand . . . it's not a permanent
condition, either. The 'better way' sort have lost their 'moral
imperative'. Now it's just brute momentum and official stamps and
power. There's no heart, no delusion, really, left. The impetus for
action is bureacracy, and not making waves and 'bringing me problems'.
Courage is cowardice. Reform is stasis. And so on.
For whatever his own motives and reasons, JP II has approved various
societies that try to tread a middle line in this. If that line is
jerked back, and they have to go exclusively modernist, then we'll
see. But that hasn't happened, yet. And if someone tries, I say -
welcome to the underground. Cause _that_ ain't going anywhere. Parents
care too much about their kids to make a mistake on their spiritual
future by buying into the neo-pagan, neo-Protestant, rationalistic
hogwash that too often passes for 'catholicism' as the trendy parish
down the block.
So, removing my fingernails from the slate, . . .
Peace.
Edward Thorne
In <aJxIWYAz...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <6gukh4$j...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
forms.
>> Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
>>phrase, useful idiots.
>
>from the conversation with Steph and me?
Yes
>
>Tell me it ain't so....
No, my name is not Joe and you are not a poor paperboy. :-)
Edward Thorne
In <35363779...@news.pacbell.net> 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
Mark's comments are very perceptive, and, well ...right on the mark!
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me."
--Ed
>
>RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>>> There is a Fifth Column at work in the Church. It takes several
forms.
>>> Some are willling participants, while others are, to use Lenin’s
>>> phrase, useful idiots.
>
Hisreturn
This is all because of the great apostacy mentioned in
2 Thessalonians....
Soon all evil doers will be cleaned away - Sodom and
Gommorah style. It will get worse before it gets better -
the man of sin has declared his coming is "imminent"
========================
Return to God NOW, while there is time before the end of the age.
email: hisr...@aol.com
www: http://members.aol.com/Hisreturn/index.html
Padraic42
In article <35363779...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
Not sure what Mark means by this. JP II has been attacked by those 'Fifth
Columnists' for 'dragging the Church back to pre-Vatican II days'. I don't
think it's so much a 'middle ground' sort of thing, but rather an attempt to
get the Church 'with' Vatican II instead of the track it appears ot have taken.
However, we have seen, and continue to see, how the teachings of the Church
has been trivialized, mocked, distorted, etc.
We have those who spend their time with their 'infallible' teachers, such as
Curran, Brown, McCrone, etc. They refuse to see the greater picture and spend
their time in trivial, innane speculation. "Whose 'seed' did God use to
impregnate Mary?" "Where did the risen Christ get His clothers?" "How many of
the thousands brought, and shared, sack lunches when people thought Jesus
multiplide the loaves and fish?"
Who would wish to see Christ's divinity reduced to nothing? The Catholic?
hardly, but there are those who 'call' themselves such that preach it.
" As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you
may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to occupy
themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather
than the divine training * that is in faith;" (1 Timothy 1:3-4)
We have those who think Catholic teaching is akin to a spiritual smorgasborg,
picking and choosing only those which suit them. Sexual permissiveness, self
centeredness, etc. and all 'rationalized' by a distorted concept of Christ's
love.
They 'quote' theologians, bishops, religious, 'anyone' who 'sounds' good and
tells them what they wish to hear. This 'new' gospel distorts the Gospel of
Christ. Love through obedience.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the
grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another
gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of
Christ. 8* But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a
gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we
have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9)
There are many have succumbed to this 'new' gospel. Many who have killed
their conscience, many barely so, and have embraced this new way of thinking.
They do not percieve who is behind this. Every belief is ok? Every lifestyle
is ok? No more sin? We create our own realities? Etc?
What is lost to them, is that this is not a 'battle' between gays and
straights, liberals, conservatives and orthodox, but on more serious.
"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present
darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13
Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the
evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14* Stand therefore, having girded
your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15*
and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides
all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the
flaming darts of the evil one." (Eph. 6:12-16)
Is it any wonder then that we see the 'attacks' from them?
