The Ultra-Montanists are coming, the Ultra-Montanists are coming!! (Long)
Padraic42
words connected with all sorts of things. We've been told Vatican II rejected
it along with Jansenism (which the Church condemned long before) and that
Cardinal Ratzinger is one. O terror of terrors.
However, look around for info on it. Hard to find. Of all the books I have,
only one had a reference to it, and that was the Catholic Dictionary.
It read, "Ultramontane: Catholics who agree with the Pope on matters of
doctrine and policy."
I have to admit that I was confused as to the meaning, but considering the
words used, it can be seen where one could equate it to the heresy of Montanism
which rejected the Magesterium.
However, that's not what it means.
But that leads us back to what is is and why some have a real buggaboo about
it. And why various books on the Church seem mum on it. The answer is simple,
it isn't what we've been led to believe.
Firstly, Vatican II doesn't even mention ultra-montanism. Through the index,
word searches, etc. no reference to ultra-montanists can be found.
Interesting, especially since we've been specifically told that it did! Or
rather, as in the 'spirit of Vatican II' was this supposedly implied?
Well, a simple look at Lumen Gentium gives an answer.
" In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole
Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the
Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops,
which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body
continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the
universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the
Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only
with the consent of the Roman Pontiff." (Lumen Gentium: Vatican II, Chap III,
The Church is Hierarchal: # 22)
"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by
all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals,
the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of
mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of
the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must
be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with
reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his
manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either
from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same
doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (Ibid #25)
" his (the Pope's) definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the
assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore
they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other
judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private
person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism
of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding
or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the
Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the
supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the
assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that
same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and
progresses in unity of faith." (Ibid)
So it clear that, rathr than rejecting ultra-montanism, Vatican II seems to
imply embracing it.
Even the Catechism of the Church implies this. (REf. CCC. 880-887 and
894-896)
But there are historical references to this 'evil'.
"Febronian alienation. This impoverishment, however, may have averted the
greater evil of a schismatic German Church. Bonaparte's ecclesiastical tool in
Germany had been Karl von Dalberg (1744-1817), coadjutor of Mainz. At the
secularization of 1803, not to lose his worldly status, Dalberg transferred his
metropolitan rights to Regensburg, and with Bonaparte's approbation carved out
a temporal principality for himself. Next Dalberg was pressed upon Pope Pius
VII as primate of a subservient German hierarchy according to the erroneous
Febronian views. When the pontiff refused to be content with a mere primacy of
honor over Germany, Bonaparte and Dalberg put their project into execution
within the French-dominated Confederation of the Rhine. Dalberg as primate
altered diocesan boundaries and installed henchmen without recourse to the Holy
See. Ignaz von Wessenberg (1774-1860) became Dalberg's vicar and aide in
introducing Febronian concepts of a German national Church. Papal refusal of
canonical institution to Dalberg's hierarchy completed the organizational
confusion of the Church in Germany.
Febronian defeat. After the Battle of Leipsic (1813) had freed Germany from
French domination, Dalberg was obliged to renounce his secular principality,
but continued to hold on to the see of Regensburg. To the Congress of Vienna
Dalberg's deputy Wessenburg proposed a national Church with a German
jurisdictional patriarchate under honorary papal precedence. The ex-elector of
Trier, Archbishop Clemens von Wettin, who had long failed to rebuke his
auxiliary Hontheim (Febronius) in the eighteenth century, now made belated
amends by opposing this project. But what most effectively countered Dalberg's
plan was the desire of the German magnates to preserve state autonomy in
ecclesiastical as well as secular affairs. For at the Congress, the German
princes defeated a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire as well as a strong
federal union, and contented themselves with a league of independent states
similar to the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Cardinal
Consalvi, in order to defeat Dalberg, sided with the magnates' aspirations to
the extent of consistently speaking of the "Catholic Churches in Germany."
Dalberg's scheme was therefore rejected and the German Church received no
national organization. Instead, bierarchical reorganization was subsequently
undertaken through concordats with individual states, e.g., Bavaria (1817-1933)
and Austria (1855). Dalberg held out at Regensburg until his death in 1817 and
Wessenberg hampered Swabian ecclesiastical jurisdiction until 1827.
Febronianism was not entirely extinguished even among German prelates, but a
rising tide of Ultramontanism would soon render it old-fashioned." ( Catholic
Church History by Msgr. Eberhardt; Liberal Agnosticism (1789-1870); IX
Authoritarian Reaction (1815-48); 75. Teutonic Transformation (1801-48))
(Febronianism had originated with the Jansenist professor of Louvain, Van
Espen, who denied to the pope any primacy of jurisdiction. His doctrine was
given its widest publicity after it had been incorporated in a work, De
Praesenti Statu Ecclesiae, by Johann von Hontheim, auxiliary bishop of Trier,
who wrote under the pen name of Febronius. This treatise proposed three means
of achieving ecclesiastical reform. The first was to restrict papal
jurisdiction to a "primacy of direction." The second advocated a general
council to enlighten and direct the papacy. Lastly, bishops were to invoke the
aid of monarchs in reforming abuses. Clement XIII condemned Febronianism on
March 14, 1764, and urged the German hierarchy to ban the book. In spite of a
didactic refutation prepared by the Venetian Jesuit, Zaccharia-the
AntiFebronio-new editions of Hontheim's work continued to appear. Episcopal
censures were rendered inefficacious by the refusal of the electorarchbishop of
Trier, to rebuke his auxiliary. This prelate, Clemens von Wettin, a son of the
king of Poland, instead joined the electors of Mainz and Cologne in presenting
their gravamina to the Roman Curia in 1769. These representations revealed
Febronian influence, and only in 1778 after repeated papal urging did the
elector secure a half-hearted retractation from Hontheim, who died in communion
with the Church in 1790." (Ibid: Rationalist Humanism (1638-1789) VII The
Cult of Rationalism (1715-89) 60. Secularist Germany (1648-1790))
As we see, if anything, ultra-montanism put an end to a Jansenistic heresy
and was not a heresy in and of itself.
The "Oxford Movement" in England, gave birth to another well known
'ultra-montanist', "John Henry Newman (1801-90) entered Oxford in 1816 and at
first associated chiefly with Richard Whately (1787-1863) from whom he derived
two ideas: insistence upon the visible nature of the Church, and on its
independence of the state. Newman was led to make more profound inquiries into
dogmatic problems and these brought him nearer the Conservative position.
About 1828 he came under Froude's influence and imbibed some of his enthusiasm
and piety. As tutor at Oriel College and Vicar of St. Mary's (1828), Newman
himself began to exercise a limited sway, attracting kindred spirits in Edward
Pusey (1800-1882), Robert Wilberforce (1802-57), and Ambrose St. John
(1815-76), of whom the latter two followed him to Rome." (Ibid; Liberal
Agnosticism (1789-1870); IX Authoritarian Reaction (1815-48)
78. British Catholic Revival (1829-65))
This is not to say that everything was peaches and cream with the
ultra-montanists. They too had their disagreements.
" (2) ULTRAMONTANE CONTROVERSIES
Discordant views. Henry Edward Manning, advancing rapidly in Wiseman's favor,
promoted introduction of Roman ways to the last detail, thus displeasing some
of the elder sons of the Catholic Church in England who had lived heroically,
if somewhat unliturgically, through "dungeon, fire and sword." Bishop
Errington, Wiseman's coadjutor, put himself at the head of the disaffected
group and objected to Wiseman's alleged favoritism toward Oxford converts. The
disagreement was compounded by the clash of personalities: Wiseman was
brilliant, expansive, negligent of details, and by now ailing; Errington was
plodding, meticulous, somewhat unimaginative-though other English bishops
shared his resentment at Wiseman's carelessness about the canonical rights of
suffragans. But though his arguments against Wiseman were often justified,
Errington's continual opposition created a bad impression. Besides, the
sentiments of the older Catholics tended to be "Cisalpine" on disciplinary
matters and cool toward definition of papal infallibility, while Manning and
Ward and many Oxford converts became violent Ultramontanes and champions of a
prompt definition of papal primacy." (Ibid)
But the problem wasn't the authority of the Church, as seen.
Those who placed the State (a form of Gallicanism) before the Church
condemned ultra-montansim.
"The Syllabus of Errors, therefore, exploded in 1864 within a tense
atmosphere. Napoleon forbade its publication within France, and the Gallican
Rouland indicted Ultramontanism in the French senate. To this Cardinal
Bonnechose replied by deploring the placing of Gallican interests before those
of the Roman pontiff, and Bishop Pie and Veuillot upheld the most extreme
interpretations of the papal document. Bishop Dupanloup made a prudent
distinction between "thesis and hypothesis": the Syllabus set forth an ideal
Catholic society, but adaptation to existing conditions was left to the prudent
conscience of the faithful. Archbishop Darboy of Paris urged "wisdom and
conciliation." The controversy gradually died down in the public prints, though
it still smoldered under the surface. Thus the last decade of the Bonapartist
regime proved a transition to the open anticlericalism of the Third Republic."
(Ibid; Liberal Agnosticism (1789-1870) X Consummation of Nationalism
(1848-71) 83. French Neo-Bonapartism (1848-70))
And during Bismarck's plan to unify Germany.
"Prussian toleration. Catholic freedom was the rule during the greater part
of the reign of Frederick William IV (1840-61). The 1848 constitution conceded
Catholics liberty of worship, of discipline, of religious instruction, and of
communication with Rome. This benign state of affairs continued for a decade.
In 1858 when Prince William became regent for the ailing king, the new prime
minister Anton von Hohenzollern (1858-62) was anti-Catholic in spirit and prone
to denounce Catholics as unpatriotic. But when Bismarck succeeded as premier
(1862-90), he at first refrained from such hostile expressions. He had been
previously and was yet again to prove anti-Catholic, but for the moment the
Iron Chancellor wished Catholic support for his schemes of German unification.
Hence he blocked anti-Catholic legislation and even restrained liberals from
sectarian conflict. In 1869 Bismarck ignored a petition from German
journalists, demanding suppression of the monasteries. Some Catholics were
probably lulled into sleep by this toleration, but events soon demonstrated
that Bismarck was but delaying his Kulturkampf until all the southern German
states, largely Catholic, were safely in the Second Reich.
Bavarian Febronianism revived after the deposition of Prince Louis in 1848.
Prime Minister Chlodwig Hohenlohe (1866-70), whose brother the cardinal was
almost disloyal to the Vatican, gave the Church much to suffer. But when he
threatened religious instruction in the primary schools, the laity formed the
Bavarian People's Party which overthrew the Hohenlohe ministry in 1870....
Social movements. While Father Wilhelm Ketteler's pioneer indictment of
Marxism-treated separately-attracted attention at Frankfurt in 1848, at the
same time Canon Adam Lenning of Mainz organized the Pius-Verein in defense of
Catholic interests. During October, 1848, delegates from all over Germany held
the first of periodical general meetings. In 1849 the Bonifatius-Verein was
founded on Doellinger's initiative to assist scattered Catholics in the
Protestant districts of Germany; from 1850 to 1875 it received the active
direction of Bishop Martin of Paderborn. The Munich Catholic Congress of 1863,
however, witnessed Doellinger's daring and ill-advised plea for the "rights of
theology" and complete "liberty of movement." Theologians from Mainz and
Wurzburg protested, and the meeting closed, amiably enough, but with an
ambiguous compromise formula which revealed profound differences between the
so-called "German" and "Roman" theological schools, i.e., Doellinger's group
and the Ultramontanes." (Ibid: Liberal Agnosticism (1789-1870) X Consummation
of Nationalism (1848-71) 84.German Unification (1848-71))
From these we can see that the ultra-montanists were attacked by apostate and
herestical sects. Jansenist, Gallicans, Nationalists, modernists, liberals,
etc.
It's clear that the 'opponents' of the ultra-montanists were more concerned
with a 'French', 'German', 'British', 'American (?)' Church rather than THE
Church.
If current trends can be beleived, the 'liberal concensus', the 'modernists',
and those who follow the 'spirit of Vatican II' are losing ground. And that
Catholics, loyal to the Pope and Magesterium, to the actual teachings of
Vatican II (i.e. ultra-monanists) are in fact reviving the authentic Catholic
faith.
Pax Christi, Pat
" He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake
will find it." (Matt. 10:39)
(http://members.aol.com/padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
Kevin Beach
>
> >In article <6qa8bg$m3m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > jimh...@juno.com wrote:
> >> In article <199808051214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> >> padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
> >
> >> > However, look around for info on it. Hard to find. Of all the books I
> >> > have, only one had a reference to it, and that was the Catholic
> >Dictionary.
> >> >
> >> > It read, "Ultramontane: Catholics who agree with the Pope on matters of
> >> > doctrine and policy."
> >>
> >Ultramontanist
> >> source!
> >
> >It is a very interesting definition. Pat, is that the entirety of the entry
> >in the Catholic dictionary, or is there more?
> >
> The only othre part was how the name came about. Nothing more.
>
> >EWTN's library doesn't have a definition of Ultramontanism either, possibly
> >because they are another Ultramontanist source. :-)
> >
> Yes, EWTN is very loyal to the Pope and Magestrium. It's called being
> faithful to the Church.
>
> >Mother Angelica strikes me as the Ultramontanist par excellence. One can see
> >it in her constant attempts to set the pope and the bishops in opposition.
> >Her constant theme is, The bishops are wrong, the Pope is right! Her silly
> >attack on Cardinal Mahony being only one example.
> >
> Not all the Bishops, just a handful of liberal, moderinst bishops. And yes,
> mahoney would probably fit that bill.
>
> But the reason , IMHO, that you're down on Mother A. is because she tells it
> like it is, which you can't stand.
>
> >> Here is my definition of Ultramontanism: a doctrine and ecclesiastical
> >> practice which over-emphasises the authority and prerogatives of the Pope
> >and
> >> the Papal Curia, to the detriment of the rights of local Churches and their
> >> Bishops.
> >
> >Yes, that word "excessive" needs to be in there.
> >
> Excessive would entail the Magesterium getting involved in the working of
> each Diocese, the 'paperwork' as it were.
>
> The problems facing a Diocese in New York wmay be different from Cleveland,
> from Mexico City, Munich, etc.
>
> But what you seem to see as 'excessive' isn't so at all. If we were to
> follow your definition of 'excessive' then the Church's fighting against
> heresy, apostasy, etc. would be seen as 'excessive' interference.
>
> Get with it. The reason NO ONE has a lot on ultrra-montanists is becuase it
> isn't a heresy, as is modernism.
>
> Pax Christi, Pat
> " He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake
> will find it." (Matt. 10:39)
> (http://members.aol.com/padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
>
>
>
Since I was a child I have had difficulty acepting the Mother Angelica
type of Catholicism. In feels unnatural. I just can't believe that it
reflects the teachings or wishes of Jesus. That's why I called
Ratzinger an Ultramontanist in my recent e-mail to you. The things that
the CDF do, and have the Cuira do, under his influence are stifling.
What happened to the fresh air that we were supposed to get when Good
pope john threw open the windows?!
Kevin
Mark Johnson
>reflects the teachings or wishes of Jesus. That's why I called
>Ratzinger an Ultramontanist in my recent e-mail to you. The things that
>the CDF do, and have the Cuira do, under his influence are stifling.
>What happened to the fresh air that we were supposed to get when Good
>pope john threw open the windows?!
I think it was Paul VI that referred to that as - the smoke of Satan?
No?
Anyways - the 'better way' never is, is never new, and never works. We
see it in the secular realm leading to lies and partisan 'news'
reports and polling. We see in The Church in an effort to turn
Catholicism into Protestantism, from within - which is essentially, I
think, how the current heresy will be viewed in retrospect.
Sometimes when the air is polluted, and it's hot, and the factory down
the way just lost containment on something or other, then the word
goes out to people to stay inside, and close the windows. Go outside
only if you're up to it - and keep driving to a minimum.
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
Gary
>
> Kevin Beach <kevin...@mcmail.com> wrote:
>
> >reflects the teachings or wishes of Jesus. That's why I called
> >Ratzinger an Ultramontanist in my recent e-mail to you. The things that
> >the CDF do, and have the Cuira do, under his influence are stifling.
> >What happened to the fresh air that we were supposed to get when Good
> >pope john threw open the windows?!
>
> I think it was Paul VI that referred to that as - the smoke of Satan?
> No?
>
> Anyways - the 'better way' never is, is never new, and never works. We
> see it in the secular realm leading to lies and partisan 'news'
> reports and polling. We see in The Church in an effort to turn
> Catholicism into Protestantism, from within - which is essentially, I
> think, how the current heresy will be viewed in retrospect.
>
> Sometimes when the air is polluted, and it's hot, and the factory down
> the way just lost containment on something or other, then the word
> goes out to people to stay inside, and close the windows. Go outside
> only if you're up to it - and keep driving to a minimum.
But none of this has anyting to do directly with Vat II; it has to do
with people missusing and abusing Vat II. That is, they do what many
Protestants do with the bible. They pick and choose what seems to
support them and then do their own thing claiming Vat II said to do it,
or they don't even bother checkiing Vat II documents and assume most
people won't know any better when they claim Vat II says do this or
that.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Anyways - the 'better way' never is, is never new, and never works. We
>> see it in the secular realm leading to lies and partisan 'news'
>> reports and polling. We see in The Church in an effort to turn
>> Catholicism into Protestantism, from within - which is essentially, I
>> think, how the current heresy will be viewed in retrospect.
>> Sometimes when the air is polluted, and it's hot, and the factory down
>> the way just lost containment on something or other, then the word
>> goes out to people to stay inside, and close the windows. Go outside
>> only if you're up to it - and keep driving to a minimum.
>But none of this has anyting to do directly with Vat II; it has to do
>with people missusing and abusing Vat II. That is, they do what many
>Protestants do with the bible. They pick and choose what seems to
>support them and then do their own thing claiming Vat II said to do it,
>or they don't even bother checkiing Vat II documents and assume most
>people won't know any better when they claim Vat II says do this or
>that.
Of course. But you're missing something important. It's all APPROVED.
It's all formally approved.
_That's_ the cause of confusion. The Pope signs off, certainly
tacitly, on 'new order'. He approved 'altar girls'. He bans The Mass
from St. Peter's (Latin Mass). The _Pope_ in this, when he's not
_defending_ the actual words of Vatican II, or The Vatican Council, or
Trent, or whatever else, is _agreeing_ with the 'better way' crowd, by
supporting them, that Vatican II almost - didn't happen - that there
was a gathering by that name, but they never issued a document, least
one not worth actually reading. That's the confusion. This thing is
formally approved from the top down. The Protestant Rebellion, which
tried many of the same schemes we see today from catechists and
bishops and the rest opposed The Church from outside. It literally
went to war, with guns and blood, and the like. What we see
'deconstructing' The Church, today, is heresy. That's from the inside.
That's the enemy within. That's why there has to be a standard. It has
to be the same for me, for the Pope, for the bishops. And it is
Catholic dogma - what Catholics believe.
If the 'spirit of' get to retroactively rewrite the letter and spirit
of council documents, by formal approval, by formal agreement from the
Holy See itself, even if just so far tacitly in many things apart from
'altar girls' and of course continued approval of 'new order', in some
pristine Latin even (which you never see), then if one cleaves to the
institution _regardless_ of dogma, as many tell us to do on UseNet,
then the 'spirit of' sorts are absolutely right. They've got the
signatures and approvals. Traditionalists, at this point, really still
don't - save for those on which the ink is long dried. Maybe a lot of
that isn't technically infallible. In fact, none of this goes to papal
infallibility, or that of the bishops. Vatican II was a 'pastoral'
council. And a liturgy is not itself dogmatic, but draws from and
includes what is. But they have the institution to back them up. And
faithful Catholics, still at this point, really don't. And that's . .
. confusing. Heresy is.
Gary
>
> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Anyways - the 'better way' never is, is never new, and never works. We
> >> see it in the secular realm leading to lies and partisan 'news'
> >> reports and polling. We see in The Church in an effort to turn
> >> Catholicism into Protestantism, from within - which is essentially, I
> >> think, how the current heresy will be viewed in retrospect.
>
> >> Sometimes when the air is polluted, and it's hot, and the factory down
> >> the way just lost containment on something or other, then the word
> >> goes out to people to stay inside, and close the windows. Go outside
> >> only if you're up to it - and keep driving to a minimum.
>
> >But none of this has anyting to do directly with Vat II; it has to do
> >with people missusing and abusing Vat II. That is, they do what many
> >Protestants do with the bible. They pick and choose what seems to
> >support them and then do their own thing claiming Vat II said to do it,
> >or they don't even bother checkiing Vat II documents and assume most
> >people won't know any better when they claim Vat II says do this or
> >that.
>
> Of course. But you're missing something important. It's all APPROVED.
> It's all formally approved.
>
> _That's_ the cause of confusion. The Pope signs off, certainly
> tacitly, on 'new order'.
Why not? The Novus Ordo is valid and if Bishops would just follow the
suggestions of Vat II (keeping the Mass sacred, using Latin, etc.) and
translate it correctly then their would be no problems at all that I can
see.
> He approved 'altar girls'.
It is not obedience for use to follow the Church/Pope when we completely
agree with it/him and to attack or ignore them when we don't. Dispite
my personal opinion that alter girls should not be allowed, I don't know
of any reason that alter girls in any way invalidate a Mass.
> He bans The Mass from St. Peter's (Latin Mass).
I don't know if this is true but if it is that is his perogative. Don't
forget he encourages bishops to allow Latin masses to be said in their
dioces and gave the Society of St. Peter (completely Latin in everything
they do) permission to promote theLatin mass wherever they wish (they
probably need the local Ordinary's permission to enter an area).
> The _Pope_ in this, when he's not
> _defending_ the actual words of Vatican II, or The Vatican Council, or
> Trent, or whatever else, is _agreeing_ with the 'better way' crowd, by
> supporting them, that Vatican II almost - didn't happen - that there
> was a gathering by that name, but they never issued a document, least
> one not worth actually reading.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here?
> That's the confusion. This thing is
> formally approved from the top down. The Protestant Rebellion, which
> tried many of the same schemes we see today from catechists and
> bishops and the rest opposed The Church from outside. It literally
> went to war, with guns and blood, and the like. What we see
> 'deconstructing' The Church, today, is heresy. That's from the inside.
> That's the enemy within. That's why there has to be a standard. It has
> to be the same for me, for the Pope, for the bishops. And it is
> Catholic dogma - what Catholics believe.
If this is so the heretics are ignoring the Pope as being "too
conservative" (I know because I have met several) and preceeding with
their own agenda just as many conservative Catholics are also doing. I
don't think the Lord will be pleased with either side.
> If the 'spirit of' get to retroactively rewrite the letter and spirit
> of council documents, by formal approval, by formal agreement from the
> Holy See itself, even if just so far tacitly in many things apart from
> 'altar girls' and of course continued approval of 'new order', in some
> pristine Latin even (which you never see), then if one cleaves to the
> institution _regardless_ of dogma, as many tell us to do on UseNet,
> then the 'spirit of' sorts are absolutely right. They've got the
> signatures and approvals. Traditionalists, at this point, really still
> don't - save for those on which the ink is long dried. Maybe a lot of
> that isn't technically infallible. In fact, none of this goes to papal
> infallibility, or that of the bishops. Vatican II was a 'pastoral'
> council. And a liturgy is not itself dogmatic, but draws from and
> includes what is. But they have the institution to back them up. And
> faithful Catholics, still at this point, really don't. And that's . .
> . confusing. Heresy is.
It is confusing. Obedience to the magestarium is the correct path, and
being 'obedient' when things are the way you like it but not if things
aren't exactly the way you like them is not obedience at all but a self
deluding self-centeredness. The Sedavancatists (hope I got the spelling
correct) who insist the 'seat of Peter' is empty and they can ignore Vat
II and every Pope since John XXIII are just as bad off as the liberals
profaning the Church with their secularization and protestantisation of
the Church dispite their outward appearance of Orthodoxy and the use of
the Latin Mass.