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can
be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20*
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal
power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor
him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and
their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal
man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,
to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged
the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed
with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to
a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of
wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty,
boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless,
heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such
things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice
them. "
(Rom. 1:18-32)
Suppress the truth? Of course, to them, truth is relative to what they want
it to be.
Rather than seeing the glory and power of God in all the things 'He' created,
they think it's wise to see themselves and those created things as God. They
don't come together in the Mass as a community worshipping God, but rather to
worship the community as God.
They encourage, and approve of these 'fables' and encourage others to follow
in their error. They use sweet sounding phrases, often distorted from their
true meaning, "Just as I am", "Judge not...", etc. They use lofty words which
sound 'enlightened' but generally means nothing, but impresses with their
'insight' and intelligence.
When they have nothing to look forward to, they have only their own wants and
desires to 'fulfill' them. Pleasure of any kind is ok, if it feels good do it,
if you're not with the one you love, love the one your with, etc.
But always, digging away at their subconcious is their conscience, never
totally out of the way. At first they 'fight', but instead of 'surrendering'
to the will of God, they succumb to self will. Any one who 'dares' try to help
by pointing out their loss, is merciless attacked as being narrow minded, out
of touch, ignorant, and intolerant. When, in fact, it is their attitude which
is 'intolerant'. Their conscience screams from deep within, and so they attack
what they percieve to be the 'voice' of that conscience, rejecting the call of
their conscience.
" By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,
20 among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they
may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Tim. 1:19-20)
This is the saddest part of it all. They lose before they even fight. By
surrounding themselves with teachers who tickle their ears, they have
surrendered, and in many ways have gone over ot the other side. In despair,
they try to 'ease' their pain by attacking what they 'think' gave them the
pain.
They aren't 'recovering' from Catholicism, they're rejecting the only 'cure'
for their despair. It isn't, wasn't, the Church which gave them the guilt, it
was themselves, their conscience which calls them to repentance.
THIS, is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Christ spoke of, for it is through
our conscience that He draws us to repentance. But how can there be
forgiveness if there is no repentance?
" guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and
contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 for by professing it
some have missed the mark as regards the faith." (1 Tim 6:20-21)
Pax Christi, Pat
"Misere Mei, Deus"
(http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
Cash
>
> Not sure what Mark means by this. JP II has been attacked by those
'Fifth
> Columnists' for 'dragging the Church back to pre-Vatican II days'. I
don't
> think it's so much a 'middle ground' sort of thing, but rather an attempt
to
> get the Church 'with' Vatican II instead of the track it appears ot have
taken.
>
Which is funny, because we have people who attack JPII as a jew and a
communist, that put freemasons and soviets in the Curia, and is fulfilling
the prophecy at La Sallete, where Our Lady said "Rome will lose the faith
and become the seat of the Anti-Christ." Well, Pat, I guess this puts us
on the Middle Path.
Padraic42
That the 'smoke of Satan' (Pope Paul VI) has entered the Vatican is not new.
That JP II is part of that is false. How will the Vatican become the seat of
the anti-christ? It can be seen from the prophecies of La Sallete, Lourdes,
Fatima, etc.
The 'relativist/modernist', unable to take over from within, get the 'new
world order' to do the work for them. Just as Hitler planned to depose the
Pope and install his own 'papacy' in Luxemburg', so too, they will 'force' the
Pope from Rome and install their own on the chair of Peter.
We have seen this rhetoric from groups like Call To Action, and other
'enlightened' groups.
But they will lose, and the Church will 'rise' triumphant. Her enemies will
glory in her 'death', but it will be short lived, and they shall be in awe and
terror at God's work in his Church.
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>In article <35363779...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) writes:
>>RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>For whatever his own motives and reasons, JP II has approved various
>>societies that try to tread a middle line in this. If that line is
>>jerked back, and they have to go exclusively modernist, then we'll
>>see. But that hasn't happened, yet. And if someone tries, I say -
> Not sure what Mark means by this. JP II has been attacked by those 'Fifth
>Columnists' for 'dragging the Church back to pre-Vatican II days'. I don't
>think it's so much a 'middle ground' sort of thing, but rather an attempt to
>get the Church 'with' Vatican II instead of the track it appears ot have taken.