God Bless
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >Mark Johnson wrote:
>Why not? The Novus Ordo is valid and if Bishops would just follow the
>suggestions of Vat II (keeping the Mass sacred, using Latin,
'New order' would have been POINTLESS, if they had. Think about how it
was first promulgated.
This is where we are, today. We're in this neo-Protestant, trendy
church down the block kind of thing, where after 30 years they've
decided some of the early translations were wrong. The _want_ a
priesthood. They want Sacraments. They got their changes. But now
they're growing old with age, and want to bring back a few things.
It's been done, before - in England, centuries ago.
>translate it correctly then their would be no problems at all that I can
>see.
To translate is, correctly, would require it be - The Holy Mass; the
'indult', so-called.
>> He approved 'altar girls'.
>It is not obedience for use to follow the Church/Pope when we completely
>agree with it/him and to attack or ignore them when we don't.
So the bishop Arius was right, after all? you think?
There has to be a standard. For a Catholic, it's - what Catholics
believe. Established dogma. 'New order' opposes that dogma, in the
very words of the consecration, according to ICEList form and
apparently that of the Italian, perhaps others.
>Dispite
>my personal opinion that alter girls should not be allowed, I don't know
>of any reason that alter girls in any way invalidate a Mass.
But they aren't allowed at Holy Mass. It would seem nonsense. It would
be laughable. They are approved for 'new order'. And 'new order'
_already_ appears invalid on its face.
>> He bans The Mass from St. Peter's (Latin Mass).
>I don't know if this is true but if it is that is his perogative.
Really? So why didn't Pope Pius V do the same? His prerogative, right?
He could have, right? - no Mass, today.
Why didn't he? The whole point of standardizing The Mass _was_ that
there were all these variations about. He could have brought in one of
_those_. There are _no_ limits on papal power - again . . right?
>forget he encourages bishops to allow Latin masses to be said in their
>dioces and gave the Society of St. Peter (completely Latin in everything
>they do)
No - they do 'new order'. That was a big stink awhile back, when
apparently they fired a professor who didn't agree with that approach.
And it's more than just the FSSP. I believe over 15 orders are now
chartered for The Holy Mass. This Pope has done good in that. But he
sends mixed messages. And he still doesn't lead. His issues. The
bishops ignore and roundfile; particularly, of course, on the Latin
Mass. He writes more stuff. I just don't know. Pray for His Holiness
to do what God would have him do.
>> The _Pope_ in this, when he's not
>> _defending_ the actual words of Vatican II, or The Vatican Council, or
>> Trent, or whatever else, is _agreeing_ with the 'better way' crowd, by
>> supporting them, that Vatican II almost - didn't happen - that there
>> was a gathering by that name, but they never issued a document, least
>> one not worth actually reading.
>I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here?
I'm saying that for the official approval of the present heresy, it's
as if the council never actually wrote - what it did. It's as if they
never issued a document, but simply met, had coffee, discussed the
weather, didn't record the minutes, and flew home. Then the
'specialists' took over - which is what happened.
>> That's the confusion. This thing is
>> formally approved from the top down. The Protestant Rebellion, which
>> tried many of the same schemes we see today from catechists and
>> bishops and the rest opposed The Church from outside. It literally
>> went to war, with guns and blood, and the like. What we see
>> 'deconstructing' The Church, today, is heresy. That's from the inside.
>> That's the enemy within. That's why there has to be a standard. It has
>> to be the same for me, for the Pope, for the bishops. And it is
>> Catholic dogma - what Catholics believe.
>If this is so the heretics are ignoring the Pope as being "too
>conservative" (I know because I have met several) and preceeding with
>their own agenda just as many conservative Catholics are also doing.
The traditionalist 'agenda' is called The Mass, the Sacraments,
devotions, and stuff Catholics used to do. There's no 'moral
equivalence' between the Pius V society, say, and Call to Action.
Don't imagine there is.
>don't think the Lord will be pleased with either side.
I think we _see_ the hand of God in the Lefebvre affair, and Lefebvre
being the cause for some portion of the traditionalist movement,
today.
>> If the 'spirit of' get to retroactively rewrite the letter and spirit
>> of council documents, by formal approval, by formal agreement from the
>> Holy See itself, even if just so far tacitly in many things apart from
>> 'altar girls' and of course continued approval of 'new order', in some
>> pristine Latin even (which you never see), then if one cleaves to the
>> institution _regardless_ of dogma, as many tell us to do on UseNet,
>> then the 'spirit of' sorts are absolutely right. They've got the
>> signatures and approvals. Traditionalists, at this point, really still
>> don't - save for those on which the ink is long dried. Maybe a lot of
>> that isn't technically infallible. In fact, none of this goes to papal
>> infallibility, or that of the bishops. Vatican II was a 'pastoral'
>> council. And a liturgy is not itself dogmatic, but draws from and
>> includes what is. But they have the institution to back them up. And
>> faithful Catholics, still at this point, really don't. And that's . .
>> . confusing. Heresy is.
>It is confusing. Obedience to the magestarium is the correct path,
And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
>being 'obedient' when things are the way you like it but not if things
>aren't exactly the way you like them is not obedience at all but a self
>deluding self-centeredness. The Sedavancatists (hope I got the spelling
>correct) who insist the 'seat of Peter' is empty and they can ignore Vat
>II and every Pope since John XXIII are just as bad off as the liberals
>profaning the Church with their secularization and protestantisation of
>the Church dispite their outward appearance of Orthodoxy and the use of
>the Latin Mass.
There's nothing invalid, or apparently illicit even, about the Pius
priests. A bishop in Hawaii tried to excommunicate some SSPX
parishioners. His ruling was overturned. What's at issue, now, is
their refusal to officially swear some allegiance to 'new order'. I
don't either. But 'new order' isn't a matter of infallible dogma, in
so many ways. And the present questionable standing of the SSPX is
probably a lot of smoke and mirrors, being based, then, on a
particular consecration of bishops by another bishop - which case
could be made was _not_ wrong, but perhaps illicit as against some
putative desire of the Pope to hold off on such. It's something that
_could_ be resolved, if those in the institutional church really
_wanted_ to. That's sort of the question, I think. I've commented
before about a rumoured attitude among certain of the SSPX. But I
think it more reasonable to consider the institutional church in these
times of heresy, and consider their responsibility in this, and in
resolving this fairly as Catholics, and as men of honor; all this from
which, as you know, came the very Ecclesia Dei that is the implied
subject I think of these sorts of threads.
Gary
<snip>
> >> He approved 'altar girls'.
>
> >It is not obedience for use to follow the Church/Pope when we completely
> >agree with it/him and to attack or ignore them when we don't.
>
> So the bishop Arius was right, after all? you think?
I don't get your reference. Sorry.
> There has to be a standard. For a Catholic, it's - what Catholics
> believe. Established dogma. 'New order' opposes that dogma, in the
> very words of the consecration, according to ICEList form and
> apparently that of the Italian, perhaps others.
By allowing alter girls the Pope has not gone against any dogma or
changed anything which he doesn't have the authority to change. What in
the Novus Ordo goes against established dogma?
> >Dispite
> >my personal opinion that alter girls should not be allowed, I don't know
> >of any reason that alter girls in any way invalidate a Mass.
>
> But they aren't allowed at Holy Mass. It would seem nonsense. It would
> be laughable. They are approved for 'new order'. And 'new order'
> _already_ appears invalid on its face.
You didn't address the comment. How does having alter girls invalidate
the mass.
> >> He bans The Mass from St. Peter's (Latin Mass).
>
> >I don't know if this is true but if it is that is his perogative.
>
> Really? So why didn't Pope Pius V do the same? His prerogative, right?
> He could have, right? - no Mass, today.
>
> Why didn't he? The whole point of standardizing The Mass _was_ that
> there were all these variations about. He could have brought in one of
> _those_. There are _no_ limits on papal power - again . . right?
>
> >forget he encourages bishops to allow Latin masses to be said in their
> >dioces and gave the Society of St. Peter (completely Latin in everything
> >they do)
>
> No - they do 'new order'. That was a big stink awhile back, when
> apparently they fired a professor who didn't agree with that approach.
> And it's more than just the FSSP. I believe over 15 orders are now
> chartered for The Holy Mass. This Pope has done good in that. But he
> sends mixed messages. And he still doesn't lead. His issues. The
> bishops ignore and roundfile; particularly, of course, on the Latin
> Mass. He writes more stuff. I just don't know. Pray for His Holiness
> to do what God would have him do.
At this point it would be better to pray for the bishops and faithful to
be obedient to the Holy Father.
> >> The _Pope_ in this, when he's not
> >> _defending_ the actual words of Vatican II, or The Vatican Council, or
> >> Trent, or whatever else, is _agreeing_ with the 'better way' crowd, by
> >> supporting them, that Vatican II almost - didn't happen - that there
> >> was a gathering by that name, but they never issued a document, least
> >> one not worth actually reading.
>
> >I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here?
>
> I'm saying that for the official approval of the present heresy, it's
> as if the council never actually wrote - what it did. It's as if they
> never issued a document, but simply met, had coffee, discussed the
> weather, didn't record the minutes, and flew home. Then the
> 'specialists' took over - which is what happened.
The Pope can only teach; he cant' force anyone to follow. Especially
these days. I don't know of anything our current Pope has taught wich
is bad or which goes against Vat II.
> >> That's the confusion. This thing is
> >> formally approved from the top down. The Protestant Rebellion, which
> >> tried many of the same schemes we see today from catechists and
> >> bishops and the rest opposed The Church from outside. It literally
> >> went to war, with guns and blood, and the like. What we see
> >> 'deconstructing' The Church, today, is heresy. That's from the inside.
> >> That's the enemy within. That's why there has to be a standard. It has
> >> to be the same for me, for the Pope, for the bishops. And it is
> >> Catholic dogma - what Catholics believe.
>
> >If this is so the heretics are ignoring the Pope as being "too
> >conservative" (I know because I have met several) and preceeding with
> >their own agenda just as many conservative Catholics are also doing.
>
> The traditionalist 'agenda' is called The Mass, the Sacraments,
> devotions, and stuff Catholics used to do. There's no 'moral
> equivalence' between the Pius V society, say, and Call to Action.
> Don't imagine there is.
I wasn't referring to Traditionalists per se; I was referring to the
extremists who think that by going on their own and ignoring the Pope
and magestarium (yet sticking to pre VatII standards) they are the "real
church" and the rest of us are not.
> >don't think the Lord will be pleased with either side.
>
> I think we _see_ the hand of God in the Lefebvre affair, and Lefebvre
> being the cause for some portion of the traditionalist movement,
> today.
this is what protestants say about the reformation.
> >> If the 'spirit of' get to retroactively rewrite the letter and spirit
> >> of council documents, by formal approval, by formal agreement from the
> >> Holy See itself, even if just so far tacitly in many things apart from
> >> 'altar girls' and of course continued approval of 'new order', in some
> >> pristine Latin even (which you never see), then if one cleaves to the
> >> institution _regardless_ of dogma, as many tell us to do on UseNet,
> >> then the 'spirit of' sorts are absolutely right. They've got the
> >> signatures and approvals. Traditionalists, at this point, really still
> >> don't - save for those on which the ink is long dried. Maybe a lot of
> >> that isn't technically infallible. In fact, none of this goes to papal
> >> infallibility, or that of the bishops. Vatican II was a 'pastoral'
> >> council. And a liturgy is not itself dogmatic, but draws from and
> >> includes what is. But they have the institution to back them up. And
> >> faithful Catholics, still at this point, really don't. And that's . .
> >> . confusing. Heresy is.
>
> >It is confusing. Obedience to the magestarium is the correct path,
>
> And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
Which magestarium is that? Are you saying the current Pope/magestarium
is against the currently accepted mass of the Latin Rite (i.e. Novus
Ordo)? This is news to me.
Christ will judge us on our willingness and effort to follow Him which
means obedience to the Church in all things concerning faith and
morals. I think those who, even with the right intention, go their own
way and cause great confusion and turmoil in the Church--whether
traditionalist or heterodox--will find they are acting outside God's
will. Satan doesn't care if we exit the Church stage right or stage
left: all he cares about is that we exit the Church, and he will try to
get us to do so even if it is only in very small steps.
God Bless
Theodore M. Seeber
> Mark Johnson wrote:
> > So the bishop Arius was right, after all? you think?
>
> I don't get your reference. Sorry.
Be carefull with this one Mark. The Bishop Arius denied the Trinity and
all the right of the Council of Nicea to excommunicate him.
Hmm, now that I think about it, you deny thee idea that Christ died for
all, and the right of the Second Vatican Council to excommunicate you.
So I suppose the question is a good one: Arius denied the trinity because
to him, the Creed was wrong, blasephemous, and against his conscience.
Was he correct to dissent?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in government of the people, for the people, by the people,
and in fact no separation between people and government, click on the
above link.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> There has to be a standard. For a Catholic, it's - what Catholics
>> believe. Established dogma. 'New order' opposes that dogma, in the
>> very words of the consecration, according to ICEList form and
>> apparently that of the Italian, perhaps others.
>By allowing alter girls the Pope has not gone against any dogma or
>changed anything which he doesn't have the authority to change. What in
>the Novus Ordo goes against established dogma?
I have some thoughts on this at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
interested.
>At this point it would be better to pray for the bishops and faithful to
>be obedient to the Holy Father.
That, too. But it's that, _and_ the other. It's both.
>The Pope can only teach; he cant' force anyone to follow.
That's a shame. Because Lefebvre was told that he could be . . forced.
His case is problematic, questionable. But there are many bishops who
have already crossed the line, I think, who _aren't_ being given the
Lefebvre treatment.
>these days. I don't know of anything our current Pope has taught wich
>is bad or which goes against Vat II.
'Altar girls', some notions suggested on evolution, perhaps other
things? How about banning The Mass in St. Peter's? How about active
participation in pagan rituals?
>> >don't think the Lord will be pleased with either side.
>> I think we _see_ the hand of God in the Lefebvre affair, and Lefebvre
>> being the cause for some portion of the traditionalist movement,
>> today.
>this is what protestants say about the reformation.
And they were wrong. They deluded themselves into becoming 'church
going' Protestants, 'praising God' while they hunted down Catholics in
the 'territories'. There's a standard, here. It's The Magisterium. Not
all is equal, and The Magisterium is utterly traditionalist and
orthodox, which was always the _problem_ for the heretic. That's why
the 'workshoppin', the constant innovation from the 'spirit of' crowd.
They hate - what Catholics believe.
>> And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
>Which magestarium is that?
That which we hold, which says Christ died for all, but the fruits of
His Passions extend only to many, not all - that which was described
in detail, word for word, in the Roman Catechism of Trent. It's as if
they saw 'new order' comin centuries away.
>is against the currently accepted mass of the Latin Rite (i.e. Novus
>Ordo)? This is news to me.
Paul VI sure was. The innovators sure were. You should read about the
suppression of The Holy Mass in the early 70s, priests I believe being
thrown out in the street because they wouldn't confess 'new order',
and so on.
>Christ will judge us on our willingness and effort to follow Him which
>means obedience to the Church in all things concerning faith and
>morals. I think those who, even with the right intention, go their own
>way and cause great confusion and turmoil in the Church--whether
>traditionalist
Which traditionalists? Again, it's the standard that matters. We are
living in a time of the greatest heresy to ever afflict The Church. I
don't think you understand this, or that this is likely the very stuff
touched on by prophecy concerning the end times, and those times
immediately leading up to it. Yes, I know many have said this before.
But they always had The Mass. What's changed is that now the
institutional church is pushing 'new order'. That's _very_ different.
>will. Satan doesn't care if we exit the Church stage right or stage
>left: all he cares about is that we exit the Church, and he will try to
>get us to do so even if it is only in very small steps.
But do we 'exit' by cleaving to 'new order' or by calling it for what
it is? Was Athanasius guilty of 'exiting the Church' by opposing
Arianism, or were those, instead, in the institutional church heading
for 'the exits' by supporting it?
There has to be a standard. That is what holds against 'new order',
against the 'better way'/'spirit of', against heresy, _for_ orthodoxy,
as it always has and will. These are 'interesting times'. True. But
know - what Catholics believe.
Gary
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Gary wrote:
>
> > Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I don't get your reference. Sorry.
>
> all the right of the Council of Nicea to excommunicate him.
>
> Hmm, now that I think about it, you deny thee idea that Christ died for
> all, and the right of the Second Vatican Council to excommunicate you.
>
> So I suppose the question is a good one: Arius denied the trinity because
> to him, the Creed was wrong, blasephemous, and against his conscience.
> Was he correct to dissent?
That is an excellent point.
Gary
> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >By allowing alter girls the Pope has not gone against any dogma or
> >changed anything which he doesn't have the authority to change. What in
> >the Novus Ordo goes against established dogma?
>
> I have some thoughts on this at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
> interested.
When I have time I'll take a look.
<snip>
> >The Pope can only teach; he cant' force anyone to follow.
>
> That's a shame. Because Lefebvre was told that he could be . . forced.
> His case is problematic, questionable. But there are many bishops who
> have already crossed the line, I think, who _aren't_ being given the
> Lefebvre treatment.
It is my understanding that the excommunication of Lefebvre was
'automatic' in that if a bishop tries to ordain other bishops without
the permission of the Holy See the Code of Canon law says he gets
excommunicated, period, and this is what Lefebvre did, and he did this
inspite of the fact that the Vatican had been talking to him for two
years to try and reach an agreeable solution to both sides.
Lefebvre dug his own hole and jumped in because he trusted himself more
then the Church of Christ.
> >these days. I don't know of anything our current Pope has taught wich
> >is bad or which goes against Vat II.
>
> 'Altar girls', some notions suggested on evolution, perhaps other
> things? How about banning The Mass in St. Peter's? How about active
> participation in pagan rituals?
It is only an opinion that alter girls are 'bad'. The fact that I
personally don't think it is a good idea does not make me want to
'oppose' the decision of the Vatican because Christ didn't put me in
charge (I say the "vatican" since I don't know if the Pope ever
personally OKed it). Besides, the Vatican has only said it could be done
if the bishop wanted to allow it. They did not say that it should be
done or even that it was a good idea to do it .
> >> I think we _see_ the hand of God in the Lefebvre affair, and Lefebvre
> >> being the cause for some portion of the traditionalist movement,
> >> today.
>
> >this is what protestants say about the reformation.
>
> And they were wrong. They deluded themselves into becoming 'church
> going' Protestants, 'praising God' while they hunted down Catholics in
> the 'territories'. There's a standard, here. It's The Magisterium. Not
> all is equal, and The Magisterium is utterly traditionalist and
> orthodox, which was always the _problem_ for the heretic. That's why
> the 'workshoppin', the constant innovation from the 'spirit of' crowd.
> They hate - what Catholics believe.
See my next comment.
> >> And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
>
> >Which magestarium is that?
>
> That which we hold, which says Christ died for all, but the fruits of
> His Passions extend only to many, not all - that which was described
> in detail, word for word, in the Roman Catechism of Trent. It's as if
> they saw 'new order' comin centuries away.
You didn't answer my question, did you? What do you mean when you say
"magestarium"? I'm getting the feeling we don't mean the same thing.
<snip>
> Which traditionalists? Again, it's the standard that matters. We are
> living in a time of the greatest heresy to ever afflict The Church. I
> don't think you understand this, or that this is likely the very stuff
> touched on by prophecy concerning the end times, and those times
> immediately leading up to it. Yes, I know many have said this before.
> But they always had The Mass. What's changed is that now the
> institutional church is pushing 'new order'. That's _very_ different.
We still have the mass. The new mass (Novus ordo/new order) is valid.
> >will. Satan doesn't care if we exit the Church stage right or stage
> >left: all he cares about is that we exit the Church, and he will try to
> >get us to do so even if it is only in very small steps.
>
> But do we 'exit' by cleaving to 'new order' or by calling it for what
> it is? Was Athanasius guilty of 'exiting the Church' by opposing
> Arianism, or were those, instead, in the institutional church heading
> for 'the exits' by supporting it?
We usually exit the Church by trusting in our own decisions on faith and
morals instead of being obedient to the magestarium. This is what
happened in the Reformation and this is what happend to Arius and a
whole host of othere throughout the centuries.
When St Margret Mary Alacoque (hope the spelling is correct) had a
vision of Jesus which directly commanded her to do something her
spiritual advisor told her "no don't do it". The next time Jesus spoke
to her she expressed her pain in the matter (being torn between
obedience to the "church" and Jesus) and Jesus told her to be OBEDIENT
to those in authority over her and He would take care of the rest. She
was obedient and He did take care of it. Hence we have the devotion to
the Sacred Heart. We likewise must be obedient to those in authority
over us in matters of Faith and morals; The Pope and bishops make the
decisons on the mass and other issues; that is what God created the
Church's magestarium for.
Kevin Beach
>
> Mark Johnson wrote:
> > Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
> > >Mark Johnson wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >By allowing alter girls the Pope has not gone against any dogma or
> > >changed anything which he doesn't have the authority to change. What in
> > >the Novus Ordo goes against established dogma?
Alter girls? C'mon....no man has the power to change a woman! They're
beyond change! ,<runs> <ducks> <hides>
Kevin
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >> >Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> >> Gary <ga...@tier2.NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> I have some thoughts on this at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
>> interested.
>When I have time I'll take a look.
That's why I mentioned it.
>> >The Pope can only teach; he cant' force anyone to follow.
>> That's a shame. Because Lefebvre was told that he could be . . forced.
>> His case is problematic, questionable. But there are many bishops who
>> have already crossed the line, I think, who _aren't_ being given the
>> Lefebvre treatment.
>It is my understanding that the excommunication of Lefebvre was
>'automatic' in that if a bishop tries to ordain other bishops without
>the permission of the Holy See the Code of Canon law says he gets
>excommunicated,
Which provision are you referring to?
>period, and this is what Lefebvre did, and he did this
>inspite of the fact that the Vatican had been talking to him for two
>years to try and reach an agreeable solution to both sides.
I understood that the bureaucrats arrogantly backed him into a corner.
The Vatican can be just a bureaucratic as any.
>Lefebvre dug his own hole and jumped in because he trusted himself more
>then the Church of Christ.
I thought he trusted The Church more than those who seemed to be
playing games with faithful Catholics. That's why the consecrations,
as I understand it.
>> 'Altar girls', some notions suggested on evolution, perhaps other
>> things? How about banning The Mass in St. Peter's? How about active
>> participation in pagan rituals?
>It is only an opinion that alter girls are 'bad'. The fact that I
>personally don't think it is a good idea does not make me want to
>'oppose' the decision of the Vatican because Christ didn't put me in
>charge (I say the "vatican" since I don't know if the Pope ever
>personally OKed it).
There were people who claimed - I was just following orders - at the
Nuremberg trials, too. We can't avoid responsibility so easily. If an
illegal order comes across your desk, you don't have to obey - even if
all the stamps and signatures are there. If His Holiness does
something wrong, or says something wrong, which is not under the
protection of his infallibility on doctrinals matters of faith and
morals, then . . he's wrong. And you can say he's wrong, and pray for
him, and ask others to do the same. But you need to understand what
standard Catholics use to judge such things - what it is Catholics
believe. It is, after all, The Magisterium which holds against 'new
order', on specific doctrinal grounds; least those liturgies of ICEL,
the Italian and whatever else is similar.
>Besides, the Vatican has only said it could be done
>if the bishop wanted to allow it. They did not say that it should be
>done or even that it was a good idea to do it.
Actually, it was a flat-out capitulation to existing practice. 'Altar
girls' had been used for a decade or more. Now others, as on these
ngs, have been quick to suggest that other existing practices,
historically, have also been later approved by The Holy See. And they
noted that some were even considered controversial before such
approval. But there's controversial and then there's, callousness and
indifference to holy tradition.
>> >> And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
>> >Which magestarium is that?
>> That which we hold, which says Christ died for all, but the fruits of
>> His Passions extend only to many, not all - that which was described
>> in detail, word for word, in the Roman Catechism of Trent. It's as if
>> they saw 'new order' comin centuries away.
>You didn't answer my question, did you? What do you mean when you say
>"magestarium"? I'm getting the feeling we don't mean the same thing.
I think you're right. The Magisterium is what The Church teaches, by a
power to teach infallibly. This extends to doctrinal matters,
concerning faith and morals, applicable to all The Church, which
explicitly clarify existing doctrine, that from the deposit of faith
(revelation). All Catholics are _bound_ to believe these things. Now I
realize that the term, magisterium, was not much in use until the era
of Vatican II, and that now it has come to mean in the mouths of the
'spirit of' crowd mere obedience to authority, with no sense of a
Catholic duty to judge those orders when they appeal to the 'spirit
of' crowd, themselves (who are quick to question decisions with which
they _don't_ agree - typical libral double standard).
So, again, on the matter of 'new order' : That which we hold, which
says Christ died for all, but the fruits of His Passions extend only
to many, not all - that which was described in detail, word for word,
in the Roman Catechism of Trent. It's as if they saw 'new order' comin
centuries away.
The ICEList 'new order' has Our Lord say, by the fairest reading, that
the fruits of His Passion extends to all. That is a contradiction of -
what Catholics believe. And it's manifestly a contradiction of the
very existence of hell. There are other possible interpretations,
which I also mention at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm
.
>> Which traditionalists? Again, it's the standard that matters. We are
>> living in a time of the greatest heresy to ever afflict The Church. I
>> don't think you understand this, or that this is likely the very stuff
>> touched on by prophecy concerning the end times, and those times
>> immediately leading up to it. Yes, I know many have said this before.
>> But they always had The Mass. What's changed is that now the
>> institutional church is pushing 'new order'. That's _very_ different.
>We still have the mass. The new mass (Novus ordo/new order) is valid.
It appears invalid on its face. That's one thing. But it is typically
performed in irreverent and indifferent fashion, coldly, callously,
irreligiously, and followed that way by the crowd in attendance as
well. This is not the exception, but rather the rule. Many books have
been written on this, many articles. It is in the nature of the
liturgy of the 'new religion' to foster disbelief. 'New order' is a
step into a 'better way' religion, something supposedly unknown to the
Doctors and Saints, something that had to be 'rediscovered' by trendy
moderns, trying to get 'closer to God'. Just think about it.
>We usually exit the Church by trusting in our own decisions on faith and
>morals instead of being obedient to the magestarium. This is what
>happened in the Reformation
The Protestant Rebellion, in various countries, was the outcrop of an
iceberg having long set sail. Their better way was phrased in populist
slogans, for a while, and executed by the sword for the promise of
land and wealth.
>and this is what happend to Arius and a
>whole host of othere throughout the centuries.
Arianism seems to have been similar in practice to the heresy, today.
The whole Church, from the top down, seemed Arian. The heretics seemed
to have utterly won control of the institutional Church. And they
punished those who disagreed with them.
>When St Margret Mary Alacoque (hope the spelling is correct) had a
>vision of Jesus which directly commanded her to do something her
>spiritual advisor told her "no don't do it". The next time Jesus spoke
>to her she expressed her pain in the matter (being torn between
>obedience to the "church" and Jesus) and Jesus told her to be OBEDIENT
>to those in authority over her and He would take care of the rest. She
>was obedient and He did take care of it. Hence we have the devotion to
>the Sacred Heart. We likewise must be obedient to those in authority
>over us in matters of Faith and morals; The Pope and bishops make the
>decisons on the mass and other issues; that is what God created the
>Church's magestarium for.
But the liturgy, itself, is not a doctrinal issue, but rather that
which contains doctrine. If the dogma preached in a liturgy is
heretical, then it is so based on infallible dogma.
You wish to abuse the example of the Saint, I think, to insist that
The Church be held to a lower standard than the world. Where Nuremberg
agreed with Catholic teaching that responsibility for evil is not to
be passed off to superiors, you insist, rather, that it must be, and
'let God sort it out'. You generalize from one example, that no heresy
should ever have been historically opposed - because heretics wear the
collar, are in the institution, and exercise due authority, if not
legitimate authority. You say by the Saint's example that another
Saint, Athanasius, for ex., was _wrong_.
Or did you mean it in another way? Don't try to 'personally interpret'
this stuff. Stick with holy tradition. Stick with the councils and
documents on doctrine. Read the lives of the Saints. Try to get a
bigger sense of this, rather than misuse an example which does no
justice to the memory of the Saints.
Mark Johnson
>Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Gary wrote:
>> Hmm, now that I think about it, you deny thee idea that Christ died for
>> all, and the right of the Second Vatican Council to excommunicate you.
Straw makes prickly hand puppets. Save the straw. Read what I write,
instead.
>> So I suppose the question is a good one: Arius denied the trinity because
>> to him, the Creed was wrong, blasephemous, and against his conscience.
>> Was he correct to dissent?
Was Luther to deny the papacy, or the 'spirit of' crowd to deny
traditional and established doctrine?
You seem confused on this.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >> So I suppose the question is a good one: Arius denied the trinity because
> >> to him, the Creed was wrong, blasephemous, and against his conscience.
> >> Was he correct to dissent?
>
> Was Luther to deny the papacy, or the 'spirit of' crowd to deny
> traditional and established doctrine?
>
> You seem confused on this.
The spirit of Crowd is following what they think is development from a
council. As near as I can tell, Luther did not deny the papacy until the
papacy denied him (in fact, 15 of his 95 thesis start "And the Pope says",
the 95 thesis DEPENDED upon Papal Authority to refute the mistaken bishops
in Germany). And Arius denied the Council of Nicea.
You seem to deny Mass in the Vernacular in general, even though you save
the specifics for ICEL, which despite everything, was a COUNCIL decision,
whether you believe that council to be eccumenical or not is beside the
point.
Arius felt that he was defending tradition. And he was, just the wrong
tradition.
Thus the question is correct.
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Was Luther to deny the papacy, or the 'spirit of' crowd to deny
>> traditional and established doctrine?
>The spirit of Crowd is following what they think is development from a
>council.
But all is not relative. There's a standard here. The 'spirit of'
sort, let's be honest, generally _know_ they're up to no good. Deny it
if you want. But - it's true. There's a standard for those who perhaps
_are_ deluded. And that's what The Church has taught. If they ignore
that, or are afraid of losing friends and influence by questioning the
libral orthodoxy, then that's their choice, of course. But it's got
nothing to do with Vatican II. The 'spirit of' crowd, and von
Hildebrand, wrote, took just the _name_ of the council, and basically
wrote the documents themselves (and allowing for the oddly vauge
language of the actual documents).
>As near as I can tell, Luther did not deny the papacy until the
>papacy denied him (in fact, 15 of his 95 thesis start "And the Pope says",
>the 95 thesis DEPENDED upon Papal Authority to refute the mistaken bishops
>in Germany). And Arius denied the Council of Nicea.
>You seem to deny Mass in the Vernacular in general, even though you save
>the specifics for ICEL, which despite everything, was a COUNCIL decision,
Hardly. The Second Vatican Council never imagined 'new order'. It was
_not_ called for. It wasn't asked for. It wasn't what they expected.
Bing-bang, as they say.
>Arius felt that he was defending tradition. And he was, just the wrong
>tradition.
>Thus the question is correct.
Don't think the orthodox Faith is so easy to ignore. Remember, if you
will, that the whole point of The Faith - is God. The 'better way'
sort always, and naturally, leave out Providence, the supernatural,
grace and miracles, and yes, judgment and calamity. Catholics know
better. Sure hope you agree. It's not so easy to put away The Faith
and put a substitute in its place.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Was Luther to deny the papacy, or the 'spirit of' crowd to deny
> >> traditional and established doctrine?
>
> >The spirit of Crowd is following what they think is development from a
> >council.
>
> But all is not relative. There's a standard here. The 'spirit of'
> sort, let's be honest, generally _know_ they're up to no good. Deny it
> if you want. But - it's true.
It's actually quite false.
> There's a standard for those who perhaps
> _are_ deluded. And that's what The Church has taught. If they ignore
> that, or are afraid of losing friends and influence by questioning the
> libral orthodoxy, then that's their choice, of course. But it's got
> nothing to do with Vatican II. The 'spirit of' crowd, and von
> Hildebrand, wrote, took just the _name_ of the council, and basically
> wrote the documents themselves (and allowing for the oddly vauge
> language of the actual documents).
Sounds more like von Hildebrand was just a sore loser. They seem to come
out of EVERY council.
> >You seem to deny Mass in the Vernacular in general, even though you save
> >the specifics for ICEL, which despite everything, was a COUNCIL decision,
>
> Hardly. The Second Vatican Council never imagined 'new order'. It was
> _not_ called for. It wasn't asked for. It wasn't what they expected.
> Bing-bang, as they say.
Or at least, so says the fellows who lost the vote...
> Don't think the orthodox Faith is so easy to ignore. Remember, if you
> will, that the whole point of The Faith - is God. The 'better way'
> sort always, and naturally, leave out Providence, the supernatural,
> grace and miracles, and yes, judgment and calamity. Catholics know
> better. Sure hope you agree. It's not so easy to put away The Faith
> and put a substitute in its place.
What makes you think that we're not the truly orthodox ones?
The mass, originally, was in the vernacular. I mean really orginally,
with the first masses during the first century. The vernacular at the
time was Greek, Latin being reserved only for governmental business at
that time.
Likewise, when the move was made from Greek to Latin, there was nobody in
the Holy Roman Empire who didn't at least know a few words of Latin. The
Mass was in Latin BECAUSE Latin was the vernacular of the time.
Now, of course, we've been hit by a second tower of babble. Worldwide
communication is not only mixing the tounges up, it's also causeing local
groups to be more nationalistic than ever with language. There's no
international culture to stop it, so it happens. Nobody learns Latin
anymore, it's very much a dead language outside of the Academic world.
And so now we have the mass translated into the vernacular.
I see it as the church converting others by explaining things to them in a
tounge they understand.
And if you had been born in 320 A.D., when the move to Latin was begining,
you would have wanted to stay with the Greek.
Mark Johnson
>On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> There's a standard for those who perhaps
>> _are_ deluded. And that's what The Church has taught. If they ignore
>> that, or are afraid of losing friends and influence by questioning the
>> libral orthodoxy, then that's their choice, of course. But it's got
>> nothing to do with Vatican II. The 'spirit of' crowd, and von
>> Hildebrand, wrote, took just the _name_ of the council, and basically
>> wrote the documents themselves (and allowing for the oddly vauge
>> language of the actual documents).
>Sounds more like von Hildebrand was just a sore loser. They seem to come
>out of EVERY council.
I think a particular Pope referred to Dietrich von Hildebrand as a
20th century 'doctor of the church'. He held him in such regard.
>> >You seem to deny Mass in the Vernacular in general, even though you save
>> >the specifics for ICEL, which despite everything, was a COUNCIL decision,
>> Hardly. The Second Vatican Council never imagined 'new order'. It was
>> _not_ called for. It wasn't asked for. It wasn't what they expected.
>> Bing-bang, as they say.
>Or at least, so says the fellows who lost the vote...
There _was_ no vote. There was the Concilium. There was Bugnini. There
were the 'experts'. There was no vote.
>> Don't think the orthodox Faith is so easy to ignore. Remember, if you
>> will, that the whole point of The Faith - is God. The 'better way'
>> sort always, and naturally, leave out Providence, the supernatural,
>> grace and miracles, and yes, judgment and calamity. Catholics know
>> better. Sure hope you agree. It's not so easy to put away The Faith
>> and put a substitute in its place.
>What makes you think that we're not the truly orthodox ones?
Because of tradition, and - what Catholics believe.
See, here's the thing. You can make up whatever you want. But you're
fighting God. There's a supernatural element here. Burn all the books.
Toss all the writings of the Saints out of the public libraries. And,
somehow, some way, what they wrote, what The Church taught, will still
be made available to you. It's no coincidence. We know - what
Catholics believe. The traditionalist press is booming right now. We
can read documents on 'the net'. We can know what orthodoxy is.
>The mass, originally, was in the vernacular. I mean really orginally,
>with the first masses during the first century.
The 'vernacular' is a Protestant scam, or generally a heretic's scam.
Always has been seen as such. You can't compare the primitive Church
with how Providence saw to it's development. To deny all that happened
in between is to continue to ignore the Vatican II proscription
against pursuing ancient practices simply because they seem novel or
ancient.
>Likewise, when the move was made from Greek to Latin, there was nobody in
>the Holy Roman Empire who didn't at least know a few words of Latin. The
>Mass was in Latin BECAUSE Latin was the vernacular of the time.
The Mass is in Latin, a dead language, in order to preserve the sense
of the Saints and Doctors, the sense of The Church, as language
changes all around, and of course to provide a common means of
understanding, which is not possible with assorted vernacular
'services'.
>Now, of course, we've been hit by a second tower of babble. Worldwide
>communication is not only mixing the tounges up, it's also causeing local
>groups to be more nationalistic than ever with language. There's no
>international culture to stop it, so it happens. Nobody learns Latin
>anymore, it's very much a dead language outside of the Academic world.
>And so now we have the mass translated into the vernacular.
I think in defending the Protestant take on this, you tend to prove
the point I make about this 'new religion' being little more than a
tarted up Protestantism.
>I see it as the church converting others by explaining things to them in a
>tounge they understand.
I understand the Latin. It's translated on the facing page, in the
vernacular. But it's said - in Latin.
>And if you had been born in 320 A.D., when the move to Latin was begining,
>you would have wanted to stay with the Greek.
No, rather with the mind of The Church, not the mind of Bugnini.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Hildebrand, wrote, took just the _name_ of the council, and basically
> >> wrote the documents themselves (and allowing for the oddly vauge
> >> language of the actual documents).
>
> >Sounds more like von Hildebrand was just a sore loser. They seem to come
> >out of EVERY council.
>
> I think a particular Pope referred to Dietrich von Hildebrand as a
> 20th century 'doctor of the church'. He held him in such regard.
Even a 'doctor of the church' sometimes resorts to human emotionalism.
> >Or at least, so says the fellows who lost the vote...
>
> There _was_ no vote. There was the Concilium. There was Bugnini. There
> were the 'experts'. There was no vote.
Then you deny that Vatican II wished for the mass to be translated?
I'm talking about the original decision, not the failings of ICEL in
following that order.
> >What makes you think that we're not the truly orthodox ones?
>
> Because of tradition, and - what Catholics believe.
I'm a Catholic to. What makes your choice of what to follow in tradition
superior to my choice of what to follow in tradition?
> See, here's the thing. You can make up whatever you want. But you're
> fighting God. There's a supernatural element here. Burn all the books.
> Toss all the writings of the Saints out of the public libraries. And,
> somehow, some way, what they wrote, what The Church taught, will still
> be made available to you. It's no coincidence. We know - what
> Catholics believe. The traditionalist press is booming right now. We
> can read documents on 'the net'. We can know what orthodoxy is.
I've yet to see ANYTHING other than your personal interpretation of
Orthdoxy go up against the vernacular.
> >The mass, originally, was in the vernacular. I mean really orginally,
> >with the first masses during the first century.
>
> The 'vernacular' is a Protestant scam, or generally a heretic's scam.
> Always has been seen as such. You can't compare the primitive Church
> with how Providence saw to it's development. To deny all that happened
> in between is to continue to ignore the Vatican II proscription
> against pursuing ancient practices simply because they seem novel or
> ancient.
And thus you've entirely missed the point of having the mass in english
instead of in a code that nobody under the age of 20 can understand.
> >Likewise, when the move was made from Greek to Latin, there was nobody in
> >the Holy Roman Empire who didn't at least know a few words of Latin. The
> >Mass was in Latin BECAUSE Latin was the vernacular of the time.
>
> The Mass is in Latin, a dead language, in order to preserve the sense
> of the Saints and Doctors, the sense of The Church, as language
> changes all around, and of course to provide a common means of
> understanding, which is not possible with assorted vernacular
> 'services'.
But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
> >Now, of course, we've been hit by a second tower of babble. Worldwide
> >communication is not only mixing the tounges up, it's also causeing local
> >groups to be more nationalistic than ever with language. There's no
> >international culture to stop it, so it happens. Nobody learns Latin
> >anymore, it's very much a dead language outside of the Academic world.
> >And so now we have the mass translated into the vernacular.
>
> I think in defending the Protestant take on this, you tend to prove
> the point I make about this 'new religion' being little more than a
> tarted up Protestantism.
It's not the Protestant take, take back your personal insult in saying so.
> >I see it as the church converting others by explaining things to them in a
> >tounge they understand.
>
> I understand the Latin. It's translated on the facing page, in the
> vernacular. But it's said - in Latin.
You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
> >And if you had been born in 320 A.D., when the move to Latin was begining,
> >you would have wanted to stay with the Greek.
>
> No, rather with the mind of The Church, not the mind of Bugnini.
Exactly the sort of thing the Greeks said, which is why they split off a
mere 700 years later to form their own denomination (Greek Orthodox).
Stephanie Rendino
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
>I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
>all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
>
>You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
>you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
>I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
>facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
Yes.
Yes!
YES!
Thank you, Ted, I've been trying to convey this to a lot of people and you
really said it well.
Padraic42
>Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
>>I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
>>all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
>>
>>You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
>>you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
>>I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
>>facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
>
>Yes.
>
>Yes!
>
>YES!
I don't think it's a question of taking English out of the Mass, but rather
keeping Latin in the Mass.
Vatican II didn't call for the total removal of latin. In fact, it called
for it to remain cherished.
It isn't either, or. Those who want to go back to before Vatican II want the
Mass entirely in Latin, those who go with the 'spirit of Vatican II' want to
keep the Mass entirely in English (or German, or Spanish, etc.)
Neither is correct.
This is part of the problem.
The 'Ultra-montanist' sees that both latin AND the secular language is to be
use din the Liturgy, according to Vaticna II.
The 'extremists' (on both sides) reject Vatican II in their own ways. And
'label' those who disagree with them incorrectly.
(Hence the 'personal' definitions of what an Ultra-montanist is.)
vmk
heard portions of latin in english masses before - they are beautiful and
give glory to God in their own way even if I didn't totally understand what
was being said. But I would think a mass performed entirely in latin would
disassociate itself from the community, the majority of whom don't
understand it.
--
Peace be with you :)
Padraic42
That is why Latin AND the vernacular were called on to be used together.
It has been accused that one would not understand what was being said. Is
that true?
Many people use other languages in expersions and know their meaning. Why
would latin be any different?
Are we expected to believe that no one knows what "Hossana in excelsis"
means?
Or "Pater Noster" or "Agnus Die'? Thes eare simple to learn and even simpler
to remember.
No one expecting the Church to say we need to hear the Gospel in Latin, or
respond to everything in latin.
And no doubt, the favorite part of far too many.
"Ite Missa est!"
Mark Johnson
>On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> Hildebrand, wrote, took just the _name_ of the council, and basically
>> >> wrote the documents themselves (and allowing for the oddly vauge
>> >> language of the actual documents).
>> >Sounds more like von Hildebrand was just a sore loser. They seem to come
>> >out of EVERY council.
>> I think a particular Pope referred to Dietrich von Hildebrand as a
>> 20th century 'doctor of the church'. He held him in such regard.
>Even a 'doctor of the church' sometimes resorts to human emotionalism.
I see. And Luther thought the Pope had overreached _his_ abilities,
too. You like to place yourself in judgment of Dietrich von
Hildebrand. And I'm almost sure you have no idea who he was.
>> >Or at least, so says the fellows who lost the vote...
>> There _was_ no vote. There was the Concilium. There was Bugnini. There
>> were the 'experts'. There was no vote.
>Then you deny that Vatican II wished for the mass to be translated?
Straw men will avail you little. Read what I wrote.
>I'm talking about the original decision, not the failings of ICEL in
>following that order.
The Concilium wasn't ICEL. It was 'ICEList', perhaps one might say.
But ICEL is a separate committee. The Concilium was specially created
to perform an end run on the normal and sensible chain of authority in
The Church, at the time.
>> >What makes you think that we're not the truly orthodox ones?
>> Because of tradition, and - what Catholics believe.
>I'm a Catholic to. What makes your choice of what to follow in tradition
>superior to my choice of what to follow in tradition?
Maybe you should be more specific, then. What's your tradition? You
know mine.
>> See, here's the thing. You can make up whatever you want. But you're
>> fighting God. There's a supernatural element here. Burn all the books.
>> Toss all the writings of the Saints out of the public libraries. And,
>> somehow, some way, what they wrote, what The Church taught, will still
>> be made available to you. It's no coincidence. We know - what
>> Catholics believe. The traditionalist press is booming right now. We
>> can read documents on 'the net'. We can know what orthodoxy is.
>I've yet to see ANYTHING other than your personal interpretation of
>Orthdoxy go up against the vernacular.
We can know what orthodoxy is. It's not a secret, particularly on 'the
net'. And I have some thoughts on 'new order' at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
interested. On other matters you might want to run a flyer by some of
the experts on EWTN, which is on-line at ewtn.com , and see what
_they_ say is official Church teaching. But it's not a secret. There
will be disagreements on issues not yet settled, on hypotheticals and
circumstances which seem unresolved. But not on matters of dogma.
>> >The mass, originally, was in the vernacular. I mean really orginally,
>> >with the first masses during the first century.
>> The 'vernacular' is a Protestant scam, or generally a heretic's scam.
>> Always has been seen as such. You can't compare the primitive Church
>> with how Providence saw to it's development. To deny all that happened
>> in between is to continue to ignore the Vatican II proscription
>> against pursuing ancient practices simply because they seem novel or
>> ancient.
>And thus you've entirely missed the point of having the mass in english
>instead of in a code that nobody under the age of 20 can understand.
Then you presume no one under 20 can read. You contradict yourself all
through this.
>> >Likewise, when the move was made from Greek to Latin, there was nobody in
>> >the Holy Roman Empire who didn't at least know a few words of Latin. The
>> >Mass was in Latin BECAUSE Latin was the vernacular of the time.
>> The Mass is in Latin, a dead language, in order to preserve the sense
>> of the Saints and Doctors, the sense of The Church, as language
>> changes all around, and of course to provide a common means of
>> understanding, which is not possible with assorted vernacular
>> 'services'.
>But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
>I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
>all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
Then you're ignorant, is all. And that's _not_ a permanent condition,
despite what some would say. I have some links to books on the subject
of The Holy Mass, written by Saints and others, at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
If you're not - your decision. But I'm just trying to help.
>> >Now, of course, we've been hit by a second tower of babble. Worldwide
>> >communication is not only mixing the tounges up, it's also causeing local
>> >groups to be more nationalistic than ever with language. There's no
>> >international culture to stop it, so it happens. Nobody learns Latin
>> >anymore, it's very much a dead language outside of the Academic world.
>> >And so now we have the mass translated into the vernacular.
>> I think in defending the Protestant take on this, you tend to prove
>> the point I make about this 'new religion' being little more than a
>> tarted up Protestantism.
>It's not the Protestant take, take back your personal insult in saying so.
It clearly is Protestant, and incorporates rationalism, of course, and
then also the paganism that the rationalist seems always so fascinated
by. Take it personally, don't. Whatever. But the new religion clearly
is so similar to Protestantism, in retaining some of The Faith that
they call themselves Christian while they hunt down Catholics in
Ireland for ex. (which is an historical ex.), but no so much that they
follow the fundamental rules and life of the Catholic Saints - whom
they generally hold in contempt, and studied indifference. It's
heresy. It's picking and choosing this bit, but not that bit. The
Catholic confesses is ALL - All that the Saints and Doctors confessed,
all that God wants us to confess, in order to amend our lives, and
participate in our salvation, and even that of others (as was the ex.
of the late Mother Teresa).
>> I understand the Latin. It's translated on the facing page, in the
>> vernacular. But it's said - in Latin.
>You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
>you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
Then there we are, on opposite sides of the divide. I guess I couldn't
have put it better, myself. You don't seem to understand that your
complaint about this 'new order' is just the complaint of the Saints
and Doctors with regard to The Holy Mass, The Latin Mass. Don't know
what to say, beyond that.
>I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
>facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
But that _is_ the Protestant sense - preaching, not Sacraments. The
purpose of The Holy Mass is _not_ the sermon. It's not 'the readings'.