Well, the middle line in the sense that Adoremus sees itself not as to
the 'right', but in the center between Feeneyites, generically I
guess, and heretics and 'new agers' on the other. And the chartered
orders, like the FSSP, also have to swear allegiance to 'new order'
before they are allowed to say The Mass.
The complaint of the SSPV and others, I think, is that in treading
such a 'middle ground', there is always the possibility that Rome will
jerk the 'indult' out from under the FSSP and others, and insist they
say only 'new order', even particularly the most ludicrous (and of
course, invalid) ICEList innovation.
That's all I meant.
Peace.
Padraic42
In article <353fe195...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
>padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
>>In article <35363779...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com
>(Mark
>>Johnson) writes:
>>>RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>>For whatever his own motives and reasons, JP II has approved various
>>>societies that try to tread a middle line in this. If that line is
>>>jerked back, and they have to go exclusively modernist, then we'll
>>>see. But that hasn't happened, yet. And if someone tries, I say -
>
>> Not sure what Mark means by this. JP II has been attacked by those 'Fifth
>>Columnists' for 'dragging the Church back to pre-Vatican II days'. I don't
>>think it's so much a 'middle ground' sort of thing, but rather an attempt to
>>get the Church 'with' Vatican II instead of the track it appears ot have
>taken.
>
>Well, the middle line in the sense that Adoremus sees itself not as to
>the 'right', but in the center between Feeneyites, generically I
>guess, and heretics and 'new agers' on the other. And the chartered
>orders, like the FSSP, also have to swear allegiance to 'new order'
>before they are allowed to say The Mass.
>
I think the problem here is one of perspective.
>The complaint of the SSPV and others, I think, is that in treading
>such a 'middle ground', there is always the possibility that Rome will
>jerk the 'indult' out from under the FSSP and others, and insist they
>say only 'new order', even particularly the most ludicrous (and of
>course, invalid) ICEList innovation.
This is not a case of seeking a 'middle ground', but rather holding to the
truth. The one constant is that seeking 'common ground', looking for the
middle of the road never ends in mutual support, but rather everyone being
angry.
The Novus Ordo of Vatican II is not what Novus Ordo has (generally) become.
For example, Vatican II never called for the elimination of Latin, but rather
that 'parts' of the Mass be said in the vernacular to increase the sense of
involvement among the congregation. If that teaching is brought back, as
Adoremus seeks, they are called conservative and dragging the Church to
pre-Vat. II by the modernists and liberal and not going far enough by the
ultra-conservatives. It isn't that Adoremus is trying to seek a middle ground,
but rather it is trying to get the Mass back to where Vatican II called for it
to be. Recall, the Mass was 'reformed' by the Council of Trent. The reform of
the liturgy in Vatican II was a good thing, that many sought. What came out of
that reform isn't.
As for 'oaths' by Orders, this is nothing new.
As for ICEL, their 'problem' is that they do not accurately, nor honestly,
translate the Latin. Rather, they have set an agenda up which plays to the
liberal mindset of Call To Action. The ICEL has been seriously critiqued in
this. When the 'reform' of the reformed Liturgy occurs (which I am sure it
will), I doubt ICEL will have much of a role.
Pax Christi, Pat
"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it." (Matt. 16:24-15)
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>In article <353fe195...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) writes:
>>Well, the middle line in the sense that Adoremus sees itself not as to
>>the 'right', but in the center between Feeneyites, generically I
>>guess, and heretics and 'new agers' on the other. And the chartered
>>orders, like the FSSP, also have to swear allegiance to 'new order'
>>before they are allowed to say The Mass.
> I think the problem here is one of perspective.
I agree. The 'better way' never is. The 'spirit of' isn't. And The
Mass ought to be celebrated everywhere in Catholic churches but is,
apparently, presently banned in St. Peters itself.
> The Novus Ordo of Vatican II is not what Novus Ordo has (generally) become.
Ottaviani, von Hildebrand, bishops, priests and laity alike,
criticized the 67/69 version, the so-called 'pristine' 'new order' to
which Adoremus inexplicably cleaves.
>For example, Vatican II never called for the elimination of Latin,
That's right. But that was 'new order', from the start.
>but rather that 'parts' of the Mass be said in the vernacular to increase the
>sense of involvement among the congregation.
Unfortunately. Vatican II documents aren't always gems, themselves. No
doubt, the authors of such isolated passages had never heard of the
missal - nor any of those with facing translations.
>If that teaching is brought back, as
>Adoremus seeks, they are called conservative and dragging the Church to
>pre-Vat. II by the modernists and liberal and not going far enough by the
>ultra-conservatives.
The Saints, then, were your 'ultra-conservatives'. Better to want to
be a Saint. They had the Mass. We have to use the freeways to get
there.
>It isn't that Adoremus is trying to seek a middle ground,
Of course, they are. That's the whole point.
>but rather it is trying to get the Mass back to where Vatican II called for it
>to be.
Not exactly. They champion 'new order'. Vatican II was about, The
Mass.
>Recall, the Mass was 'reformed' by the Council of Trent.
If by that word, reform, you mean standardized in light of unbroken
and holy tradition, then it was - reformed.
>The reform of
>the liturgy in Vatican II was a good thing, that many sought. What came out of
>that reform isn't.
But that _is_ 'new order'. If one erases the blackboard and starts
again from where it all started to go wrong, you'll inevitably erase
'new order' from the slate, as well.
> As for 'oaths' by Orders, this is nothing new.
No . . . . oaths _to_ 'new order'.
> As for ICEL, their 'problem' is that they do not accurately, nor honestly,
>translate the Latin. Rather, they have set an agenda up which plays to the
>liberal mindset of Call To Action.
You are right.
>The ICEL has been seriously critiqued in this.
Doesn't change anything. The bishops still go along. Those who
disagree with the 'system', can't be bothered to change it - too much
trouble I'm guessing. But I don't want to be unfair, either. I guess
that's _my_ middle ground.
>When the 'reform' of the reformed Liturgy occurs (which I am sure it
>will), I doubt ICEL will have much of a role.
Why should they, you're right? The Mass is already written. It's being
said under 'indult', and in the underground.
Peace.
Theodore M. Seeber
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
> The Saints, then, were your 'ultra-conservatives'. Better to want to
> be a Saint. They had the Mass. We have to use the freeways to get
> there.
I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
saint....
> If by that word, reform, you mean standardized in light of unbroken
> and holy tradition, then it was - reformed.
Which, oddly enough, even the english version of the new order did. Not a
single word in it outside of the sermon comes from anything other than the
Bible....
Which I assume is the unbroken and holy tradition you push with the Latin
Which itself is a translation from the unbroken and holy tradition of the
Greek.
Which itself is a translation from the unbroken and holy tradition of the
Aramaic.
How far back do you want to go?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Edward Thorne
This is what happens when men turn against God.
In <199804201243...@ladder01.news.aol.com> padr...@aol.com
(Padraic42) writes:
>
>In article <35363779...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) writes:
>
[SNIP]
"Why do [they] glory in evil, [those] champion[s] of infamy?"
--Ed
Padraic42
In article <6hjhs5$r...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
Thorne) writes:
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Pity and pray for them.
Mark Johnson
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> The Saints, then, were your 'ultra-conservatives'. Better to want to
>> be a Saint. They had the Mass. We have to use the freeways to get
>> there.
>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
>saint....
How so?
>> If by that word, reform, you mean standardized in light of unbroken
>> and holy tradition, then it was - reformed.
>Which, oddly enough, even the english version of the new order did.
No, that's the whole point. It hasn't. It appears invalid on its face.