It may be for 'new order'. It is, certainly, for various of the
historical Protestant services. That's why people go - to hear the
preacher expound. But that's not what Catholics do. That's not why
there's Mass. There's a Sacrament and a Sacrifice involved. That's not
true of Protestantism. I don't think it's true of 'new order', either.
>> >And if you had been born in 320 A.D., when the move to Latin was begining,
>> >you would have wanted to stay with the Greek.
>> No, rather with the mind of The Church, not the mind of Bugnini.
>Exactly the sort of thing the Greeks said, which is why they split off a
>mere 700 years later to form their own denomination (Greek Orthodox).
I don't think the man was Greek. And The Church is the One, Apostolic,
Holy, Catholic, and I would redundantly add, Roman, Church - as the
Popes have attested. I said not with the mind of Bugnini. And you
ignored that, and compared me with a Greek schismatic, which I'm not.
I wrote, with the mind of The Church, and you ignored it. I'll just
say that it's really _better_ to read what I write, rather than
whatever straw man you can quickly cobble together. That's the whole
point of UseNet, perhaps, is that the other person _doesn't_ always
respond the way you had anticipated (much like life, in general).
Btw, have you read the book, cited below? It might help you understand
some of what I refer to, at times.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
> >you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
> >I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
> >facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
>
> Yes.
>
> Thank you, Ted, I've been trying to convey this to a lot of people and you
> really said it well.
You can thank Scott Hahn, I only stole his argument :-). But his argument
did hit home with me. It's on his seminar _Becoming a Catholic Even if
you already are one_ from St. Joseph Press.
Theodore M. Seeber
> I don't think it's a question of taking English out of the Mass, but rather
> keeping Latin in the Mass.
>
> Vatican II didn't call for the total removal of latin. In fact, it called
> for it to remain cherished.
And it has, in my archdiocese, latin is used in the High Mass by the
Archbishop.
> The 'Ultra-montanist' sees that both latin AND the secular language is to be
> use din the Liturgy, according to Vaticna II.
>
> The 'extremists' (on both sides) reject Vatican II in their own ways. And
> 'label' those who disagree with them incorrectly.
>
> (Hence the 'personal' definitions of what an Ultra-montanist is.)
Ok, I misunderstood. In that case, I am an Ultra-montanist: I want to
see the secular language to be used for common liturgy and the Latin to be
used for High mass.
KayJay
I would LOVE to have a Latin mass every now and then...
why not both? Why not Latin every so often, or on special days, or
even the early mass could be Latin, the other English? I'm not sure
I understand the either/or instead of both/and.
KayJay
--------
Judith 16:9
KayJay
My pet theory is that VAt. II was driven by ethno-centric North Americans
who barely scrape their way through ONE other language in high school,
unlike our European counterparts who are bilingual, if not tri-lingual, if
they get to higher education. The arrogance of not being able to learn
less than an hours worth of text!!! Oh what a burden... having to learn
what the latin means... sheesh.
These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Even a 'doctor of the church' sometimes resorts to human emotionalism.
>
> I see. And Luther thought the Pope had overreached _his_ abilities,
> too.
No....Luther thought that the bishops and archbishops of Germany had
overreached THEIR abilities (in the Papally banned practice of selling
indulgences), and he was just a little bit impatient about getting the
Pope to DO something about it.
A lot like you, actually.
> >I'm a Catholic to. What makes your choice of what to follow in tradition
> >superior to my choice of what to follow in tradition?
>
> Maybe you should be more specific, then. What's your tradition? You
> know mine.
Mine includes a few councils since Trent.
Including one in 1963 that IMNSHO, was eccumenical in it's reach.
> >I've yet to see ANYTHING other than your personal interpretation of
> >Orthdoxy go up against the vernacular.
>
> We can know what orthodoxy is. It's not a secret, particularly on 'the
> net'.
On the net, any nut can write whatever they want. It's not like it's
actuall church documents.
> And I have some thoughts on 'new order' at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
> interested. On other matters you might want to run a flyer by some of
> the experts on EWTN, which is on-line at ewtn.com , and see what
> _they_ say is official Church teaching. But it's not a secret. There
> will be disagreements on issues not yet settled, on hypotheticals and
> circumstances which seem unresolved. But not on matters of dogma.
And I can listen to NCCB, and see what they say is official church
teaching.
And I can listen to the Vatican, and see what they say is official church
teaching.
And I can listen to CTA and see what they say is official church teaching.
But the point is that all of these interpretations of "official church
teaching" are different. And there's only one of all of the above that
has the right of Apostolic Succession to say what "official Church
teaching" is, and you Mark, are not he.
> >And thus you've entirely missed the point of having the mass in english
> >instead of in a code that nobody under the age of 20 can understand.
>
> Then you presume no one under 20 can read. You contradict yourself all
> through this.
These days, worldwide, a majority of people under the age of 20 can't
read, Mark. I chided a American Protestant convert for this bias just
today.
> >But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
> >I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
> >all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
>
> Then you're ignorant, is all. And that's _not_ a permanent condition,
> despite what some would say. I have some links to books on the subject
> of The Holy Mass, written by Saints and others, at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
> If you're not - your decision. But I'm just trying to help.
My point is that most people ARE ignorant. No teaching is being imparted
in a Latin mass anymore, it's just a nice ritual, that's all. Nothing of
the mass is really left to understand, and hasn't been for _centuries_
now. There's a reason why the latin rite mass has bells rung for the
consecration of the Eucharist: to wake up the yokels that don't
understand to the most important part of the mass.
> It clearly is Protestant, and incorporates rationalism, of course, and
> then also the paganism that the rationalist seems always so fascinated
> by.
It is not protestant, that's a lie and you know it.
> Take it personally, don't. Whatever. But the new religion clearly
> is so similar to Protestantism, in retaining some of The Faith that
> they call themselves Christian while they hunt down Catholics in
> Ireland for ex. (which is an historical ex.), but no so much that they
> follow the fundamental rules and life of the Catholic Saints - whom
> they generally hold in contempt, and studied indifference. It's
> heresy. It's picking and choosing this bit, but not that bit. The
> Catholic confesses is ALL - All that the Saints and Doctors confessed,
> all that God wants us to confess, in order to amend our lives, and
> participate in our salvation, and even that of others (as was the ex.
> of the late Mother Teresa).
So you believe that you should stand on top of a column on a 3ftX3ft
platform to pray? After all, a saint confessed it and lived it for 34
years.
Be carefull when you use words like All if you're going to complain about
others using them.
And it's still not Protestant, because transubstantiation exists.
> >You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
> >you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
>
> Then there we are, on opposite sides of the divide. I guess I couldn't
> have put it better, myself. You don't seem to understand that your
> complaint about this 'new order' is just the complaint of the Saints
> and Doctors with regard to The Holy Mass, The Latin Mass. Don't know
> what to say, beyond that.
Except, of course, that the local mass isn't being said for the Saints and
Doctors to learn from, but rather, for the local parishoners to learn
from....
> >I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
> >facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
>
> But that _is_ the Protestant sense - preaching, not Sacraments.
No, you've got it backwards. The Protestant sense is READING, the
Catholic sense is PROCLAIMING. There's a reason why we don't just say
"everybody be quiet, take out your bibles, and read the following
passage", but instead have a lector. (unlike the protestants)
There's a reason we have the MASS instead of just a parody play in a
language no one understands.
> The
> purpose of The Holy Mass is _not_ the sermon. It's not 'the readings'.
Then you need to go back and find out why the Holy Mass even bothers with
a Liturgy of the Word.
> It may be for 'new order'. It is, certainly, for various of the
> historical Protestant services. That's why people go - to hear the
> preacher expound. But that's not what Catholics do. That's not why
> there's Mass. There's a Sacrament and a Sacrifice involved. That's not
> true of Protestantism. I don't think it's true of 'new order', either.
It is true of some Protestant circles of the fourth wave. They have ONLY
a communion service, with bible study separate (the Mormons are a good
example, they even separate the sexes for the bible study).
Only BOTH liturgy of the Eucharist AND liturgy of the Word is Holy Mass.
> >Exactly the sort of thing the Greeks said, which is why they split off a
> >mere 700 years later to form their own denomination (Greek Orthodox).
>
> I don't think the man was Greek. And The Church is the One, Apostolic,
> Holy, Catholic, and I would redundantly add, Roman, Church - as the
> Popes have attested. I said not with the mind of Bugnini. And you
> ignored that, and compared me with a Greek schismatic, which I'm not.
My point is this: To deny a council over language of the mass is to make
yourself the same as the Greek schismatics. I suggest you answer that
charge. Bugnini is not the entire mind of the Church, the Councils and
the Popes are.
> Btw, have you read the book, cited below? It might help you understand
> some of what I refer to, at times.
I've been unable to find it. But I'll keep looking.
Then again, I'm not a Celtic Catholic either.
So it probabally wouldn't help.
What you've got to remember is that you can't deny the current Pope and
still be considered Catholic.
Stephanie Rendino
>
>> These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
>> well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
>> ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
>
>It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
>PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
>Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
>Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
>created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
I was reciting a Marian prayer in Latin one night and suddenly realized,
"I'm praying to Mary in the language of the people who KILLED HER SON!"
I stopped that right quick.
Vernacular for me, please.
Stephanie Rendino
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> >you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
>> >facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Ted, I've been trying to convey this to a lot of people and you
>> really said it well.
>
>You can thank Scott Hahn, I only stole his argument :-). But his argument
>did hit home with me. It's on his seminar _Becoming a Catholic Even if
>you already are one_ from St. Joseph Press.
I know he's very popular, and I've heard nothing but good things about
him. When I stop being so poor I'll head off to the Diocesan Bookroom and
look for his work.
KayJay
> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, KayJay wrote:
>
> > These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
> > well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
> > ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
>
> True enough, but that isn't what makes it a "dead language".
:) It's been a long day. I *did* actually know that...
> It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
> PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
Ich weiss das.
> Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
> Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
> created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
I know..but it's so PRETTY!!!!!
<smirk>
> Ted
KJ
Theodore M. Seeber
> These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
> well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
> ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
True enough, but that isn't what makes it a "dead language".
It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
Theodore M. Seeber
> I was reciting a Marian prayer in Latin one night and suddenly realized,
> "I'm praying to Mary in the language of the people who KILLED HER SON!"
>
> I stopped that right quick.
>
> Vernacular for me, please.
I never thought about it from that angle.
Perhaps because I always viewed Pontius Pilate the same way I view
Clinton, stuck trying to please all of the people all of the time, and
never getting to be emperor because of it, and being remembered for an act
that was basically a rubber stamp of the church.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >Even a 'doctor of the church' sometimes resorts to human emotionalism.
>> I see. And Luther thought the Pope had overreached _his_ abilities,
>> too.
>No....Luther thought that the bishops and archbishops of Germany had
>overreached THEIR abilities (in the Papally banned practice of selling
>indulgences), and he was just a little bit impatient about getting the
>Pope to DO something about it.
>A lot like you, actually.
Not exactly. Luther's beef, as such, was literally with the Pope. And
not just that, but the very idea of papal authority, and primacy. If
anyone's like Luther in this - it ain't me. As for fair play here, and
as for yourself, come to your own conclusion.
>> >I'm a Catholic to. What makes your choice of what to follow in tradition
>> >superior to my choice of what to follow in tradition?
>> Maybe you should be more specific, then. What's your tradition? You
>> know mine.
>Mine includes a few councils since Trent.
>Including one in 1963 that IMNSHO, was eccumenical in it's reach.
That didn't answer the question. What's your tradition? We suffer from
the worst heresy to afflict The Church. And you seem to defend that,
in part. Is _that_ your tradition?
>> >I've yet to see ANYTHING other than your personal interpretation of
>> >Orthdoxy go up against the vernacular.
>> We can know what orthodoxy is. It's not a secret, particularly on 'the
>> net'.
>On the net, any nut can write whatever they want. It's not like it's
>actuall church documents.
They actually _is_ church documents. That's just what I meant, and the
writings of the fathers, and that of Saints and Doctors, and various
other things. It's a paradox, perhaps, that in the midst of the
greatest heresy to afflict The Church, Militant, the very dogma being
violated and questioned is readily available to anyone who would take
the time to read it after setting up an account with some ISP.
>> And I have some thoughts on 'new order' at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
>> interested. On other matters you might want to run a flyer by some of
>> the experts on EWTN, which is on-line at ewtn.com , and see what
>> _they_ say is official Church teaching. But it's not a secret. There
>> will be disagreements on issues not yet settled, on hypotheticals and
>> circumstances which seem unresolved. But not on matters of dogma.
>And I can listen to NCCB, and see what they say is official church
>teaching.
>And I can listen to the Vatican, and see what they say is official church
>teaching.
Would you?
>And I can listen to CTA and see what they say is official church teaching.
You could. But what would be the point?
>But the point is that all of these interpretations of "official church
>teaching" are different. And there's only one of all of the above that
>has the right of Apostolic Succession to say what "official Church
>teaching" is, and you Mark, are not he.
Straw men don't jump, I guess. You falsely accuse me of saying
something I never did. I didn't write all that stuff on 'the net'. I
didn't write the encyclicals. I didn't come up with the Creed. I
didn't invent - what Catholics believe. I simply point out what it is.
>> >And thus you've entirely missed the point of having the mass in english
>> >instead of in a code that nobody under the age of 20 can understand.
>> Then you presume no one under 20 can read. You contradict yourself all
>> through this.
>These days, worldwide, a majority of people under the age of 20 can't
>read, Mark. I chided a American Protestant convert for this bias just
>today.
Nobody covers a lot of . . . bias. I'm the first to complain about
illiteracy among American gubment schoolkids. But not everyone goes to
gubment school.
>> >But that's NOT why the mass was originally put into Latin. And as far as
>> >I'm concerned these days, a mass in Latin might as well be in Martian for
>> >all the teaching it imparts. Nice ritual, no meaning left.
>> Then you're ignorant, is all. And that's _not_ a permanent condition,
>> despite what some would say. I have some links to books on the subject
>> of The Holy Mass, written by Saints and others, at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
>> If you're not - your decision. But I'm just trying to help.
>My point is that most people ARE ignorant. No teaching is being imparted
>in a Latin mass anymore, it's just a nice ritual, that's all.
_You_ are ignorant of this. Don't worry about "most people." Read some
of the things mentioned on that URL, above. It's not like you can't
learn.
>the mass is really left to understand, and hasn't been for _centuries_
>now. There's a reason why the latin rite mass has bells rung for the
>consecration of the Eucharist: to wake up the yokels that don't
>understand to the most important part of the mass.
Ignorant. Just ignorant.
Rednecks, they say, are ignorant, y'know. They say that's why they do
redneck mischief, and violence. Librals are ignorant, y'know. They say
that's why they tend to believe 'Soldier Willie's denials. Don't be
like that. You can read. So read.
>> It clearly is Protestant, and incorporates rationalism, of course, and
>> then also the paganism that the rationalist seems always so fascinated
>> by.
>It is not protestant, that's a lie and you know it.
I know no such thing. Read on.
>> Take it personally, don't. Whatever. But the new religion clearly
>> is so similar to Protestantism, in retaining some of The Faith that
>> they call themselves Christian while they hunt down Catholics in
>> Ireland for ex. (which is an historical ex.), but no so much that they
>> follow the fundamental rules and life of the Catholic Saints - whom
>> they generally hold in contempt, and studied indifference. It's
>> heresy. It's picking and choosing this bit, but not that bit. The
>> Catholic confesses is ALL - All that the Saints and Doctors confessed,
>> all that God wants us to confess, in order to amend our lives, and
>> participate in our salvation, and even that of others (as was the ex.
>> of the late Mother Teresa).
>So you believe that you should stand on top of a column on a 3ftX3ft
>platform to pray? After all, a saint confessed it and lived it for 34
>years.
>Be carefull when you use words like All if you're going to complain about
>others using them.
All the Saints and Doctors. It's categorical. They wouldn't be Saints
and Doctors, otherwise. A Catholic confesses - what Catholics believe.
The rest is their own idiosyncratic practice, placed on them by God,
perhaps due even to their own misunderstanding or excess - who knows?
Even the Saints aren't perfect. But they are dutiful. And they are
obedient. You can't really say that about those pushing the new
religion.
>And it's still not Protestant, because transubstantiation exists.
'New order' appears invalid on its face. I have some thoughts on this
at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
interested.
>> >You do, I do not. To take away my English mass from me, which is what
>> >you're trying to do, is to take away Christ from me.
>> Then there we are, on opposite sides of the divide. I guess I couldn't
>> have put it better, myself. You don't seem to understand that your
>> complaint about this 'new order' is just the complaint of the Saints
>> and Doctors with regard to The Holy Mass, The Latin Mass. Don't know
>> what to say, beyond that.
>Except, of course, that the local mass isn't being said for the Saints and
>Doctors to learn from, but rather, for the local parishoners to learn
>from....
The Protestant attends services to hear the preacher preach. The
Saints didn't.
You keep making my point for me.
>> >I want to HEAR the teachings of Christ, not read the translation on the
>> >facing page. There's more to the teachings of Christ than can be printed.
>> But that _is_ the Protestant sense - preaching, not Sacraments.
>No, you've got it backwards. The Protestant sense is READING, the
>Catholic sense is PROCLAIMING. There's a reason why we don't just say
>"everybody be quiet, take out your bibles, and read the following
>passage", but instead have a lector. (unlike the protestants)
>There's a reason we have the MASS instead of just a parody play in a
>language no one understands.
Wow! I pray you see the offense in this, some day. You shouldn't be
writing stuff like this.
>> purpose of The Holy Mass is _not_ the sermon. It's not 'the readings'.
>Then you need to go back and find out why the Holy Mass even bothers with
>a Liturgy of the Word.
I'm just here to tell you that's not the purpose of The Mass. It may
be for 'new order'. It may be for other Protestant services. But it's
not the point of The Holy Mass. Don't confuse it with 'new order'. As
I wrote:
>> It may be for 'new order'. It is, certainly, for various of the
>> historical Protestant services. That's why people go - to hear the
>> preacher expound. But that's not what Catholics do. That's not why
>> there's Mass. There's a Sacrament and a Sacrifice involved. That's not
>> true of Protestantism. I don't think it's true of 'new order', either.
>It is true of some Protestant circles of the fourth wave. They have ONLY
>a communion service, with bible study separate (the Mormons are a good
>example, they even separate the sexes for the bible study).
>Only BOTH liturgy of the Eucharist AND liturgy of the Word is Holy Mass.
Didn't Cranmer have as much? or claimed to? How about the Lutheran?
Anyone else come to mind?
>> >Exactly the sort of thing the Greeks said, which is why they split off a
>> >mere 700 years later to form their own denomination (Greek Orthodox).
>> I don't think the man was Greek. And The Church is the One, Apostolic,
>> Holy, Catholic, and I would redundantly add, Roman, Church - as the
>> Popes have attested. I said not with the mind of Bugnini. And you
>> ignored that, and compared me with a Greek schismatic, which I'm not.
>My point is this: To deny a council
Not me, Ted. That was Bugnini, and the 'experts', and those making the
end run around proper channels in the institutional church to get this
'new order' in place, and the iconoclasm, and the rest that was set
upon the faithful and orthodox in the 60s and 70s. As von Hildebrand,
whom you hold in such little regard because you have no clue who he
was, wrote - the 'spirit of' gang took just the _name_ of the council,
and made up the rest. They deny the council. Not me. I think Vatican
II may not have the standing to be listed along with Trent and the
rest. But that's for others to decide. And I think if the 'spirit of'
sort had adhered to the letter of the poorly crafted Vatican II
documents, much of what we see would never have been possible.
>over language of the mass is to make
>yourself the same as the Greek schismatics. I suggest you answer that
>charge. Bugnini is not the entire mind of the Church, the Councils and
>the Popes are.
So why do you deny _them_? It's either or, here, Ted. Either you abide
by The Church then, or the institutional heretics today. But there is
a clear contradiction. It is, after all, The Magisterium which holds
against 'new order'. It is holy tradition that the 'reformers' held in
such contempt.
>> Btw, have you read the book, cited below? It might help you understand
>> some of what I refer to, at times.
>I've been unable to find it. But I'll keep looking.
Click on the URL. It'll take you right there. It's a short book, and
it's on-line. Can't understand any problem you'd have, unless their
server is down.
>Then again, I'm not a Celtic Catholic either.
If I could find a similar book about the Italian, or Portuguese
experience, the Polish or the like, I'd post it, too.
>What you've got to remember is that you can't deny the current Pope and
>still be considered Catholic.
I can very much deny the Pope is right on matters which are not
protected by God, The Holy Spirit. The Pope can say what he wants on
evolution. Doesn't mean he's right. He can approve altar girls.
Doesn't mean he's right, and particularly for the very reasons given
by those defending him prior to such an edict, such as Mother Teresa
did. The promulgation of 'new order' was not an infallible decree.
Nothing of Vatican II was infallible, save that it strictly reflected
what _already_ had been declared as infallible dogma.
See, here's the thing. Those who say ANY, and I mean absolutely any,
liturgy is valid if promulgated by the Pope forget the standard that
Catholics bear. They forget humility before God. They idolize the
institution, in the way somewhat that the Pharisees did their own.
They become guilty of all the sins the Protestants used to accuse the
Catholic of, at a time when Catholics were _not_ guilty of such. It's
ironic.
And part of the problem is that those who insist upon this double
standard, like those who impose such in the secular realm, in this age
of the media Democrat and their 'Orwellian' newsspeak that passes for
'news', refuse to confess the heresy currently besetting The Church.
The conservative and orthodox, the Catholic, hated by many in the
institutional church, see very clearly what has happened, and flock to
The Mass, and the Sacraments properly administered by faithful
priests. As in old Ireland, this sort of priest is the enemy of the
powers that be. He is hunted down for daring to serve Our Lord, rather
than preach to Him. Pray for good and holy priests. Pray that the
imposters in the trendy parish down the block either turn in the
collar, or come up with a name, at last, for their new denomination.
janet
KayJay <kjco...@julian.uwo.ca> said unto us:
>
>My pet theory is that VAt. II was driven by ethno-centric North Americans
>who barely scrape their way through ONE other language in high school,
>unlike our European counterparts who are bilingual, if not tri-lingual, if
>they get to higher education. The arrogance of not being able to learn
>less than an hours worth of text!!! Oh what a burden... having to learn
>what the latin means... sheesh.
>
>well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
>ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
>
Hear, hear!!!
However, I can see both sides... And Pat's right, the council DIDN'T
say to do away with Latin altogether! ;)
(Yes, my kids CAN sing a Latin Mass... maybe not well, but they can do
it!). ;)
(But I prefer Italian to sing in.... more rolled rrrrrssss.....) ;)
>
>--------
>Judith 16:9
>
--
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
Alan Craft
>
>I would LOVE to have a Latin mass every now and then...
>
>why not both? Why not Latin every so often, or on special days, or
>even the early mass could be Latin, the other English? I'm not sure
>I understand the either/or instead of both/and.
>
>
>KayJay
>
>--------
>Judith 16:9
I agree wholeheartedly...but how could such be brought about?
Alternation is good...could be done in different ways. On Holydays
of Obligation...at least at first...to get people used to it...in that we
don't have many Holydays to begin with. Then, it could be spread
to what you suggested...English/Latin.
I understand your capitalised "LOVE"...makes you wanna bust up
into the Vatican and blare at the man...
"YO! WE WANT LATIN!"
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, KayJay wrote:
>
>> These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
>> well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
>> ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
>
>It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
>PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
>Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
>Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
>created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
>Ted
Um, have a look at modern Romainian.... I think it's pretty much Latin!
;)
Kevin Beach
>
> I was reciting a Marian prayer in Latin one night and suddenly realized,
> "I'm praying to Mary in the language of the people who KILLED HER SON!"
>
> I stopped that right quick.
>
> Vernacular for me, please.
What language did Jesus use when he spoke to the centurion and to
Pilate?
Kevin
Kevin Beach
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98082...@user2.teleport.com>
> , Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
> >On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, KayJay wrote:
> >
> >> These tired arguments about Latin being a dead language raise my ire as
> >> well... Latin is logical, fairly easy to grasp, and beautiful to sing in..