>How far back do you want to go?
Last Sunday, I suppose. Latin Mass.
Peace.
Padraic42
In article <354158f...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
>>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
>>saint....
>
>How so?
The saint doesn't consider himself a saint. Every saint has always een
themselves as the worst of sinners.
Kinda like the person who thinks they'd make a good Pope, wouldn't.
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>In article <354158f...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) writes:
>>>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
>>>saint....
>>How so?
> The saint doesn't consider himself a saint. Every saint has always een
>themselves as the worst of sinners.
> Kinda like the person who thinks they'd make a good Pope, wouldn't.
All the Saints wanted to be Saints. And they also knew - wasn't false
humility - knew they were the worst of sinners. That's what Saints
are, to the Saints. The difference between a man or woman of the world
and a Saint is that the Saint confesses The Church, transforms their
life, and does as Our Lord tell thems to do, where to go, and so on.
They trust, like the Centurion, in God. They do as they're told.
If wanting to be a Saint, on the other hand, smacks of pride, or human
respect, and the like, then it's wrong. But particularly in this
world, the aspiration to Sainthood isn't respected. It's just not
worldly.
All Catholics have to want to be Saints. It's a active, concentrated,
'concerted' effort. In a sense, you have to want to storm Heaven by
force. You have to want to claim your reward. And it's done,
paradoxically, by suffering, by suffering others scorn and contempt,
by losing yourself and fading away, by doing little things, or great
things, as the late Mother Teresa phrased it - something beautiful for
God.
Peace.
JCo9405234
1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson)
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 21:18 EDT
Message-id: <3542881...@news.pacbell.net>
wrote:
>>>>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
>>>>saint....
>All Catholics have to want to be Saints.
Substitute "should" for "have to" and I agree
> It's a active, concentrated,
>'concerted' effort. In a sense, you have to want to storm Heaven by
>force. You have to want to claim your reward. And it's done,
>paradoxically, by suffering, by suffering others scorn and contempt,
>by losing yourself and fading away, by doing little things, or great
>things, as the late Mother Teresa phrased it - something beautiful for
>God.
Ive read this "storm the gates of heaven by force" language before, and it
smacks to me of a lack of trust in God, a desire to force God's hand in the
same way that Prot fundamentalists want to force his hand by "accepting Christ,
once and for all,"ect, excpet that you want to do it with good works. Granted
good works are necessary to our salvation, but they are works arising naturally
from a faith relationship with God. I dont believe we will gain salvation by
desperately doing all the works we can think of, and then saying to God "See
all Ive done, now I demand heaven!" But youre welcome to try.
JCo
Mark Johnson
jco94...@aol.com (JCo9405234) wrote:
> 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson)
>Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 21:18 EDT
>Message-id: <3542881...@news.pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>>>>>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
>>>>>saint....
>>All Catholics have to want to be Saints.
>Substitute "should" for "have to" and I agree
Have to. Otherwise - what's the point?
>> It's a active, concentrated,
>>'concerted' effort. In a sense, you have to want to storm Heaven by
>>force. You have to want to claim your reward. And it's done,
>>paradoxically, by suffering, by suffering others scorn and contempt,
>>by losing yourself and fading away, by doing little things, or great
>>things, as the late Mother Teresa phrased it - something beautiful for
>>God.
>Ive read this "storm the gates of heaven by force" language before, and it
>smacks to me of a lack of trust in God, a desire to force God's hand
If that's how you insist on reading - "losing yourself and fading
away" and doing "something beautiful for God." But that's a twisted
interpretation you have, then.
>from a faith relationship with God. I dont believe we will gain salvation by
>desperately doing all the works we can think of, and then saying to God "See
>all Ive done, now I demand heaven!" But youre welcome to try.