> >> ahhhh not a dipthong in sight...
> >
> >True enough, but that isn't what makes it a "dead language".
> >It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
> >PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
> >Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
> >Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
> >created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
> >Ted
>
> Um, have a look at modern Romainian.... I think it's pretty much Latin!
> ;)
> --
> janet
I have. It's no more Latin than French is. It's less Latin than
Itilian is. Romanian has got a lot of slavic vocabulary in it. It's
structure and some of its pronunciation are recognisably Romance, but it
can't claim to be modern Latin any more than any other deriviative can.
Now, I believe that there is a dialect in central Sardinia which is
quite similar to Latin, but I don't know much about it.
Kevin
Stephanie Rendino
KayJay <kjco...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
>
>I would LOVE to have a Latin mass every now and then...
>
>why not both? Why not Latin every so often, or on special days, or
>even the early mass could be Latin, the other English? I'm not sure
>I understand the either/or instead of both/and.
If I were miraculously transformed into a guy, I would get ordained (after
I got over the wonder of peeing standing up) and if made a bishop I'd have
a diocese that offered both female altar servers on one side AND a
Tridentine indult.
Told everybody I was a moderate.
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.98082...@panther.uwo.ca>,
> KayJay <kjco...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >
> >I would LOVE to have a Latin mass every now and then...
> >
> >why not both? Why not Latin every so often, or on special days, or
> >even the early mass could be Latin, the other English? I'm not sure
> >I understand the either/or instead of both/and.
>
> If I were miraculously transformed into a guy, I would get ordained (after
> I got over the wonder of peeing standing up)
You'd never get over it...I never have. (Massive guffaws!)
> and if made a bishop I'd have
> a diocese that offered both female altar servers on one side AND a
> Tridentine indult.
>
> Told everybody I was a moderate.
Our bishop tells people he's a moderate...and he wants any member of the
faithful who request an indult Mass to undergo psychological testing...
--
Steve
"We are in schism." Fr. John Hardon, July 11, 1998
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
> > Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
> > created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
>
> I know..but it's so PRETTY!!!!!
> <smirk>
As Scott Hahn said after hearing his first Latin Mass: Some of us just
have no sense of what is beautiful.
And he was talking about himself.
That's how I feel, partially. In Zen like fashion, I like the Latin and I
don't have to understand to get something from the ritual. But for
learning, for an idea to be pretty, I must first understand.
janet
<kevin...@mcmail.com> said unto us:
>
>
>I have. It's no more Latin than French is. It's less Latin than
>Itilian is. Romanian has got a lot of slavic vocabulary in it. It's
>structure and some of its pronunciation are recognisably Romance, but it
>can't claim to be modern Latin any more than any other deriviative can.
>Now, I believe that there is a dialect in central Sardinia which is
>quite similar to Latin, but I don't know much about it.
See what you learn?? Thanks! :)
I'd been told Romanian was Latin with an accent, but apparently I was
told wrong... :)
Italian isn't all that Latin. There are a lot of cognates, of course,
but in general, Italian doesn't decline....
Sardinia, I don't know about... ??
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsouth.boredom.net> wrote:
>Our bishop tells people he's a moderate...and he wants any member of the
>faithful who request an indult Mass to undergo psychological testing...
Obviously he and I have different ideas of what is "moderate". I'm the
one who is correct, of course. :) No, seriously. The Tridentine Mass is
NOT my thing as you well know, but it is special spiritual nourishment for
quite a lot of people. Others don't want it regularly, but find it to be
a pleasant experience once in a while. Since it's absolutely permitted by
Rome, were I a bishop I would permit it. Since participation by young
women at the altar is likewise allowed, I would permit that too. I'd want
everyone in my flock to have recourse to what fed them most, according to
the rules. And they allow for a good deal of variety!
Legatus
> In article <legatus-2108...@host-209-214-200-129.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> Legatus <leg...@bellsouth.boredom.net> wrote:
>
> >Our bishop tells people he's a moderate...and he wants any member of the
> >faithful who request an indult Mass to undergo psychological testing...
I don't normally respond to my own stuff, but when I re-read this when I
saw your response, I realized I wasn't as clear as I intended...
When I say the bishop wants the faithful who request the indult Mass to
undergo psychological testing...I mean it LITERALLY. The requirements in
THIS diocese for the application of the indult involve a psych-profile of
any person making the request.
When I asked my parish priest what we had to go through to get the Roman
Mass, he told me "you're gonna have to see a psychiatrist first"...and I
laughed ...and then he showed me the documents from the chancery...and I
cried.
> Obviously he and I have different ideas of what is "moderate". I'm the
> one who is correct, of course. :) No, seriously. The Tridentine Mass is
> NOT my thing as you well know, but it is special spiritual nourishment for
> quite a lot of people. Others don't want it regularly, but find it to be
> a pleasant experience once in a while. Since it's absolutely permitted by
> Rome, were I a bishop I would permit it. Since participation by young
> women at the altar is likewise allowed, I would permit that too. I'd want
> everyone in my flock to have recourse to what fed them most, according to
> the rules. And they allow for a good deal of variety!
I have no problem with the indult for female servers at the Altar...as
long as it is used as it was intended...and NOT as a tool for change.
If all the bishops who immediately swung into action to allow "Altar
girls" had made a similar effort toward the Roman Mass, we'd be in a whole
different ballgame. Remember, most of bishops ORDERED parishes to use
females at the Altar at EVERY MASS.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >True enough, but that isn't what makes it a "dead language".
> >It's a dead language because NO NATION ON THE PLANET HAS IT AS AN OFFICIAL
> >PRIMARY TOUNGE. Even the vatican uses Italian these days.
> >Therefore, for the odd and ever lessening "chance convert off the street",
> >Latin is about the worst tounge from the eccumenical standpoint. And it's
> >created such ODD rumors about us among the anti-Catholics....
> >Ted
>
>
> Um, have a look at modern Romainian.... I think it's pretty much Latin!
> ;)
I know of two tounges from that area, which one are you talking about?
The language of the now ex-communistic country or the language of the
Gypsy sub-race?
Theodore M. Seeber
> Our bishop tells people he's a moderate...and he wants any member of the
> faithful who request an indult Mass to undergo psychological testing...
This seems odd. What about for funerals of very old and very respected
members of the parish? I don't remember his name, but when I was 12 or 13
(this would be early 1980s) a universally respected and retired Archbishop
of Portland finally died at (IIRC) 101 years of age. Because of the large
impact he had on the area, his funeral was televised, and was a curious
mixture of the Latin and Secular English (Parts of the Mass were in Latin,
but the music was in English because he had been a fan of the St. Louis
monks...I remember _On Eagle's Wings_ was sung) and I remember people
remarking as to how fitting it was due to his love for *both* the Latin
and the English masses (something about how he had been Archbishop at the
time that it changed).
It's a long time ago now. But I've met people who go to both St. Clare's
and St. Paul's who are of an age and level of respect that they *deserve*
a mass in Latin for their funeral. It would be sad if such wishes could
not be granted.
Legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Legatus wrote:
>
> > Our bishop tells people he's a moderate...and he wants any member of the
> > faithful who request an indult Mass to undergo psychological testing...
>
> This seems odd. What about for funerals of very old and very respected
> members of the parish? I don't remember his name, but when I was 12 or 13
> (this would be early 1980s) a universally respected and retired Archbishop
> of Portland finally died at (IIRC) 101 years of age. Because of the large
> impact he had on the area, his funeral was televised, and was a curious
> mixture of the Latin and Secular English (Parts of the Mass were in Latin,
> but the music was in English because he had been a fan of the St. Louis
> monks...I remember _On Eagle's Wings_ was sung) and I remember people
> remarking as to how fitting it was due to his love for *both* the Latin
> and the English masses (something about how he had been Archbishop at the
> time that it changed).
> It's a long time ago now. But I've met people who go to both St. Clare's
> and St. Paul's who are of an age and level of respect that they *deserve*
> a mass in Latin for their funeral. It would be sad if such wishes could
> not be granted.
We appear (as usual) to be talking about two completely different things.
The "Indulted Mass" is NOT the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. The Indulted
Mass is the Mass commonly referred to as the "Tridentine Mass". The
confusion comes in when people refer to the OLD MASS as "The Latin
Mass"...which is just plain wrong.
The Mass normally celebrated at any given parish in the United States is
"The Novus Ordo Mass" (and even THAT is wrong...because technically it's
"The Mass"). The Novus Ordo Mass may be celebrated in ANY
language...INCLUDING LATIN. It may be celebrated entirely in Latin or
partially in Latin...or entirely in English or whatever language the
celebrant chooses...an Ebonics translation is probably right behind the
Pig Latin one.
A parish priest does not need approval from anyone to celebrate the Mass
in Latin (or any combination of languages)...HOWEVER should a priest wish
to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of Pius V (aka, the
Tridentine Mass, the Roman Mass, The Old Mass...and yes even if
incorrectly, the "Latin" Mass) he must seek the permission of his bishop.
Many bishops have granted permission for some regulated use of the old
rite...MINE has NOT...and requires a psychological profile of any person
requesting application of the indult...after all, only a nutcase would
want the old Mass back. (that last bit was sarcasm)
Theodore M. Seeber
> >No....Luther thought that the bishops and archbishops of Germany had
> >overreached THEIR abilities (in the Papally banned practice of selling
> >indulgences), and he was just a little bit impatient about getting the
> >Pope to DO something about it.
> >A lot like you, actually.
>
> Not exactly. Luther's beef, as such, was literally with the Pope. And
> not just that, but the very idea of papal authority, and primacy. If
> anyone's like Luther in this - it ain't me. As for fair play here, and
> as for yourself, come to your own conclusion.
Then why did Luther appeal to the Pope if his beef was with the Pope?
Think about it a second. 75 of the 95 thesis were based on statements
made by the Pope and NOT FOLLOWED by the German archbishops of his day.
> >Mine includes a few councils since Trent.
> >Including one in 1963 that IMNSHO, was eccumenical in it's reach.
>
> That didn't answer the question. What's your tradition? We suffer from
> the worst heresy to afflict The Church. And you seem to defend that,
> in part. Is _that_ your tradition?
No, my tradition is that the Popes and Councils are infallible REGARDLESS
OF APPARENT CONFLICT. And that where such apparent conflict exists the
person who is pointing out the conflict usually hasn't read both sides of
the debate (is not privy to the same knowledge the Popes and the Councils
are privy to).
This is one of the basic axioms of my belief system, and while it can't
cover every concievable conflict (at some point, a corrupt Pope is a
corrupt Pope, but by that time, he's usually more interested in his
pocketbook than false teaching), and it's the brick wall I've reached with
you: The Pope says one thing, that the Italian and the ICEL are valid,
and you're saying another, that the Italian and ICEL are not. If I were
you, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church completely and find myself a
Traditional Schismatic parish. I really cannot understand how, when faced
with this contradiction, you cannot either yeild to Papal influence or
leave, I'd do one or the other, but I would not become "a worm in the
wood", undermining the faith of others in the papacy.
> >On the net, any nut can write whatever they want. It's not like it's
> >actuall church documents.
>
> They actually _is_ church documents.
No they're not. No way to transmit wax seals over electrons.
> That's just what I meant, and the
> writings of the fathers, and that of Saints and Doctors, and various
> other things. It's a paradox, perhaps, that in the midst of the
> greatest heresy to afflict The Church, Militant, the very dogma being
> violated and questioned is readily available to anyone who would take
> the time to read it after setting up an account with some ISP.
I'm not so sure it is. I've seen far too many hoaxes on the net to
believe ANYTHING I read on the net as gospel truth.
> >And I can listen to the Vatican, and see what they say is official church
> >teaching.
>
> Would you?
This one is in fact the ONLY one I'm willing to listen to, the only one
I'm willing to take teaching from, as has been the tradition for the last
25 years in my archdiocese.
> >And I can listen to CTA and see what they say is official church teaching.
>
> You could. But what would be the point?
It's about as usefull to me as reading your web page. As in, not very.
> >But the point is that all of these interpretations of "official church
> >teaching" are different. And there's only one of all of the above that
> >has the right of Apostolic Succession to say what "official Church
> >teaching" is, and you Mark, are not he.
>
> Straw men don't jump, I guess. You falsely accuse me of saying
> something I never did. I didn't write all that stuff on 'the net'. I
> didn't write the encyclicals. I didn't come up with the Creed. I
> didn't invent - what Catholics believe. I simply point out what it is.
In that case, don't point to your web page and tell me "what it is".
Point to the actual church documents and let me discover it for myself, if
in fact there is anything to discover (I personally think you're
complaints are all strawmen).
> >These days, worldwide, a majority of people under the age of 20 can't
> >read, Mark. I chided a American Protestant convert for this bias just
> >today.
>
> Nobody covers a lot of . . . bias. I'm the first to complain about
> illiteracy among American gubment schoolkids. But not everyone goes to
> gubment school.
And I'm not just saying America.
> >My point is that most people ARE ignorant. No teaching is being imparted
> >in a Latin mass anymore, it's just a nice ritual, that's all.
>
> _You_ are ignorant of this. Don't worry about "most people." Read some
> of the things mentioned on that URL, above. It's not like you can't
> learn.
I'd sooner believe a flying saucer with little green men than your URL.
And in fact, I've got URLs that have pictures of flying saucers with
little green men.... :-)
> >the mass is really left to understand, and hasn't been for _centuries_
> >now. There's a reason why the latin rite mass has bells rung for the
> >consecration of the Eucharist: to wake up the yokels that don't
> >understand to the most important part of the mass.
>
> Ignorant. Just ignorant.
>
> Rednecks, they say, are ignorant, y'know. They say that's why they do
> redneck mischief, and violence. Librals are ignorant, y'know. They say
> that's why they tend to believe 'Soldier Willie's denials. Don't be
> like that. You can read. So read.
My question is simple: Why should I believe you over the Pope?
He's saying one thing, you personally are saying something entirely
different. To oppose the pope is the essence of Protestantism, you know.
> I know no such thing. Read on.
I did, and give it the same consideration I give anybody teaching apart
from the current Magisterium: none at all.
> >So you believe that you should stand on top of a column on a 3ftX3ft
> >platform to pray? After all, a saint confessed it and lived it for 34
> >years.
> >Be carefull when you use words like All if you're going to complain about
> >others using them.
>
> All the Saints and Doctors. It's categorical. They wouldn't be Saints
> and Doctors, otherwise. A Catholic confesses - what Catholics believe.
As we do every Sunday in the creeds. So what?
> The rest is their own idiosyncratic practice, placed on them by God,
> perhaps due even to their own misunderstanding or excess - who knows?
> Even the Saints aren't perfect. But they are dutiful. And they are
> obedient. You can't really say that about those pushing the new
> religion.
Actually, there are three "new religions" being pushed here:
1 CTA-are impatient like Luther, they want to force the church into
changes it isn't ready for, may never be ready for.
2 Diocean-does their best to follow the Pope
3 Traditionalist-do their best to NOT follow the Pope and NOT change when
he asks them to.
Each one considers the others to be "new religion". But only one uses
Apostolic Authority.
> >And it's still not Protestant, because transubstantiation exists.
>
> 'New order' appears invalid on its face. I have some thoughts on this
> at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
> interested.
I'm not. I've read it a number of times and find it to be incomplete and
invalid on it's face. And I'll tell you why:
1. No Nihil Obstat
2. No Imprimature
3. Not from the Vatican.
In the end result, you can print out that web page and use it for toliet
paper, it does not contain church teaching.
> >Except, of course, that the local mass isn't being said for the Saints and
> >Doctors to learn from, but rather, for the local parishoners to learn
> >from....
>
> The Protestant attends services to hear the preacher preach. The
> Saints didn't.
The Church doesn't teach from the Preacher, the Church teaches from the
words of Jesus Christ.
And still does in the "New Order", which any Saint would be proud of, but
you Mark, are no saint.
> >No, you've got it backwards. The Protestant sense is READING, the
> >Catholic sense is PROCLAIMING. There's a reason why we don't just say
> >"everybody be quiet, take out your bibles, and read the following
> >passage", but instead have a lector. (unlike the protestants)
> >There's a reason we have the MASS instead of just a parody play in a
> >language no one understands.
>
> Wow! I pray you see the offense in this, some day. You shouldn't be
> writing stuff like this.
I'm pointing out that you're more like a Mormon than like a Catholic. It
should be offensive, I find your entire argument to be offensive and just
a little bit blasephamous.
> >Then you need to go back and find out why the Holy Mass even bothers with
> >a Liturgy of the Word.
>
> I'm just here to tell you that's not the purpose of The Mass. It may
> be for 'new order'. It may be for other Protestant services. But it's
> not the point of The Holy Mass. Don't confuse it with 'new order'.
The Liturgy of the WORD is not about the preacher, it's about the word of
God.
Rip away the Bible from the religion if you want to in your Trad
Schismatic churches. But you're not following Apostolic Tradition if you
do, you're inventing your own tradition.
> >It is true of some Protestant circles of the fourth wave. They have ONLY
> >a communion service, with bible study separate (the Mormons are a good
> >example, they even separate the sexes for the bible study).
> >Only BOTH liturgy of the Eucharist AND liturgy of the Word is Holy Mass.
>
> Didn't Cranmer have as much? or claimed to? How about the Lutheran?
> Anyone else come to mind?
Neither do, for the Liturgy of the Eucharist can only be performed by a
priest within the communion of Rome.
That last part is important. Within the communion of Rome. I'm not so
sure anymore, despite the indult, that the traditionalists are (for the
simple reason that they refuse to recognize the rest of the communion of
Rome as being valid).
The Eastern Orthodox, to us, are merely in schism. To them, we're
heretics. To me, the traditionalists are only in schism. To them, I'm a
heretic. As below.
> >> >Exactly the sort of thing the Greeks said, which is why they split off a
> >> >mere 700 years later to form their own denomination (Greek Orthodox).
>
> >My point is this: To deny a council
>
> Not me, Ted. That was Bugnini, and the 'experts', and those making the
> end run around proper channels in the institutional church to get this
> 'new order' in place, and the iconoclasm, and the rest that was set
> upon the faithful and orthodox in the 60s and 70s. As von Hildebrand,
> whom you hold in such little regard because you have no clue who he
> was, wrote - the 'spirit of' gang took just the _name_ of the council,
> and made up the rest. They deny the council. Not me. I think Vatican
> II may not have the standing to be listed along with Trent and the
> rest. But that's for others to decide. And I think if the 'spirit of'
> sort had adhered to the letter of the poorly crafted Vatican II
> documents, much of what we see would never have been possible.
Ok, back to stage one.
Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
verancular? This is a yes or no answer, and I will not accept anything
other than a yes or a no.
> So why do you deny _them_? It's either or, here, Ted. Either you abide
> by The Church then, or the institutional heretics today. But there is
> a clear contradiction. It is, after all, The Magisterium which holds
> against 'new order'. It is holy tradition that the 'reformers' held in
> such contempt.
Either the Magisterium is, in it's entirety, whole and true, regardless of
your personal opinion of some sort of "contradiction" or it's not. My
faith rests on it being whole and true. If it's not, then I suggest you
are no longer a Roman Catholic.
> Click on the URL. It'll take you right there. It's a short book, and
> it's on-line. Can't understand any problem you'd have, unless their
> server is down.
I'm not living in gui-land. I'm a unix man. Hadn't even noticed the URL.
> >Then again, I'm not a Celtic Catholic either.
>
> If I could find a similar book about the Italian, or Portuguese
> experience, the Polish or the like, I'd post it, too.
How about a book about the American Catholic experience? I'd suggest you
start with Scott Hahn's _Rome_Sweet_Home_.
He dealt with all of the issues you've brought up and then some.
> >What you've got to remember is that you can't deny the current Pope and
> >still be considered Catholic.
>
> I can very much deny the Pope is right on matters which are not
> protected by God, The Holy Spirit.
And the Holy Mass is definitely protected by God, The Holy Spirit. You
can't narrowly define it to only the Trinidine and still be on solid
ground if the Pope does not support you in entirety.
> The Pope can say what he wants on
> evolution. Doesn't mean he's right.
Once again, matter of faith. Either he's right or he isn't, and if he
isn't, then we've got a severe connection problem to the Holy Spirit.
> He can approve altar girls.
Matter of the Holy Mass, which is a matter for the Holy Spirit, not for
you.
> Doesn't mean he's right, and particularly for the very reasons given
> by those defending him prior to such an edict, such as Mother Teresa
> did. The promulgation of 'new order' was not an infallible decree.
He's Pope. He's final authority, not some nut with a computer.
> Nothing of Vatican II was infallible, save that it strictly reflected
> what _already_ had been declared as infallible dogma.
Nothing of anything is new in the Church, no matter what you name it.
> See, here's the thing. Those who say ANY, and I mean absolutely any,
> liturgy is valid if promulgated by the Pope forget the standard that
> Catholics bear. They forget humility before God. They idolize the
> institution, in the way somewhat that the Pharisees did their own.
> They become guilty of all the sins the Protestants used to accuse the
> Catholic of, at a time when Catholics were _not_ guilty of such. It's
> ironic.
And you sir, have become Schismatic when you talk about the church that
way.
> And part of the problem is that those who insist upon this double
> standard, like those who impose such in the secular realm, in this age
> of the media Democrat and their 'Orwellian' newsspeak that passes for
> 'news', refuse to confess the heresy currently besetting The Church.
> The conservative and orthodox, the Catholic, hated by many in the
> institutional church, see very clearly what has happened, and flock to
> The Mass, and the Sacraments properly administered by faithful
> priests. As in old Ireland, this sort of priest is the enemy of the
> powers that be. He is hunted down for daring to serve Our Lord, rather
> than preach to Him. Pray for good and holy priests. Pray that the
> imposters in the trendy parish down the block either turn in the
> collar, or come up with a name, at last, for their new denomination.
You're the one with a new denomination, for you no longer follow the Pope.
You have no humility left.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > It's a long time ago now. But I've met people who go to both St. Clare's
> > and St. Paul's who are of an age and level of respect that they *deserve*
> > a mass in Latin for their funeral. It would be sad if such wishes could
> > not be granted.
>
> We appear (as usual) to be talking about two completely different things.
> The "Indulted Mass" is NOT the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. The Indulted
> Mass is the Mass commonly referred to as the "Tridentine Mass". The
> confusion comes in when people refer to the OLD MASS as "The Latin
> Mass"...which is just plain wrong.
I've examined english translations of both, and find no apparent
differences despite what self-appointed experts like Mark Johnson say.
> A parish priest does not need approval from anyone to celebrate the Mass
> in Latin (or any combination of languages)...HOWEVER should a priest wish
> to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of Pius V (aka, the
> Tridentine Mass, the Roman Mass, The Old Mass...and yes even if
> incorrectly, the "Latin" Mass) he must seek the permission of his bishop.
> Many bishops have granted permission for some regulated use of the old
> rite...MINE has NOT...and requires a psychological profile of any person
> requesting application of the indult...after all, only a nutcase would
> want the old Mass back. (that last bit was sarcasm)
And that, in and of itself, is sad and disrespectfull to the older segment
of our Population.
KayJay
<<KJ meanders through a post, and ZOINK picks up on THIS juicy tidbit>>
> The OLDER population?! The OLDER POPULATION?!?! Ted, I'm only 30, my wife
> is 23...
!!!!! Cradle robber! ;P
and secondly... you're only *30*!!! Why oh why oh WHY was I paying
attention to you, youngster... sheesh, if y'ain't old enough to be ma
daddy, ya cain't tell me whut to do!! :P~~~~
> Steve
KJ
Legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Legatus wrote:
>
> > > It's a long time ago now. But I've met people who go to both St. Clare's
> > > and St. Paul's who are of an age and level of respect that they *deserve*
> > > a mass in Latin for their funeral. It would be sad if such wishes could
> > > not be granted.
> >
> > We appear (as usual) to be talking about two completely different things.
> > The "Indulted Mass" is NOT the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. The Indulted
> > Mass is the Mass commonly referred to as the "Tridentine Mass". The
> > confusion comes in when people refer to the OLD MASS as "The Latin
> > Mass"...which is just plain wrong.