That's not how I wrote it, and not what I meant. We are owed nothing
for our works. God owes us nothing. We owe Him. But we do have to want
to be Saints, to transform ourselves, even for all the nonsense we
continue to do each day. We suffer from impaired free will, and we
need to recognize that. This life is a proving ground, in a way. God
separates the wheat from the chaff. And we really get to choose which
we're going to be. If it means thinking in terms of seizing Heaven, of
not taking no for an answer, of trying even harder than before, then
that's a good thing, if the extra effort brings one closer to God, and
not something else. In short, we can't buy the world's excuses, we
can't be put 'off message' by distractions, but have to almost
single-mindedly pursue holiness, even if we might not seem so holy to
the guy or gal in the next cubicle, or whatever. If our standard is
The Magisterium, and if doing the right thing in a world that thinks
right is wrong and wrong is right makes us look mean, then we can't be
put off for looking 'mean'. We have The Church. We have The
Magisterium. And what you suggest above seems a step away from that,
rather than what we _should_ be doing.
Peace.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <3542881...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
>>In article <354158f...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>>Johnson) writes:
>
>>>>saint....
>
>
>> The saint doesn't consider himself a saint. Every saint has always een
>>themselves as the worst of sinners.
>
>> Kinda like the person who thinks they'd make a good Pope, wouldn't.
>
>All the Saints wanted to be Saints. And they also knew - wasn't false
>humility - knew they were the worst of sinners. That's what Saints
>are, to the Saints. The difference between a man or woman of the world
>and a Saint is that the Saint confesses The Church, transforms their
>life, and does as Our Lord tell thems to do, where to go, and so on.
>They trust, like the Centurion, in God. They do as they're told.
I dunno, thinking one is the "worst of sinners" does sound to me like an
inverse pride. I think most people suffer from a state of complete
mediocrity, and unwillingness to really transform. This doesn't damn them
necessarily, but it might land 'em in purgatory for a long while.
When ever I read the life of a saint who considered themselves the "worst
of sinners" I always want to smack them and send them to confession for
pride. It's one thing to think you're the worst, another to say, "God
expects a LOT more from me. I've really let him down and need a
confessional QUICK!
Awareness of being a sinner is a good thing, thinking one excels at it
bothers me.
Mark Johnson
be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>I dunno, thinking one is the "worst of sinners" does sound to me like an
>inverse pride.
Think about it. A Saint is one who is maybe praying in the monastery,
or convent, who is immersed in prayers and devotions, who is literally
consecrated to God. And yet they may treat their peers badly, at
times, think ill of them, get lazy, callous, and so on, and only catch
it after they've done it. They may just consider some things wrong
that others would prefer to ignore and explain away.
>When ever I read the life of a saint who considered themselves the "worst
>of sinners" I always want to smack them and send them to confession for
>pride.
Then you're telling _them_, in effect, to just - explain it away,
ferget it, ignore it. But they shouldn't do that. And the Saints
don't.
>It's one thing to think you're the worst, another to say, "God
>expects a LOT more from me. I've really let him down and need a
>confessional QUICK!
>Awareness of being a sinner is a good thing, thinking one excels at it
>bothers me.
Because you think it isn't really all _that_ possible to really offend
God?
Peace.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <3543c221...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
>>I dunno, thinking one is the "worst of sinners" does sound to me like an
>>inverse pride.
>
>Think about it. A Saint is one who is maybe praying in the monastery,
>or convent, who is immersed in prayers and devotions, who is literally
>consecrated to God. And yet they may treat their peers badly, at
>times, think ill of them, get lazy, callous, and so on, and only catch
>it after they've done it. They may just consider some things wrong
>that others would prefer to ignore and explain away.
No, any decent human being with an ounce of self-awareness would consider
these things wrong. Still doesn't qualify one for being a "worst of
sinners". We've all sinned, we've all offended God. Why try to make a
hierarchy of it? To consider oneself the "worst sinner" also implies that
one has been going around observing and comparing, which is a profound
waste of time.
>>When ever I read the life of a saint who considered themselves the "worst
>>of sinners" I always want to smack them and send them to confession for
>>pride.