>
> I've examined english translations of both, and find no apparent
> differences despite what self-appointed experts like Mark Johnson say.
Then why did Paul VI bother? why not just translate the old missal into a
variety of languages and have done with it?
> > A parish priest does not need approval from anyone to celebrate the Mass
> > in Latin (or any combination of languages)...HOWEVER should a priest wish
> > to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of Pius V (aka, the
> > Tridentine Mass, the Roman Mass, The Old Mass...and yes even if
> > incorrectly, the "Latin" Mass) he must seek the permission of his bishop.
> > Many bishops have granted permission for some regulated use of the old
> > rite...MINE has NOT...and requires a psychological profile of any person
> > requesting application of the indult...after all, only a nutcase would
> > want the old Mass back. (that last bit was sarcasm)
>
> And that, in and of itself, is sad and disrespectfull to the older segment
> of our Population.
The OLDER population?! The OLDER POPULATION?!?! Ted, I'm only 30, my wife
is 23...of the 500+ people who packed a local parish when a priest decided
to offer Holy Mass (according to the NEW missal) in Latin (at 8:30 on a
Saturday morning)...I didn't notice more than a handful of whiteheads in
the whole place. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Society of St.
John, the Institute of Christ the King and other orders that are popping
up all over the place aren't made up of ancient priests ministering to
geriatric congregations.
When my wife and I drive down to Atlanta for the Traditional Mass (offered
by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter)...the church isn't filled up by
elderly people. It IS filled by young families.
Legatus
> On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Legatus wrote:
>
> <<KJ meanders through a post, and ZOINK picks up on THIS juicy tidbit>>
>
> > The OLDER population?! The OLDER POPULATION?!?! Ted, I'm only 30, my wife
> > is 23...
>
> !!!!! Cradle robber! ;P
Yeah, how well I remember the night she said "you realize when you were
20, I was only 13?"... I jumped in the shower with a bottle of bleach and
the toilet brush. Then again...Since I got my "Trophy wife" the first time
around, I can skip that whole midlife crisis thing. :)
> and secondly... you're only *30*!!! Why oh why oh WHY was I paying
> attention to you, youngster... sheesh, if y'ain't old enough to be ma
> daddy, ya cain't tell me whut to do!! :P~~~~
Oh ALL RIGHT!...I'll be 31 on Sept 16. :) Is that old enough?
Alan Craft
>On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Legatus wrote:
>
><<KJ meanders through a post, and ZOINK picks up on THIS juicy tidbit>>
>
>> The OLDER population?! The OLDER POPULATION?!?! Ted, I'm only 30, my wife
>> is 23...
>
>!!!!! Cradle robber! ;P
>
>and secondly... you're only *30*!!! Why oh why oh WHY was I paying
>attention to you, youngster... sheesh, if y'ain't old enough to be ma
>daddy, ya cain't tell me whut to do!! :P~~~~
>
>> Steve
>
>KJ
I'm almost 34...go to your room, young lady.
KayJay
> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:02:57 -0400, KayJay <kjco...@julian.uwo.ca> emanated:
> >and secondly... you're only *30*!!! Why oh why oh WHY was I paying
> >attention to you, youngster... sheesh, if y'ain't old enough to be ma
> >daddy, ya cain't tell me whut to do!! :P~~~~
> I'm almost 34...go to your room, young lady.
Either you think I'm WAAAAY young, or you were a VERY precocious kid! ;)
KJ
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>my tradition is that the Popes and Councils are infallible REGARDLESS
>OF APPARENT CONFLICT. And that where such apparent conflict exists the
>person who is pointing out the conflict usually hasn't read both sides of
>the debate (is not privy to the same knowledge the Popes and the Councils
>are privy to).
That remains something of a hypothetical, save for the sedevacantist.
The conflict, here, is between Bugnini and Trent, basically, between
Paul VI and Vatican II.
>This is one of the basic axioms of my belief system, and while it can't
>cover every concievable conflict (at some point, a corrupt Pope is a
>corrupt Pope, but by that time, he's usually more interested in his
>pocketbook than false teaching), and it's the brick wall I've reached with
>you: The Pope says one thing, that the Italian and the ICEL are valid,
I don't think they've ever gone on record saying such. I would guess,
if asked, that JP II would call ICELism for what it is, and disapprove
it as just a very bad translation, and not just at the consecration.
Why he doesn't act against the Italian, which he likely participates
in, I don't know. No doubt it's left unresolved, vague, and so a
matter of doubt as to the validity of such. As The Church has not
definitively ruled, even I consider it an open question, in that
regard. But the evidence seems awfully clear, in the very words of
Trent and Aquinas, as if they lived today. It's that specific. Still,
true - I _don't_ know why he fails to lead. I really don't. Pray for
His Holiness if it pleases Our Lord. What more can one do?
>and you're saying another, that the Italian and ICEL are not. If I were
>you, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church completely and find myself a
>Traditional Schismatic parish.
Nice of you to be concerned for my welfare. May I suggest an
alternative. _You_ convert to Catholicism. We know what it is. The
documents are on-line. Books by Saints and Doctors are entirely
on-line at various web sites. You can read the Summa cover to cover,
and so on. There's no excuse.
>I really cannot understand how, when faced
>with this contradiction, you cannot either yeild to Papal influence or
>leave, I'd do one or the other,
Because it was established at Nuremberg, I think, that the excuse I
was just followin orders is no excuse for following them. You are not
bound to obey an illegal order. And 'new order' appears invalid on its
face.
The corollary, for you, is of course to deny what's happened in the
last 30 years, to deny the present heresy. _That's_ not convincing.
You might assume there's something different, here, that Hitler had no
protection from God, but that His Holiness does in matters of
infallible doctrine; that's it's _not_ like Nuremberg in that. But the
promulgation of 'new order' _wasn't_ a matter of infallible doctrine -
and in fact was largely the opposite. So it _is_ the same. We're
talking very fallible human reasons for things, very Protestant
liturgies, very phony 'better ways', without any suggestion that God
The Holy Spirit has protected any of this from error, only that He, in
His Wisdom, has allowed those to exercise their free will to abandon
him, and attempt to lead the flock out of the pasture. And just
remember, Bugnini insisted he was never a freemason, and Clinton swore
he never lied. How credulous would you be? And how Catholic is _that_?
>but I would not become "a worm in the
>wood", undermining the faith of others in the papacy.
But it _is_ the papacy that is protected in explicit declarations on
doctrine concerning faith and morals. It _was_, and yes IS, the Holy
See, that stands behind Trent. And it is the Roman Catechism which
explains why the ICEList consecration, specifically, is contrary to
Catholic teaching. This is . . . not . . . complicated.
You can't have it both ways. If you think the current Pope holds Trent
to be in error in a matter of infallible doctrine - namely, to whom do
the fruits of Our Lord's Sacrifice go - then say so, and confess that
The Magisterium, in your new religion, is NOT irreformable, but quite
fallible. As a Catholic, I understand The Magisterium to be what the
Saints and Doctors understood it to be. I understand that Catholics
died for The Faith, not for the new religion. I honor _their_ memories
at the least, not those of the 'better way'. So . . . there we are.
>> >On the net, any nut can write whatever they want. It's not like it's
>> >actuall church documents.
>> They actually _is_ church documents.
>No they're not. No way to transmit wax seals over electrons.
So you want the wax? I, myself, would be more interested in what's
written on the parchment.
>> That's just what I meant, and the
>> writings of the fathers, and that of Saints and Doctors, and various
>> other things. It's a paradox, perhaps, that in the midst of the
>> greatest heresy to afflict The Church, Militant, the very dogma being
>> violated and questioned is readily available to anyone who would take
>> the time to read it after setting up an account with some ISP.
>I'm not so sure it is. I've seen far too many hoaxes on the net to
>believe ANYTHING I read on the net as gospel truth.
Unless you believe these various archives to be serving out phony
translations or horribly doctored documents, you can easily read what
the Popes have written, the Saints, Doctors, and even ask a question
or two over at EWTN. If none of these are allowed in your 'new order'
church, then at least you'll begin to understand what I've been saying
about your 'new order' church.
>This one is in fact the ONLY one I'm willing to listen to, the only one
>I'm willing to take teaching from, as has been the tradition for the last
>25 years in my archdiocese.
There were Catholics before your day, before mine. It's their
tradition you want, if you want to call yourself Catholic. It's that
of God, not that of man.
>It's about as usefull to me as reading your web page. As in, not very.
Have you read it? Or do you just hang about, shuffling your feet,
afraid to read what The Church actually said about something - rather
than rely on the hearsay of trendy vicars?
>In that case, don't point to your web page and tell me "what it is".
>Point to the actual church documents and let me discover it for myself, if
>in fact there is anything to discover
I quote word for word from the Roman Catechism, the Summa, and refer
to passages of Scripture. Double check them all for yourself. All is
on-line. And surely you have a Douay-Rheims on your shelf, somewhere.
>I'd sooner believe a flying saucer with little green men than your URL.
Then to hell with The Roman Catechism - Aquinas, too? Maybe _you're_
wrong. Maybe they weren't. Maybe it's The Church you're looking for.
>And in fact, I've got URLs that have pictures of flying saucers with
>little green men.... :-)
Art Bell, right?
>My question is simple: Why should I believe you over the Pope?
Over Pius V, Leo 13th, and so on? They're my heroes, along with other
Popes. What do I write that disagrees with what they wrote?
>He's saying one thing, you personally are saying something entirely
>different. To oppose the pope is the essence of Protestantism, you know.
So if the Pope didn't really _want_ to move out of France, then it was
wrong for the Saint to 'oppose' him? C'mon. The Pope can be wrong on
things. He's not impeccable. You seem to want him to be. But _that's_
the Protestant take and complaint. 'New order' appears invalid on its
face. This is based on - what Catholics believe. A Catholic cannot
remain a Catholic and now believe exactly the opposite of what
Catholics once believed as dogma. Our Lord died for all, yes. But the
fruits of His Passion do not go to all. Some _do_ go to hell. Not all
are saved. The grace of the Sacrament is not received by all. If you
bothered to click on that URL,
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , you'd know what's at
issue in this. If you wanted to disagree, at that point, fine.
Nobody's ever gotten that far, really. I'd be interested in getting
the 'conservative' defense of 'new order', or even the new
religionist's defense of same - whoever.
>> All the Saints and Doctors. It's categorical. They wouldn't be Saints
>> and Doctors, otherwise. A Catholic confesses - what Catholics believe.
>As we do every Sunday in the creeds. So what?
But The Creed I confess is out of The Roman Missal. Yours is from
ICEL, I'm guessing. It's not quite the same. I'd show you side by
side, and maybe _will_ get something like that on my web site.
>Actually, there are three "new religions" being pushed here:
>1 CTA-are impatient like Luther, they want to force the church into
>changes it isn't ready for, may never be ready for.
>2 Diocean-does their best to follow the Pope
No - follows CTA and the rest of the 'spirit of' gang. That's why I
refer to them as the trendy parishes down the block. They are in the
forefront of the new religion. RENEW 2000 anyone?
>3 Traditionalist-do their best to NOT follow the Pope and NOT change when
>he asks them to.
Some things can't be changed. You don't go up to Jesus and say to Him,
don't go to Jerusalem this week, my Lord - you'll be killed. And you
don't whisper over His shoulder at The Last Supper - y'knoowww, maybe,
just maybe, you could suggest that all are saved, not just a few? no?
>Each one considers the others to be "new religion". But only one uses
>Apostolic Authority.
There is heresy afoot. Part of your madness is to deny the obvious. Am
I right? I don't understand the Pope's failure to lead. I don't
understand his 'altar girls' ruling, his remarks on evolution, his
participation in pagan rituals, his banning The Mass from St. Peter's,
and whatever else I've mentioned. I _don't_ understand. If it pleases
Our Lord, if it does, we pray for His Holiness to put away worldly
schemes, and show the world what a Pope once stood for. He's taken
some steps with recent rather moderate documents. But the follow-up,
if any, is yet to be seen.
>> >And it's still not Protestant, because transubstantiation exists.
>> 'New order' appears invalid on its face. I have some thoughts on this
>> at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
>> interested.
>I'm not. I've read it a number of times and find it to be incomplete and
>invalid on it's face. And I'll tell you why:
>1. No Nihil Obstat
>2. No Imprimature
>3. Not from the Vatican.
It's all of the above, and more. The case is made by what is quoted.
And what is quoted is the Summa and the Roman Catechism.
>In the end result, you can print out that web page and use it for toliet
>paper, it does not contain church teaching.
I'm afraid it does. And you just prefer a 'better way'. But it's never
the answer.
>> >Except, of course, that the local mass isn't being said for the Saints and
>> >Doctors to learn from, but rather, for the local parishoners to learn
>> >from....
>> The Protestant attends services to hear the preacher preach. The
>> Saints didn't.
>The Church doesn't teach from the Preacher, the Church teaches from the
>words of Jesus Christ.
>And still does in the "New Order", which any Saint would be proud of, but
>you Mark, are no saint.
Didn't say I was. But I won't be one by joining the new religion.
That's all I can tell _you_, as well.
>> >No, you've got it backwards. The Protestant sense is READING, the
>> >Catholic sense is PROCLAIMING. There's a reason why we don't just say
>> >"everybody be quiet, take out your bibles, and read the following
>> >passage", but instead have a lector. (unlike the protestants)
>> >There's a reason we have the MASS instead of just a parody play in a
>> >language no one understands.
>> Wow! I pray you see the offense in this, some day. You shouldn't be
>> writing stuff like this.
>I'm pointing out that you're more like a Mormon than like a Catholic.
No, you were writing as a Protestant slamming the Catholic. Step back,
here. Look at what you're actually writing. This new religion is no
answer. What you're looking for is - The Church.
>It should be offensive, I find your entire argument to be offensive and just
>a little bit blasephamous.
If you were . . . Protestant. Sure. But I'm not. And this is a
Catholic ng. And you should _expect_ Catholics to defend and explain
the Faith, here. You don't write what you do, above, about The Holy
Mass and still retain anything more than a Clintonian credibility in
_your_ claim to be faithful to orthodox teaching. It's orthodoxy,
after all, which is referred to in the Canon, if not in 'new order'
(and can we wonder why?).
>Rip away the Bible from the religion if you want to in your Trad
>Schismatic churches. But you're not following Apostolic Tradition if you
>do, you're inventing your own tradition.
The new religion is adopting an old tradition, to be fair. It's
Protestant, and rationalist as Protestants were and became, and pagan
as rationalists are fascinated by the occult. Apostolic tradition, on
the other hand, means more than laying on of hands, and valid
succession. It means the continuation of dogma, and the succession of
belief. It means that what was true, then, is also confessed as true,
today - or it weren't, then. I do wish you'd think about that.
>That last part is important. Within the communion of Rome. I'm not so
>sure anymore, despite the indult, that the traditionalists are (for the
>simple reason that they refuse to recognize the rest of the communion of
>Rome as being valid).
Who's doing his 'private interpreting' now? You _sure_ do like to have
it both ways. The indult is pretty clear. The follow-up memos were, as
well. And when a bishop tried to excommunicate some SSPX parishioners,
Rome reinstated them. You're going to have to look somewhere other
than Rome, right now, to find support for your opinion.
>The Eastern Orthodox, to us, are merely in schism. To them, we're
>heretics. To me, the traditionalists are only in schism. To them, I'm a
>heretic.
You're a heretic if you subscribe to the new religion, if you hold
holy tradition in contempt, if you can't be bothered with the lives of
the Saints, or councils before Vatican II, and so on. You're a heretic
if you are. I just think you are very ignorant. But that's _not_ a
permanent condition, or a comment, necessarily, on one's
intelligence.
>Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
>verancular?
No. They called for the Epistle and Gospel, one of each, perhaps to be
read aloud in the vernacular. All of this was already translated into
the local vernacular, after all - those facing pages, that someone
here seemed so to loathe. They suggested perhaps vernacular for the
'dialogue' responses, which had been sort of used or not for decades
by that point. Vernacular for some of the propers. Maybe vernacular
even for the closing Gospel, not found obv. in 'new order'. They never
imagined Bugnini. They never wanted 'new order'.
>This is a yes or no answer, and I will not accept anything
>other than a yes or a no.
Well, Ottaviani said, no - once he saw what the Concillium produced in
the 'workshop'. Do you know who the man was?
>Either the Magisterium is, in it's entirety, whole and true, regardless of
>your personal opinion of some sort of "contradiction" or it's not. My
>faith rests on it being whole and true. If it's not, then I suggest you
>are no longer a Roman Catholic.
But you don't know what The Magisterium is. It's The Magisterium which
holds against 'new order'. Again, either Catholics were right, then,
or the 'spirit of' crowd are right, today. But there's your
contradiction.
>> Click on the URL. It'll take you right there. It's a short book, and
>> it's on-line. Can't understand any problem you'd have, unless their
>> server is down.
>I'm not living in gui-land. I'm a unix man. Hadn't even noticed the URL.
Oh. Didn't realize UNIX aps were so limiting. Someone should write a
program, some day. Come to think of it, isn't 'linnux' GUI?
>How about a book about the American Catholic experience? I'd suggest you
>start with Scott Hahn's _Rome_Sweet_Home_.
>He dealt with all of the issues you've brought up and then some.
I've got a few books on the 'American' experience. Interesting what
Catholics were able to do in a culturally Prot/'enlightenment'
country, I think.
>And the Holy Mass is definitely protected by God, The Holy Spirit. You
>can't narrowly define it to only the Trinidine and still be on solid
>ground if the Pope does not support you in entirety.
You're putting words in the Pope's mouth to make _your_ case.
>> The Pope can say what he wants on
>> evolution. Doesn't mean he's right.
>Once again, matter of faith. Either he's right or he isn't, and if he
>isn't, then we've got a severe connection problem to the Holy Spirit.
Evolution goes to faith, as much as anything - however you cut it. And
yet he can be wrong in his personal opinion. 'New order' was not an
infallible decree. And to the extent it departs from Catholic
tradition and teaching, it comes off more as a Protestant's service
than the Catholic Mass. So be it. But I'll take The Mass, instead.
It's what Catholics do.
>> He can approve altar girls.
>Matter of the Holy Mass, which is a matter for the Holy Spirit, not for
>you.
He was wrong on altar girls, for the very reasons his former defenders
so zealously offered _before_ the ruling came down.
>> Doesn't mean he's right, and particularly for the very reasons given
>> by those defending him prior to such an edict, such as Mother Teresa
>> did. The promulgation of 'new order' was not an infallible decree.
>He's Pope. He's final authority, not some nut with a computer.
Don't be so hard on yourself, you mean? The Pope is not impeccable.
He's not a law unto himself. He can't just make it up as he goes
along. _This_ is the Protestant attribution and straw man. This is
what you seem to offer. The Pope is bound by the same standard as all
Catholics. Dogma is not subject to reversal. What's true is not later
to be declared false. That's just how it be. You exaggerate wildly,
here, to declare your loyalty not even so much to the office of The
Holy See, but to a liturgy which was designed to hold Catholic
tradition in contempt.
>> Nothing of Vatican II was infallible, save that it strictly reflected
>> what _already_ had been declared as infallible dogma.
>Nothing of anything is new in the Church, no matter what you name it.
But various infallible declarations are new in the sense that they
explicitly clarify matters, but based on the tradition and deposit of
faith. The revelation is not new. And nothing new of the sort is
implied. But the clarification is an addition. And this is not what
Vatican II was about, or did, I believe according to Paul VI, himself.
>> See, here's the thing. Those who say ANY, and I mean absolutely any,
>> liturgy is valid if promulgated by the Pope forget the standard that
>> Catholics bear. They forget humility before God. They idolize the
>> institution, in the way somewhat that the Pharisees did their own.
>> They become guilty of all the sins the Protestants used to accuse the
>> Catholic of, at a time when Catholics were _not_ guilty of such. It's
>> ironic.
>And you sir, have become Schismatic when you talk about the church that
>way.
Then Athanasius was a 'schismatic'. You need to confess not bishops
who are no longer faithful, not committees which could care less about
holy humility, but the doctrine of the Saints if that's what you wish
to become yourself. In times of heresy, there has always been a
remnant. There remains so today, in the institution, some wearing the
collar, other in the ranks of the laity. But not all are faithful. Not
all orders are to be followed. The standard of God must apply, not the
standard of men. We _can_ know - what Catholics believe - in this era
of 'the net'; and I would think even if one must use UNIX.
>> And part of the problem is that those who insist upon this double
>> standard, like those who impose such in the secular realm, in this age
>> of the media Democrat and their 'Orwellian' newsspeak that passes for
>> 'news', refuse to confess the heresy currently besetting The Church.
>> The conservative and orthodox, the Catholic, hated by many in the
>> institutional church, see very clearly what has happened, and flock to
>> The Mass, and the Sacraments properly administered by faithful
>> priests. As in old Ireland, this sort of priest is the enemy of the
>> powers that be. He is hunted down for daring to serve Our Lord, rather
>> than preach to Him. Pray for good and holy priests. Pray that the
>> imposters in the trendy parish down the block either turn in the
>> collar, or come up with a name, at last, for their new denomination.
>You're the one with a new denomination, for you no longer follow the Pope.
But I do. By implying he ought to be impeccable, _you_ are the one
showing not the proper respect for the office.
>You have no humility left.
Well, then someone doesn't. Have to leave it at that.
Stephanie Rendino
I just turned 33 August 10, and SteveO turns 30 on September 24.
Rejoicing will be mandatory.
Legatus
Somehow I had you pegged at 25... So...you're in your "messianic year".
Alan Craft
Yes...that did occur to me sometime after I had turned 33...last September 12th.
Alas, 'tis almost over.
Legatus
mauri...@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, at least you lived through it (well, so far so good, right?)
Alan Craft
It's not too bad. :-)>
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>my tradition is that the Popes and Councils are infallible REGARDLESS
>OF APPARENT CONFLICT. And that where such apparent conflict exists the
>person who is pointing out the conflict usually hasn't read both sides of
>the debate (is not privy to the same knowledge the Popes and the Councils
>are privy to).
That remains something of a hypothetical, save for the sedevacantist.
The conflict, here, is between Bugnini and Trent, basically, between
Paul VI and Vatican II.
>This is one of the basic axioms of my belief system, and while it can't
>cover every concievable conflict (at some point, a corrupt Pope is a
>corrupt Pope, but by that time, he's usually more interested in his
>pocketbook than false teaching), and it's the brick wall I've reached with
>you: The Pope says one thing, that the Italian and the ICEL are valid,
I don't think they've ever gone on record saying such. I would guess,
if asked, that JP II would call ICELism for what it is, and disapprove
it as just a very bad translation, and not just at the consecration.
Why he doesn't act against the Italian, which he likely participates
in, I don't know. No doubt it's left unresolved, vague, and so a
matter of doubt as to the validity of such. As The Church has not
definitively ruled, even I consider it an open question, in that
regard. But the evidence seems awfully clear, in the very words of
Trent and Aquinas, as if they lived today. It's that specific. Still,
true - I _don't_ know why he fails to lead. I really don't. Pray for
His Holiness if it pleases Our Lord. What more can one do?
>and you're saying another, that the Italian and ICEL are not. If I were
>you, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church completely and find myself a
>Traditional Schismatic parish.
Nice of you to be concerned for my welfare. May I suggest an
alternative. _You_ convert to Catholicism. We know what it is. The
documents are on-line. Books by Saints and Doctors are entirely
on-line at various web sites. You can read the Summa cover to cover,
and so on. There's no excuse.
>I really cannot understand how, when faced
>with this contradiction, you cannot either yeild to Papal influence or
>leave, I'd do one or the other,
Because it was established at Nuremberg, I think, that the excuse I
was just followin orders is no excuse for following them. You are not
bound to obey an illegal order. And 'new order' appears invalid on its
face.
The corollary, for you, is of course to deny what's happened in the
last 30 years, to deny the present heresy. _That's_ not convincing.
You might assume there's something different, here, that Hitler had no
protection from God, but that His Holiness does in matters of
infallible doctrine; that's it's _not_ like Nuremberg in that. But the
promulgation of 'new order' _wasn't_ a matter of infallible doctrine -
and in fact was largely the opposite. So it _is_ the same. We're
talking very fallible human reasons for things, very Protestant
liturgies, very phony 'better ways', without any suggestion that God
The Holy Spirit has protected any of this from error, only that He, in
His Wisdom, has allowed those to exercise their free will to abandon
him, and attempt to lead the flock out of the pasture. And just
remember, Bugnini insisted he was never a freemason, and Clinton swore
he never lied. How credulous would you be? And how Catholic is _that_?
>but I would not become "a worm in the
>wood", undermining the faith of others in the papacy.
But it _is_ the papacy that is protected in explicit declarations on
doctrine concerning faith and morals. It _was_, and yes IS, the Holy
See, that stands behind Trent. And it is the Roman Catechism which
explains why the ICEList consecration, specifically, is contrary to
Catholic teaching. This is . . . not . . . complicated.
You can't have it both ways. If you think the current Pope holds Trent
to be in error in a matter of infallible doctrine - namely, to whom do
the fruits of Our Lord's Sacrifice go - then say so, and confess that
The Magisterium, in your new religion, is NOT irreformable, but quite
fallible. As a Catholic, I understand The Magisterium to be what the
Saints and Doctors understood it to be. I understand that Catholics
died for The Faith, not for the new religion. I honor _their_ memories
at the least, not those of the 'better way'. So . . . there we are.
>> >On the net, any nut can write whatever they want. It's not like it's
>> >actuall church documents.
>> They actually _is_ church documents.
>No they're not. No way to transmit wax seals over electrons.
So you want the wax? I, myself, would be more interested in what's
written on the parchment.
>> That's just what I meant, and the
>> writings of the fathers, and that of Saints and Doctors, and various
>> other things. It's a paradox, perhaps, that in the midst of the
>> greatest heresy to afflict The Church, Militant, the very dogma being
>> violated and questioned is readily available to anyone who would take
>> the time to read it after setting up an account with some ISP.
>I'm not so sure it is. I've seen far too many hoaxes on the net to
>believe ANYTHING I read on the net as gospel truth.
Unless you believe these various archives to be serving out phony
translations or horribly doctored documents, you can easily read what
the Popes have written, the Saints, Doctors, and even ask a question
or two over at EWTN. If none of these are allowed in your 'new order'
church, then at least you'll begin to understand what I've been saying
about your 'new order' church.
>This one is in fact the ONLY one I'm willing to listen to, the only one
>I'm willing to take teaching from, as has been the tradition for the last
>25 years in my archdiocese.
There were Catholics before your day, before mine. It's their
tradition you want, if you want to call yourself Catholic. It's that
of God, not that of man.
>It's about as usefull to me as reading your web page. As in, not very.
Have you read it? Or do you just hang about, shuffling your feet,
afraid to read what The Church actually said about something - rather
than rely on the hearsay of trendy vicars?
>In that case, don't point to your web page and tell me "what it is".
>Point to the actual church documents and let me discover it for myself, if
>in fact there is anything to discover
I quote word for word from the Roman Catechism, the Summa, and refer
to passages of Scripture. Double check them all for yourself. All is
on-line. And surely you have a Douay-Rheims on your shelf, somewhere.
>I'd sooner believe a flying saucer with little green men than your URL.
Then to hell with The Roman Catechism - Aquinas, too? Maybe _you're_
wrong. Maybe they weren't. Maybe it's The Church you're looking for.
>And in fact, I've got URLs that have pictures of flying saucers with
>little green men.... :-)
Art Bell, right?
>My question is simple: Why should I believe you over the Pope?
Over Pius V, Leo 13th, and so on? They're my heroes, along with other
Popes. What do I write that disagrees with what they wrote?
>He's saying one thing, you personally are saying something entirely
>different. To oppose the pope is the essence of Protestantism, you know.
So if the Pope didn't really _want_ to move out of France, then it was
wrong for the Saint to 'oppose' him? C'mon. The Pope can be wrong on
things. He's not impeccable. You seem to want him to be. But _that's_
the Protestant take and complaint. 'New order' appears invalid on its
face. This is based on - what Catholics believe. A Catholic cannot
remain a Catholic and now believe exactly the opposite of what
Catholics once believed as dogma. Our Lord died for all, yes. But the
fruits of His Passion do not go to all. Some _do_ go to hell. Not all
are saved. The grace of the Sacrament is not received by all. If you
bothered to click on that URL,
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , you'd know what's at
issue in this. If you wanted to disagree, at that point, fine.
Nobody's ever gotten that far, really. I'd be interested in getting
the 'conservative' defense of 'new order', or even the new
religionist's defense of same - whoever.
>> All the Saints and Doctors. It's categorical. They wouldn't be Saints
>> and Doctors, otherwise. A Catholic confesses - what Catholics believe.
>As we do every Sunday in the creeds. So what?
But The Creed I confess is out of The Roman Missal. Yours is from
ICEL, I'm guessing. It's not quite the same. I'd show you side by
side, and maybe _will_ get something like that on my web site.
>Actually, there are three "new religions" being pushed here:
>1 CTA-are impatient like Luther, they want to force the church into
>changes it isn't ready for, may never be ready for.
>2 Diocean-does their best to follow the Pope
No - follows CTA and the rest of the 'spirit of' gang. That's why I
refer to them as the trendy parishes down the block. They are in the
forefront of the new religion. RENEW 2000 anyone?
>3 Traditionalist-do their best to NOT follow the Pope and NOT change when
>he asks them to.
Some things can't be changed. You don't go up to Jesus and say to Him,
don't go to Jerusalem this week, my Lord - you'll be killed. And you
don't whisper over His shoulder at The Last Supper - y'knoowww, maybe,
just maybe, you could suggest that all are saved, not just a few? no?
>Each one considers the others to be "new religion". But only one uses
>Apostolic Authority.
There is heresy afoot. Part of your madness is to deny the obvious. Am
I right? I don't understand the Pope's failure to lead. I don't
understand his 'altar girls' ruling, his remarks on evolution, his
participation in pagan rituals, his banning The Mass from St. Peter's,
and whatever else I've mentioned. I _don't_ understand. If it pleases
Our Lord, if it does, we pray for His Holiness to put away worldly
schemes, and show the world what a Pope once stood for. He's taken
some steps with recent rather moderate documents. But the follow-up,
if any, is yet to be seen.
>> >And it's still not Protestant, because transubstantiation exists.
>> 'New order' appears invalid on its face. I have some thoughts on this
>> at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , if you are
>> interested.
>I'm not. I've read it a number of times and find it to be incomplete and
>invalid on it's face. And I'll tell you why:
>1. No Nihil Obstat
>2. No Imprimature
>3. Not from the Vatican.
It's all of the above, and more. The case is made by what is quoted.
And what is quoted is the Summa and the Roman Catechism.
>In the end result, you can print out that web page and use it for toliet
>paper, it does not contain church teaching.
I'm afraid it does. And you just prefer a 'better way'. But it's never
the answer.
>> >Except, of course, that the local mass isn't being said for the Saints and
>> >Doctors to learn from, but rather, for the local parishoners to learn
>> >from....
>> The Protestant attends services to hear the preacher preach. The
>> Saints didn't.
>The Church doesn't teach from the Preacher, the Church teaches from the
>words of Jesus Christ.
>And still does in the "New Order", which any Saint would be proud of, but
>you Mark, are no saint.
Didn't say I was. But I won't be one by joining the new religion.
That's all I can tell _you_, as well.
>> >No, you've got it backwards. The Protestant sense is READING, the
>> >Catholic sense is PROCLAIMING. There's a reason why we don't just say
>> >"everybody be quiet, take out your bibles, and read the following
>> >passage", but instead have a lector. (unlike the protestants)
>> >There's a reason we have the MASS instead of just a parody play in a
>> >language no one understands.
>> Wow! I pray you see the offense in this, some day. You shouldn't be
>> writing stuff like this.
>I'm pointing out that you're more like a Mormon than like a Catholic.
No, you were writing as a Protestant slamming the Catholic. Step back,
here. Look at what you're actually writing. This new religion is no
answer. What you're looking for is - The Church.
>It should be offensive, I find your entire argument to be offensive and just
>a little bit blasephamous.
If you were . . . Protestant. Sure. But I'm not. And this is a
Catholic ng. And you should _expect_ Catholics to defend and explain
the Faith, here. You don't write what you do, above, about The Holy
Mass and still retain anything more than a Clintonian credibility in
_your_ claim to be faithful to orthodox teaching. It's orthodoxy,
after all, which is referred to in the Canon, if not in 'new order'
(and can we wonder why?).
>Rip away the Bible from the religion if you want to in your Trad
>Schismatic churches. But you're not following Apostolic Tradition if you
>do, you're inventing your own tradition.
The new religion is adopting an old tradition, to be fair. It's
Protestant, and rationalist as Protestants were and became, and pagan
as rationalists are fascinated by the occult. Apostolic tradition, on
the other hand, means more than laying on of hands, and valid
succession. It means the continuation of dogma, and the succession of
belief. It means that what was true, then, is also confessed as true,
today - or it weren't, then. I do wish you'd think about that.
>That last part is important. Within the communion of Rome. I'm not so
>sure anymore, despite the indult, that the traditionalists are (for the
>simple reason that they refuse to recognize the rest of the communion of
>Rome as being valid).
Who's doing his 'private interpreting' now? You _sure_ do like to have
it both ways. The indult is pretty clear. The follow-up memos were, as
well. And when a bishop tried to excommunicate some SSPX parishioners,
Rome reinstated them. You're going to have to look somewhere other
than Rome, right now, to find support for your opinion.
>The Eastern Orthodox, to us, are merely in schism. To them, we're
>heretics. To me, the traditionalists are only in schism. To them, I'm a
>heretic.
You're a heretic if you subscribe to the new religion, if you hold
holy tradition in contempt, if you can't be bothered with the lives of
the Saints, or councils before Vatican II, and so on. You're a heretic
if you are. I just think you are very ignorant. But that's _not_ a
permanent condition, or a comment, necessarily, on one's
intelligence.
>Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
>verancular?
No. They called for the Epistle and Gospel, one of each, perhaps to be
read aloud in the vernacular. All of this was already translated into
the local vernacular, after all - those facing pages, that someone
here seemed so to loathe. They suggested perhaps vernacular for the
'dialogue' responses, which had been sort of used or not for decades
by that point. Vernacular for some of the propers. Maybe vernacular
even for the closing Gospel, not found obv. in 'new order'. They never
imagined Bugnini. They never wanted 'new order'.
>This is a yes or no answer, and I will not accept anything
>other than a yes or a no.
Well, Ottaviani said, no - once he saw what the Concillium produced in
the 'workshop'. Do you know who the man was?
>Either the Magisterium is, in it's entirety, whole and true, regardless of
>your personal opinion of some sort of "contradiction" or it's not. My
>faith rests on it being whole and true. If it's not, then I suggest you
>are no longer a Roman Catholic.
But you don't know what The Magisterium is. It's The Magisterium which
holds against 'new order'. Again, either Catholics were right, then,
or the 'spirit of' crowd are right, today. But there's your
contradiction.
>> Click on the URL. It'll take you right there. It's a short book, and
>> it's on-line. Can't understand any problem you'd have, unless their
>> server is down.
>I'm not living in gui-land. I'm a unix man. Hadn't even noticed the URL.
Oh. Didn't realize UNIX aps were so limiting. Someone should write a
program, some day. Come to think of it, isn't 'linnux' GUI?
>How about a book about the American Catholic experience? I'd suggest you
>start with Scott Hahn's _Rome_Sweet_Home_.
>He dealt with all of the issues you've brought up and then some.
I've got a few books on the 'American' experience. Interesting what
Catholics were able to do in a culturally Prot/'enlightenment'
country, I think.
>And the Holy Mass is definitely protected by God, The Holy Spirit. You
>can't narrowly define it to only the Trinidine and still be on solid
>ground if the Pope does not support you in entirety.
You're putting words in the Pope's mouth to make _your_ case.
>> The Pope can say what he wants on
>> evolution. Doesn't mean he's right.
>Once again, matter of faith. Either he's right or he isn't, and if he
>isn't, then we've got a severe connection problem to the Holy Spirit.
Evolution goes to faith, as much as anything - however you cut it. And
yet he can be wrong in his personal opinion. 'New order' was not an
infallible decree. And to the extent it departs from Catholic
tradition and teaching, it comes off more as a Protestant's service
than the Catholic Mass. So be it. But I'll take The Mass, instead.
It's what Catholics do.
>> He can approve altar girls.
>Matter of the Holy Mass, which is a matter for the Holy Spirit, not for
>you.
He was wrong on altar girls, for the very reasons his former defenders
so zealously offered _before_ the ruling came down.
>> Doesn't mean he's right, and particularly for the very reasons given
>> by those defending him prior to such an edict, such as Mother Teresa
>> did. The promulgation of 'new order' was not an infallible decree.
>He's Pope. He's final authority, not some nut with a computer.
Don't be so hard on yourself, you mean? The Pope is not impeccable.
He's not a law unto himself. He can't just make it up as he goes
along. _This_ is the Protestant attribution and straw man. This is
what you seem to offer. The Pope is bound by the same standard as all
Catholics. Dogma is not subject to reversal. What's true is not later
to be declared false. That's just how it be. You exaggerate wildly,
here, to declare your loyalty not even so much to the office of The
Holy See, but to a liturgy which was designed to hold Catholic
tradition in contempt.
>> Nothing of Vatican II was infallible, save that it strictly reflected
>> what _already_ had been declared as infallible dogma.
>Nothing of anything is new in the Church, no matter what you name it.
But various infallible declarations are new in the sense that they
explicitly clarify matters, but based on the tradition and deposit of
faith. The revelation is not new. And nothing new of the sort is
implied. But the clarification is an addition. And this is not what
Vatican II was about, or did, I believe according to Paul VI, himself.
>> See, here's the thing. Those who say ANY, and I mean absolutely any,
>> liturgy is valid if promulgated by the Pope forget the standard that
>> Catholics bear. They forget humility before God. They idolize the
>> institution, in the way somewhat that the Pharisees did their own.
>> They become guilty of all the sins the Protestants used to accuse the
>> Catholic of, at a time when Catholics were _not_ guilty of such. It's
>> ironic.
>And you sir, have become Schismatic when you talk about the church that
>way.
Then Athanasius was a 'schismatic'. You need to confess not bishops
who are no longer faithful, not committees which could care less about
holy humility, but the doctrine of the Saints if that's what you wish
to become yourself. In times of heresy, there has always been a
remnant. There remains so today, in the institution, some wearing the
collar, other in the ranks of the laity. But not all are faithful. Not
all orders are to be followed. The standard of God must apply, not the
standard of men. We _can_ know - what Catholics believe - in this era
of 'the net'; and I would think even if one must use UNIX.
>> And part of the problem is that those who insist upon this double
>> standard, like those who impose such in the secular realm, in this age
>> of the media Democrat and their 'Orwellian' newsspeak that passes for
>> 'news', refuse to confess the heresy currently besetting The Church.
>> The conservative and orthodox, the Catholic, hated by many in the
>> institutional church, see very clearly what has happened, and flock to
>> The Mass, and the Sacraments properly administered by faithful
>> priests. As in old Ireland, this sort of priest is the enemy of the
>> powers that be. He is hunted down for daring to serve Our Lord, rather
>> than preach to Him. Pray for good and holy priests. Pray that the
>> imposters in the trendy parish down the block either turn in the
>> collar, or come up with a name, at last, for their new denomination.
>You're the one with a new denomination, for you no longer follow the Pope.
But I do. By implying he ought to be impeccable, _you_ are the one
showing not the proper respect for the office.
>You have no humility left.
Well, then someone doesn't. Have to leave it at that.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >my tradition is that the Popes and Councils are infallible REGARDLESS
> >OF APPARENT CONFLICT. And that where such apparent conflict exists the
> >person who is pointing out the conflict usually hasn't read both sides of
> >the debate (is not privy to the same knowledge the Popes and the Councils
> >are privy to).
>
> That remains something of a hypothetical, save for the sedevacantist.
> The conflict, here, is between Bugnini and Trent, basically, between
> Paul VI and Vatican II.
So who is greater, Pope or Council, is that where your problem lies?
> >This is one of the basic axioms of my belief system, and while it can't
> >cover every concievable conflict (at some point, a corrupt Pope is a
> >corrupt Pope, but by that time, he's usually more interested in his
> >pocketbook than false teaching), and it's the brick wall I've reached with
> >you: The Pope says one thing, that the Italian and the ICEL are valid,
>
> I don't think they've ever gone on record saying such. I would guess,
> if asked, that JP II would call ICELism for what it is, and disapprove
> it as just a very bad translation, and not just at the consecration.
He has been asked. Point blank. And he did no such thing.
He HAS come out against specific points in the translation, but ICEL has
been allowed to make changes to fit in with the Pope instead of being
thrown out outright...Which once again points to this being mere
development, not heresy.
> Why he doesn't act against the Italian, which he likely participates
> in, I don't know. No doubt it's left unresolved, vague, and so a
> matter of doubt as to the validity of such. As The Church has not
> definitively ruled, even I consider it an open question, in that
> regard. But the evidence seems awfully clear, in the very words of
> Trent and Aquinas, as if they lived today. It's that specific. Still,
> true - I _don't_ know why he fails to lead. I really don't. Pray for
> His Holiness if it pleases Our Lord. What more can one do?
It isn't as clear once you look at WHY TRENT AND AQUINAS WROTE THE WORDS.
Which, oddly enough, you seem to refuse to do. Why?
> >and you're saying another, that the Italian and ICEL are not. If I were
> >you, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church completely and find myself a
> >Traditional Schismatic parish.
>
> Nice of you to be concerned for my welfare. May I suggest an
> alternative. _You_ convert to Catholicism. We know what it is. The
> documents are on-line. Books by Saints and Doctors are entirely
> on-line at various web sites. You can read the Summa cover to cover,
> and so on. There's no excuse.
Your misquoteing of the Saints and the Doctors is NOT covered by Papal
infalibility. And that's why I simply can't believe you. Go get a Nihil
Obstat, and an Imprimature, for your work, then we'll talk.
> >I really cannot understand how, when faced
> >with this contradiction, you cannot either yeild to Papal influence or
> >leave, I'd do one or the other,
>
> Because it was established at Nuremberg, I think, that the excuse I
> was just followin orders is no excuse for following them. You are not
> bound to obey an illegal order. And 'new order' appears invalid on its
> face.
Nuremberg is secular. Secular courts hold no bearing on the faith and
morals of the church.
And just because you remove Trent and Aquinas from the very real heresies
they were fighting against just so you can critcize the Pope is NOT valid
either.
Snip corollary comparing the Pope to Hitler.
> >wood", undermining the faith of others in the papacy.
>
> But it _is_ the papacy that is protected in explicit declarations on
> doctrine concerning faith and morals. It _was_, and yes IS, the Holy
> See, that stands behind Trent. And it is the Roman Catechism which
> explains why the ICEList consecration, specifically, is contrary to
> Catholic teaching. This is . . . not . . . complicated.
Yes, in fact it is. ICEL is not Jean Calvin, no matter how much you try
to force them into the silly little mold.
> You can't have it both ways. If you think the current Pope holds Trent
> to be in error in a matter of infallible doctrine - namely, to whom do
> the fruits of Our Lord's Sacrifice go - then say so, and confess that
> The Magisterium, in your new religion, is NOT irreformable, but quite
> fallible. As a Catholic, I understand The Magisterium to be what the
> Saints and Doctors understood it to be. I understand that Catholics
> died for The Faith, not for the new religion. I honor _their_ memories
> at the least, not those of the 'better way'. So . . . there we are.
So does the 'better way', by doing the commandment of Christ.
In fact, let's look at those four basic commandments upon which all else
is built:
1. Love the Lord your God with all of your mind, heart, and soul.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
3. Spread the truth of the Gospel.
4. The truth of the Gospel is forgiveness.
In thse four that the Church has upheld for 2000 years now, where does
your quibling over language stand?
> >No they're not. No way to transmit wax seals over electrons.
>
> So you want the wax? I, myself, would be more interested in what's
> written on the parchment.
Wax notwithstanding (isn't important, just making a point), without a
Nihil Obstat and Imprimature, we have no way of knowing what is in error
and what is not.
Have you recieved either for your website?
> >I'm not so sure it is. I've seen far too many hoaxes on the net to
> >believe ANYTHING I read on the net as gospel truth.
>
> Unless you believe these various archives to be serving out phony
> translations or horribly doctored documents, you can easily read what
> the Popes have written, the Saints, Doctors, and even ask a question
> or two over at EWTN.
I believe that the history surrounding these documents, without which
proper interpretation cannot be done, has in fact been stripped from these
documents. You still have the letter of the law, but you're missing the
SPIRIT of the law, which is so essential.
And just because a bunch of other traditionalists agree with you doesn't
mean that you're not all missing the point.
> >This one is in fact the ONLY one I'm willing to listen to, the only one
> >I'm willing to take teaching from, as has been the tradition for the last
> >25 years in my archdiocese.
>
> There were Catholics before your day, before mine. It's their
> tradition you want, if you want to call yourself Catholic. It's that
> of God, not that of man.
Tradition in the Catholic Church is built upon tradition. That's called
Development, and has been since the very beginning.
> >It's about as usefull to me as reading your web page. As in, not very.
>
> Have you read it? Or do you just hang about, shuffling your feet,
> afraid to read what The Church actually said about something - rather
> than rely on the hearsay of trendy vicars?
As far as I'm concerned, that's all that web address is, hearsay.
> I quote word for word from the Roman Catechism, the Summa, and refer
> to passages of Scripture. Double check them all for yourself. All is
> on-line. And surely you have a Douay-Rheims on your shelf, somewhere.
Once again, I don't read documents online, it's too easy to change them.
> >I'd sooner believe a flying saucer with little green men than your URL.
>
> Then to hell with The Roman Catechism - Aquinas, too? Maybe _you're_
> wrong. Maybe they weren't. Maybe it's The Church you're looking for.
Maybe if you had ONE REAL THEOLOGIAN checking your work...But even then,
an Imprimature on the net?
> >And in fact, I've got URLs that have pictures of flying saucers with
> >little green men.... :-)
>
> Art Bell, right?
And others.
Cut and paste all you want. It still remains just cutting and pasteing,
and you can create ANYTHING that way.
> >My question is simple: Why should I believe you over the Pope?
>
> Over Pius V, Leo 13th, and so on? They're my heroes, along with other
> Popes. What do I write that disagrees with what they wrote?
I'm talking about the Current Pope. JP2.
Check out what he's written on the topic. If you dare.
> face. This is based on - what Catholics believe. A Catholic cannot
I'm Catholic, and no, I don't believe your stupid, heretical, web page.
> But The Creed I confess is out of The Roman Missal. Yours is from
> ICEL, I'm guessing. It's not quite the same. I'd show you side by
> side, and maybe _will_ get something like that on my web site.
I'm pointing out that web sites, in general, are not print and contain
error.
> >Actually, there are three "new religions" being pushed here:
> >1 CTA-are impatient like Luther, they want to force the church into
> >changes it isn't ready for, may never be ready for.
> >2 Diocean-does their best to follow the Pope
>
> No - follows CTA and the rest of the 'spirit of' gang. That's why I
> refer to them as the trendy parishes down the block. They are in the
> forefront of the new religion. RENEW 2000 anyone?
You're the only one saying that. No one else is. In fact, most of the
Diocean preachers don't like the CTA any better than you do. Which you'd
know, if you weren't busy writing anti-diocean tracts all the time.
> >3 Traditionalist-do their best to NOT follow the Pope and NOT change when
> >he asks them to.
>
> Some things can't be changed. You don't go up to Jesus and say to Him,
> don't go to Jerusalem this week, my Lord - you'll be killed. And you
> don't whisper over His shoulder at The Last Supper - y'knoowww, maybe,
> just maybe, you could suggest that all are saved, not just a few? no?
Has it ever occured to you, just maybe, that times have changed since
1500?
> >Each one considers the others to be "new religion". But only one uses
> >Apostolic Authority.