>
>Then you're telling _them_, in effect, to just - explain it away,
>ferget it, ignore it. But they shouldn't do that. And the Saints
>don't.
You're reading into what I'm saying.
>>It's one thing to think you're the worst, another to say, "God
>>expects a LOT more from me. I've really let him down and need a
>>confessional QUICK!
>
>>Awareness of being a sinner is a good thing, thinking one excels at it
>>bothers me.
>
>Because you think it isn't really all _that_ possible to really offend
>God?
Why do you think that?
We've all sinned. We've all offended God. But going around comparing
ones' sins against others, i.e. judging, even if you're judging other
people as "better", is a bad idea.
Mark Johnson
be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>In article <3543c221...@news.pacbell.net>,
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>>>I dunno, thinking one is the "worst of sinners" does sound to me like an
>>>inverse pride.
>>Think about it. A Saint is one who is maybe praying in the monastery,
>>or convent, who is immersed in prayers and devotions, who is literally
>>consecrated to God. And yet they may treat their peers badly, at
>>times, think ill of them, get lazy, callous, and so on, and only catch
>>it after they've done it. They may just consider some things wrong
>>that others would prefer to ignore and explain away.
>No, any decent human being with an ounce of self-awareness would consider
>these things wrong.
How do you figure? A guy with a busy day is rude and even cruel to
someone, even unintentionally, in the bustle of this scheme or that
meeting or this anxiety or that forced on him by the situation and
particularly by other people. Will he confess it is wrong, every time,
or simply ignore it as part of "I'm in business here"? That's the
difference. The Saints sin. They are sinners. But they repent. Many
sinners would rather just excuse their behavior, even if it takes the
national 'news' to do it.
>Still doesn't qualify one for being a "worst of
>sinners". We've all sinned, we've all offended God. Why try to make a
>hierarchy of it? To consider oneself the "worst sinner" also implies that
>one has been going around observing and comparing, which is a profound
>waste of time.
No, it just assumes that one knows what sin is, and isn't making
excuses for it. Perhaps it assumes that others in making their excuses
and rationalizations have forgotten, to some degree, what sin is. The
Saint hasn't, but still sins. It's the tragedy of Man, in this life.
Christ's Passion, and His Church, are our hope.
>We've all sinned. We've all offended God. But going around comparing
>ones' sins against others, i.e. judging, even if you're judging other
>people as "better", is a bad idea.
Not at all. What you suggest, is something different - a sort of false
equality. But people aren't equal. We can't all do what each other
does. We don't share similar talents. Others can excel where we can't.
Others can fail miserably where we won't. The Saints are better for
confessing their sins, not excusing them. It's the quintessential
difference between the late Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton.
Peace.
Stephanie Rendino
Mark Johnson
be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>I don't think you understand my question.
I don't think you have one. Least I don't see it around, here,
anywhere.
Trying reading over what I wrote, before. All I can suggest.
Peace.
Padraic42
In article <35480b30...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
>>I don't think you understand my question.
>
>I don't think you have one. Least I don't see it around, here,
>anywhere.
>
>Trying reading over what I wrote, before. All I can suggest.
Saints come in all ways and sizes.
From the courage defense of the faith by St. Thomas More to the 'simple' ways
of St. Theresa the Little Flower.
Outward appearances don't make them saints, or their jobs or vocations.
However, if you asked any of them if they were saints, they would say no.
The closer one gets to God, the more clearly one sees how little we deserve His
love. Their 'joy' comes from the knowledge that God still loves them, but they
work even harder to live as Christ would want them to.
Hence why so many see the saints as gloomy 'Gus's'. But I find a sense of
peace and joy the 'world' cannot comprehend.
Dooley
Speaking of really wanting to be a saint, where's Brother John been
lately? I'm dying to hear more of his stories!
RJO
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:28:33 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) edified readers everywhere by writing:
[snip]
>Think about it. A Saint is one who is maybe praying in the monastery,
>or convent, who is immersed in prayers and devotions, who is literally
>consecrated to God. And yet they may treat their peers badly, at
>times, think ill of them, get lazy, callous, and so on, and only catch
>it after they've done it. They may just consider some things wrong
>that others would prefer to ignore and explain away.
[snip]
Just wanted to point out that not all saints are (were) cloistered
religious. Some saints were missionaries, some were educators, some
were diocesan priests, some were lay people, some were married, some
were kings and queens, etc.
Cheers, RJO
Radio Free Topeka:
http://members.tripod.com/~rafto/
E-mail to: protomartyr at hotmail dot com
Mark Johnson
nos...@no.such.net (RJO) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:28:33 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) edified readers everywhere by writing:
>[snip]
>>Think about it. A Saint is one who is maybe praying in the monastery,
>>or convent, who is immersed in prayers and devotions, who is literally
>>consecrated to God. And yet they may treat their peers badly, at
>>times, think ill of them, get lazy, callous, and so on, and only catch
>>it after they've done it. They may just consider some things wrong
>>that others would prefer to ignore and explain away.
>Just wanted to point out that not all saints are (were) cloistered
>religious. Some saints were missionaries,
Quite obv., whom the cloistered prayed for on their missions.
>some were educators, some
>were diocesan priests, some were lay people, some were married, some
>were kings and queens, etc.
True. Still, some of the greatest mystics and stigmatics and the like
tend to come from the ranks of 'non-active' religious. But of course
you're right, and make the obv. point (which is usually what _I_ do).
Peace.
Christopher Beattie
Padraic42 wrote:
> Saints come in all ways and sizes.
> From the courage defense of the faith by St. Thomas More to the 'simple' ways
> of St. Theresa the Little Flower.
> Outward appearances don't make them saints, or their jobs or vocations.
> However, if you asked any of them if they were saints, they would say no.
> The closer one gets to God, the more clearly one sees how little we deserve His
> love. Their 'joy' comes from the knowledge that God still loves them, but they
> work even harder to live as Christ would want them to.
> Hence why so many see the saints as gloomy 'Gus's'. But I find a sense of
> peace and joy the 'world' cannot comprehend.
Imagine two lines into heaven, one marked "Express" and one
not marked "Express." Two types of people come to the
lines.
The first, the saint, is carrying two very large sacks of
something and chooses the non express line.
The second, the non saint, is carrying only a very small
sack, but trailing behind him, slowing him down, although
he doesn't realize it, are a great number of suitcases.
Strangely, (not really since he doesn't realize he has
the suitcases) he chooses the "Express" lane.
We all sin. Those who are close to God realize all the more
how important every little sin is, while others simply
throw these sins behind us, out of sight and out of mind.
Most of the great saints have experienced the "dark night
of the soul." They knew the joy of being with God, but
also the terror of not being with God, even briefly.
Back to the anaology. Those sins which you are carrying
are ok, they have been tempered by your daily offerings
of your daily prayers and sufferings, it's the ones that
you carry behind you that are a problem. They have to
pass the scanner, one at a time. If they are too large
to fit in the scanner (ie. mortal) they better be
pre-approved (confession) or you won't proceed. Thus
the "express" line is really not express afterall. <G>
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Brian P. Gillespie
There is a big difference between wanting to be a saint and thinking that I am a
saint. We should all want to be a saint. But we are in danerous waters as soon
as we start to think that we have arrived at that status.
Padraic42 wrote:
> In article <354158f...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
> Johnson) writes:
>
> >>I always thought that wanting to be a saint disqualified one from being a
> >>saint....
> >
> >How so?
>
> The saint doesn't consider himself a saint. Every saint has always een
> themselves as the worst of sinners.
>
> Kinda like the person who thinks they'd make a good Pope, wouldn't.
>
Padraic42
In article <6iad9f$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Brian P. Gillespie"
<bpgil...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>There is a big difference between wanting to be a saint and thinking that I
>am a
>saint. We should all want to be a saint. But we are in danerous waters as
>soon
>as we start to think that we have arrived at that status.
>
Very well put.