>
> There is heresy afoot. Part of your madness is to deny the obvious. Am
> I right?
It's not obvious to anybody else. In the end result, YOU DON'T HAVE
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, JPII DOES!
> I don't understand the Pope's failure to lead. I don't
> understand his 'altar girls' ruling, his remarks on evolution, his
> participation in pagan rituals, his banning The Mass from St. Peter's,
> and whatever else I've mentioned. I _don't_ understand. If it pleases
> Our Lord, if it does, we pray for His Holiness to put away worldly
> schemes, and show the world what a Pope once stood for. He's taken
> some steps with recent rather moderate documents. But the follow-up,
> if any, is yet to be seen.
Pray first for your own understanding before you condemn.
> >I'm not. I've read it a number of times and find it to be incomplete and
> >invalid on it's face. And I'll tell you why:
>
> >1. No Nihil Obstat
> >2. No Imprimature
> >3. Not from the Vatican.
>
> It's all of the above, and more. The case is made by what is quoted.
> And what is quoted is the Summa and the Roman Catechism.
Who read your page and gave it an imprimature then? Not your source
material, since that can be cut and pasted to support anything. Your
page.
> >In the end result, you can print out that web page and use it for toliet
> >paper, it does not contain church teaching.
>
> I'm afraid it does. And you just prefer a 'better way'. But it's never
> the answer.
Where is your apostolic authority to claim that?
> >The Church doesn't teach from the Preacher, the Church teaches from the
> >words of Jesus Christ.
> >And still does in the "New Order", which any Saint would be proud of, but
> >you Mark, are no saint.
>
> Didn't say I was. But I won't be one by joining the new religion.
> That's all I can tell _you_, as well.
That's my point. In the end result, you have no apostolic authority, just
like Luther.
> >I'm pointing out that you're more like a Mormon than like a Catholic.
>
> No, you were writing as a Protestant slamming the Catholic. Step back,
> here. Look at what you're actually writing. This new religion is no
> answer. What you're looking for is - The Church.
You are no Catholic, you have no Apostolic Authority.
> >It should be offensive, I find your entire argument to be offensive and just
> >a little bit blasephamous.
>
> If you were . . . Protestant. Sure. But I'm not.
You have become so.
> And this is a
> Catholic ng. And you should _expect_ Catholics to defend and explain
> the Faith, here. You don't write what you do, above, about The Holy
> Mass and still retain anything more than a Clintonian credibility in
> _your_ claim to be faithful to orthodox teaching. It's orthodoxy,
> after all, which is referred to in the Canon, if not in 'new order'
> (and can we wonder why?).
But that's the problem. The New Order has Apostolic Authority. The
Trinitine Mass has Apostolic Authority. You, Mark Johnson, do not.
It's simple.
> >Rip away the Bible from the religion if you want to in your Trad
> >Schismatic churches. But you're not following Apostolic Tradition if you
> >do, you're inventing your own tradition.
>
> The new religion is adopting an old tradition, to be fair. It's
> Protestant, and rationalist as Protestants were and became, and pagan
> as rationalists are fascinated by the occult. Apostolic tradition, on
> the other hand, means more than laying on of hands, and valid
> succession. It means the continuation of dogma, and the succession of
> belief. It means that what was true, then, is also confessed as true,
> today - or it weren't, then. I do wish you'd think about that.
I checked. The Pius V Mass has a Liturgy of the Word in it. Why you want
to change the Pius V Mass to remove the Liturgy of the Word is beyond me.
But the point is, you don't have the Apostolic Authority to do so.
> >That last part is important. Within the communion of Rome. I'm not so
> >sure anymore, despite the indult, that the traditionalists are (for the
> >simple reason that they refuse to recognize the rest of the communion of
> >Rome as being valid).
>
> Who's doing his 'private interpreting' now? You _sure_ do like to have
> it both ways. The indult is pretty clear. The follow-up memos were, as
> well. And when a bishop tried to excommunicate some SSPX parishioners,
> Rome reinstated them. You're going to have to look somewhere other
> than Rome, right now, to find support for your opinion.
I will not look outside of Rome, for I am in communion with Rome. Why do
you turn outside of Rome to support your arguments?
> >The Eastern Orthodox, to us, are merely in schism. To them, we're
> >heretics. To me, the traditionalists are only in schism. To them, I'm a
> >heretic.
>
> You're a heretic if you subscribe to the new religion, if you hold
> holy tradition in contempt, if you can't be bothered with the lives of
> the Saints, or councils before Vatican II, and so on. You're a heretic
> if you are. I just think you are very ignorant. But that's _not_ a
> permanent condition, or a comment, necessarily, on one's
> intelligence.
My point is that you're not paying attention to the lives of the Saints or
the current council either. You've totally ignored Francis in your
arguments, why? You've ignored St. Pius X, the only pope in our century
to be sainted, why?
> >Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
> >verancular?
>
> No.
I warned you, Yes or now answer, rest snipped.
Rather, as you did point out, they DID ask for the mass in the vernacular.
That some translators failed to follow their suggestions 100% is not
important, the fact is that they did. Your initial conclusion of No is
wrong, and that's the point.
> >Either the Magisterium is, in it's entirety, whole and true, regardless of
> >your personal opinion of some sort of "contradiction" or it's not. My
> >faith rests on it being whole and true. If it's not, then I suggest you
> >are no longer a Roman Catholic.
>
> But you don't know what The Magisterium is. It's The Magisterium which
> holds against 'new order'. Again, either Catholics were right, then,
> or the 'spirit of' crowd are right, today. But there's your
> contradiction.
Except for the fact that the "Spirit Of" crowd ARE part of the
magisterium. And thus your contradiction is not one at all, but a lack of
understanding of how the Magisterium works.
> Oh. Didn't realize UNIX aps were so limiting. Someone should write a
> program, some day. Come to think of it, isn't 'linnux' GUI?
I access by telnet. It's strictly line based.
> >How about a book about the American Catholic experience? I'd suggest you
> >start with Scott Hahn's _Rome_Sweet_Home_.
> >He dealt with all of the issues you've brought up and then some.
>
> I've got a few books on the 'American' experience. Interesting what
> Catholics were able to do in a culturally Prot/'enlightenment'
> country, I think.
Considering that Catholics are now 50% of the nearly 192 million
Christians living in America, yes.
> >And the Holy Mass is definitely protected by God, The Holy Spirit. You
> >can't narrowly define it to only the Trinidine and still be on solid
> >ground if the Pope does not support you in entirety.
>
> You're putting words in the Pope's mouth to make _your_ case.
Nope. He supports the Italian. He's come out in cautious support of
ICEL. And he's come out in support of the Trinidine.
All of which are the Holy Mass.
And you have no right to change it.
> >Once again, matter of faith. Either he's right or he isn't, and if he
> >isn't, then we've got a severe connection problem to the Holy Spirit.
>
> Evolution goes to faith, as much as anything - however you cut it. And
> yet he can be wrong in his personal opinion. 'New order' was not an
> infallible decree. And to the extent it departs from Catholic
> tradition and teaching, it comes off more as a Protestant's service
> than the Catholic Mass. So be it. But I'll take The Mass, instead.
> It's what Catholics do.
A Pope taught the "New Order", thus it is infalible. Not to follow the
Pope is to become Protestant.
There is no other line to be drawn without leaving the church.
> >> He can approve altar girls.
>
> >Matter of the Holy Mass, which is a matter for the Holy Spirit, not for
> >you.
>
> He was wrong on altar girls, for the very reasons his former defenders
> so zealously offered _before_ the ruling came down.
My point is this: He is Pope, you are not. For me that's enough to say
that he is right and you are wrong.
> >He's Pope. He's final authority, not some nut with a computer.
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself, you mean?
No, you're the nut with the computer. JP2 has final authority, I will
abide by what he says. I will NOT follow an anti-pope like yourself.
> >Nothing of anything is new in the Church, no matter what you name it.
>
> But various infallible declarations are new in the sense that they
> explicitly clarify matters, but based on the tradition and deposit of
> faith. The revelation is not new. And nothing new of the sort is
> implied. But the clarification is an addition. And this is not what
> Vatican II was about, or did, I believe according to Paul VI, himself.
Doesn't matter, it has been done, by people unlike you. To not follow the
hierarchy of the church just because you have no faith is not valid.
> >And you sir, have become Schismatic when you talk about the church that
> >way.
>
> Then Athanasius was a 'schismatic'.
Why do you think the Lutherans use his creed?
> You need to confess not bishops
> who are no longer faithful, not committees which could care less about
> holy humility, but the doctrine of the Saints if that's what you wish
> to become yourself. In times of heresy, there has always been a
> remnant. There remains so today, in the institution, some wearing the
> collar, other in the ranks of the laity. But not all are faithful. Not
> all orders are to be followed. The standard of God must apply, not the
> standard of men. We _can_ know - what Catholics believe - in this era
> of 'the net'; and I would think even if one must use UNIX.
That's my point. If the Net becomes your only standard, you open yourself
up to error. But if God, and his appointed representative on earth, the
Pope, is your standard, you cannot err.
Don't follow some nut on the net, follow the Pope.
> >You're the one with a new denomination, for you no longer follow the Pope.
>
> But I do. By implying he ought to be impeccable, _you_ are the one
> showing not the proper respect for the office.
Then why do you attack, on the face, every Pope since Vat. II?
Why do you tear down the church?
Mark Johnson
>On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> That remains something of a hypothetical, save for the sedevacantist.
>> The conflict, here, is between Bugnini and Trent, basically, between
>> Paul VI and Vatican II.
>So who is greater, Pope or Council, is that where your problem lies?
The Magisterium is the standard, even for Popes and councils. I just
don't believe you understand something so basic as that.
>> I don't think they've ever gone on record saying such. I would guess,
>> if asked, that JP II would call ICELism for what it is, and disapprove
>> it as just a very bad translation, and not just at the consecration.
>He has been asked. Point blank. And he did no such thing.
>He HAS come out against specific points in the translation, but ICEL has
>been allowed to make changes to fit in with the Pope instead of being
>thrown out outright...Which once again points to this being mere
>development, not heresy.
Don't put words in his mouth. Either quote him directly, or don't
bother - if you want to be fair.
>> Why he doesn't act against the Italian, which he likely participates
>> in, I don't know. No doubt it's left unresolved, vague, and so a
>> matter of doubt as to the validity of such. As The Church has not
>> definitively ruled, even I consider it an open question, in that
>> regard. But the evidence seems awfully clear, in the very words of
>> Trent and Aquinas, as if they lived today. It's that specific. Still,
>> true - I _don't_ know why he fails to lead. I really don't. Pray for
>> His Holiness if it pleases Our Lord. What more can one do?
>It isn't as clear once you look at WHY TRENT AND AQUINAS WROTE THE WORDS.
>Which, oddly enough, you seem to refuse to do. Why?
It is self-evident why they wrote proscriptions. It was to proscribe
behavior, that specific behavior, and those specific words, for the
specific reasons you can read there, for yourself.
>> >and you're saying another, that the Italian and ICEL are not. If I were
>> >you, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church completely and find myself a
>> >Traditional Schismatic parish.
>> Nice of you to be concerned for my welfare. May I suggest an
>> alternative. _You_ convert to Catholicism. We know what it is. The
>> documents are on-line. Books by Saints and Doctors are entirely
>> on-line at various web sites. You can read the Summa cover to cover,
>> and so on. There's no excuse.
>Your misquoteing of the Saints and the Doctors
How? Any fool can level such a charge. But you're no fool, right? So
tell me why? "Misquoting" - how?
>infalibility. And that's why I simply can't believe you. Go get a Nihil
>Obstat, and an Imprimature, for your work, then we'll talk.
Again, the Summa and The Roman Catechism are pretty much in line,
let's say, with - what Catholics believe.
>> Because it was established at Nuremberg, I think, that the excuse I
>> was just followin orders is no excuse for following them. You are not
>> bound to obey an illegal order. And 'new order' appears invalid on its
>> face.
>Nuremberg is secular. Secular courts hold no bearing on the faith and
>morals of the church.
So you argue for a LESSER standard of conduct for The Church than for
the world? Can I say - I told you so? It's kind of in the nature of .
. new religions.
>And just because you remove Trent and Aquinas from the very real heresies
>they were fighting against just so you can critcize the Pope is NOT valid
>either.
I've criticized JP II for a number of things. I criticize Paul VI for
the very 'new order' you so blindly defend, in my opinion.
>Snip corollary comparing the Pope to Hitler.
But I never did. Only in your twisted mind; too much of the new
religion, I'm guessing.
>> But it _is_ the papacy that is protected in explicit declarations on
>> doctrine concerning faith and morals. It _was_, and yes IS, the Holy
>> See, that stands behind Trent. And it is the Roman Catechism which
>> explains why the ICEList consecration, specifically, is contrary to
>> Catholic teaching. This is . . . not . . . complicated.
>Yes, in fact it is. ICEL is not Jean Calvin, no matter how much you try
>to force them into the silly little mold.
Sure looks Prot to me.
I mean, consider: in some churches you still have the vestige of
Catholicism. I refer to the high altar, marble, consecrated (that's
right), sitting below a large carved canopy. At one time there would
have been statuary in the alcoves alongside, as one can still find in
various South American and European cathedrals and churches. But,
nonetheless, if you'll cast your gaze upward, you'll see that canopy,
maybe 20 feet above the floor of the sanctuary, or what used to be
such, shielding and symbolically enclosing the altar and maybe the
steps up to the altar. But wait, you'll say - THAT'S not the altar.
That's just a big creedence table, or something. The altar is that
folding table, below the steps, facing _away_ from the high altar and
the canopy, symbolically out from under that canopy even (save for in
some modernist churches, a few), and facing toward the audience (er,
congregation, in 'gathering').
I suggest to you that the 'creedence table' up top is really still,
and always was, the altar, and that the folding table below is the
pre-eminent symbol of the Protestant service, which 'new order' sure
appears to be. When the folding altar was set in place, let me remind
you that other changes were made to 'desanctify', as it were, the
sanctuary. The communion rails were likely removed. The sanctuary
became an extension of the pews. The pipe organ in the loft most
likely was no longer used, or sold off, and a piano dragged up to the
side near where the communion rails had been. The stained glass,
bequeathed by faithful Catholics of earlier generations may have been
allowed to fall into disrepair, so that all could be removed in favor
of some abstract, or just plain glass (who knows). And the Mass - The
Mass was substituted with 'new order', in much of the world, an
English language, vernacular thing, stripping creeds and prayers
seemingly at random of entire passages, spare with terms such as holy,
and orthodox, and venerable and so on, lacking the numerous signs of
the cross found in The Holy Mass, lacking its reverence and holiness,
lacking even on its face, the very claim to validity.
All of this you defend. And I'm on the other side. Fair enough. I
think all Protestants are wrong to deny The Church. But you then claim
to speak for the Saints and Doctors, for The Church itself. And this
is particularly where I'm suggesting you're wrong. You don't seem to
know what The Church teaches, what it taught, and so are not as eager
as myself to defend - what Catholics believe. It's just ignorance on
your part. And you need only educate yourself, while God gives you the
opportunity to confess, and repent.
>> You can't have it both ways. If you think the current Pope holds Trent
>> to be in error in a matter of infallible doctrine - namely, to whom do
>> the fruits of Our Lord's Sacrifice go - then say so, and confess that
>> The Magisterium, in your new religion, is NOT irreformable, but quite
>> fallible. As a Catholic, I understand The Magisterium to be what the
>> Saints and Doctors understood it to be. I understand that Catholics
>> died for The Faith, not for the new religion. I honor _their_ memories
>> at the least, not those of the 'better way'. So . . . there we are.
>So does the 'better way', by doing the commandment of Christ.
But it doesn't. The 'spirit of' sort think they've found something
that Catholics of recently previous generations, those who helped
build not only the nation but churches and hospitals, charities and
missions, and all the rest, never knew or could have understood.
They've found, they think - the 'better way'. It never is. It's never
better. In fact, it's never new. It's just the same old shopworn
heresies, tarted up to folks studiously ignorant of the past. They not
only don't "do" the commandments, they really could care less. _Their_
commandments seem so much more 'revelant' and interesting to
themselves.
>In fact, let's look at those four basic commandments upon which all else
>is built:
>1. Love the Lord your God with all of your mind, heart, and soul.
>2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Well, the first is key. The second actually goes more like - love even
your enemy as God loves you.
>3. Spread the truth of the Gospel.
If you know what it is. Never beg the question, here - not if you're
honest.
>4. The truth of the Gospel is forgiveness.
"The" truth. The truth was captured in 1 and 2, above. That was the
very sense Our Lord gave to it. Your refinement, your new discovery,
here, suggests too much by the emphasis and omission of the rest. God
forgives, if we want to be forgiven, not if we don't. Was Hitler
forgiven for committing suicide? not to mention the satanic slaughter
of so many, or even the petty mind games he played routinely. If we
are judged wanting, in our last hour, it is because we are, because we
sought the 'better way', not The Way - because the world beckoned, and
we even scorned and mocked those who told us that's not the way.
>In thse four that the Church has upheld for 2000 years now, where does
>your quibling over language stand?
It really is The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. Our Lord
died for all. But the fruits of His Passion do not go to all, but to
many. This is - what Catholics believe, if not in 'new order'.
>Wax notwithstanding (isn't important, just making a point), without a
>Nihil Obstat and Imprimature, we have no way of knowing what is in error
>and what is not.
>Have you recieved either for your website?
Basically, yes, unless you want to make the case I'm taking them out
of context. It's a pointlessly easy thing to _claim_. But try to make
the case . . .
But do try. You've made the charge. I want to see you make the case,
as well. And _don't_ tell me the 'world is the context'. Spend a
little more effort on it, than that, please.
>> Unless you believe these various archives to be serving out phony
>> translations or horribly doctored documents, you can easily read what
>> the Popes have written, the Saints, Doctors, and even ask a question
>> or two over at EWTN.
>I believe that the history surrounding these documents, without which
>proper interpretation cannot be done, has in fact been stripped from these
>documents. You still have the letter of the law, but you're missing the
>SPIRIT of the law, which is so essential.
Of course, the 'better' interpretation. The spin.
Why spin? Why not deal with cases?
>And just because a bunch of other traditionalists agree with you doesn't
>mean that you're not all missing the point.
Sometimes the consensus is wrong. Sometimes it's right. That's not the
standard, though often the reputation of the consensus leaders _does_
have some bearing on the weight given to it. And some of the folks who
have been critical over the last 30-40 years have had rather
upstanding reputations, and have been greatly respected and admired.
You do recall even Mother Teresa being eager to report that 'altar
girls' would _not_ be approved, just before they were, and of her
disgust with a practice I'm sure you defend of communion in the hand?
>> There were Catholics before your day, before mine. It's their
>> tradition you want, if you want to call yourself Catholic. It's that
>> of God, not that of man.
>Tradition in the Catholic Church is built upon tradition. That's called
>Development, and has been since the very beginning.
You're trying to say - what - now?
>> >It's about as usefull to me as reading your web page. As in, not very.
>> Have you read it? Or do you just hang about, shuffling your feet,
>> afraid to read what The Church actually said about something - rather
>> than rely on the hearsay of trendy vicars?
>As far as I'm concerned, that's all that web address is, hearsay.
You can read the Summa and Roman Catechism, the Scripture passages I
cite, for yourself. That's not what is meant by the term - hearsay -
even to the most broadbrush of librals.
>> I quote word for word from the Roman Catechism, the Summa, and refer
>> to passages of Scripture. Double check them all for yourself. All is
>> on-line. And surely you have a Douay-Rheims on your shelf, somewhere.
>Once again, I don't read documents online, it's too easy to change them.
The Prots did nothing _but_ change Scripture, from the very moment the
moveable type press come into use. You don't need a computer for the
sort of thing you suggest. Instead, you have to argue that this or
that on-line Bible is phony in some way - and many are. I was recently
pointed to a 'Douay' version that listed Maccabees, I believe, as
apocryphal. So, I didn't recommend those. I recommended The Roman
Catechism, the Summa, and the real Douay-Rhiems, or Challoner if
that's all you can find, as you might have "on your shelf". Surely you
can read what I wrote.
>> >I'd sooner believe a flying saucer with little green men than your URL.
>> Then to hell with The Roman Catechism - Aquinas, too? Maybe _you're_
>> wrong. Maybe they weren't. Maybe it's The Church you're looking for.
>Maybe if you had ONE REAL THEOLOGIAN checking your work...But even then,
>an Imprimature on the net?
Again, if you think I'm taking anything out of context, short of the
'world' being my 'context' - make the case. Others have balked, not
surprizingly. But you're different, right? You _believe_ what you're
saying. So be Calvin, be Luther. Write, and write some more. Make the
case for what you believe, and why the Catholic is wrong.
>> >My question is simple: Why should I believe you over the Pope?
>> Over Pius V, Leo 13th, and so on? They're my heroes, along with other
>> Popes. What do I write that disagrees with what they wrote?
>I'm talking about the Current Pope. JP2.
>Check out what he's written on the topic. If you dare.
Don't put words in his mouth. You make it sound as if _he_ dares to
disagree with Pius V, Leo 13th, "and so on". Quote him instead, unless
you really don't care what he actually wrote - which I sort of
suspect.
>> face. This is based on - what Catholics believe. A Catholic cannot
>I'm Catholic, and no, I don't believe your stupid, heretical, web page.
I think you subscribe to the new religion. It's heresy. There's a
standard, here. It's not what _you_ believe. It's - what Catholics
believe. I can understand your _not_ understanding this, considering
that the creed you swear to, at 'new order', is a really bastardized
version of even the Creed. You _start_ in ignorance, in this. You've
got doctored prayers, a substitute liturgy, but you insist you're
_not_ like those in the embryonic Church of England, who were won over
to a new religion in just a similar fashion. As I wrote:
>> But The Creed I confess is out of The Roman Missal. Yours is from
>> ICEL, I'm guessing. It's not quite the same. I'd show you side by
>> side, and maybe _will_ get something like that on my web site.
>I'm pointing out that web sites, in general, are not print and contain
>error.
Then your newsprint missallette is similarly in error. That's what I
was referring to. Compare if you dare, to paraphrase yourself.
>> No - follows CTA and the rest of the 'spirit of' gang. That's why I
>> refer to them as the trendy parishes down the block. They are in the
>> forefront of the new religion. RENEW 2000 anyone?
>You're the only one saying that. No one else is. In fact, most of the
>Diocean preachers don't like the CTA any better than you do. Which you'd
>know, if you weren't busy writing anti-diocean tracts all the time.
"Most" is anecdotal, as best. My 'most' would contradict your 'most',
I believe.
RENEW 2000 anyone?
Don't be evasive.
>> >3 Traditionalist-do their best to NOT follow the Pope and NOT change when
>> >he asks them to.
>> Some things can't be changed. You don't go up to Jesus and say to Him,
>> don't go to Jerusalem this week, my Lord - you'll be killed. And you
>> don't whisper over His shoulder at The Last Supper - y'knoowww, maybe,
>> just maybe, you could suggest that all are saved, not just a few? no?
>Has it ever occured to you, just maybe, that times have changed since
>1500?
a) you can't seriously tell me you _believe_ in the 'development' of
Our Lord's words at The Last Supper. And b) what about the role of
God, The Holy Spirit, _during_ your 1500 years? Is that to be ignored?
Did God make a mistake? Or is some 'development' to be esteemed, and
the rest to be ignored? You should think about it, just to be
consistent.
>> There is heresy afoot. Part of your madness is to deny the obvious. Am
>> I right?
>It's not obvious to anybody else. In the end result, YOU DON'T HAVE
>APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, JPII DOES!
Well, again, the majority isn't always right. But the heresy notion
wasn't originally my own. I read it about it, somewhere. And then I
began to see it, for myself. As for JP II, I don't know why he doesn't
lead. He issues. He decrees. And the issues and decrees are ignored by
the bishops. What to do? It's a mess. If it pleases Our Lord, pray
that His Holiness will act as Popes used to act. Pray that the example
made of Lefebvre becomes an example for many more, as it were. There's
no reason it shouldn't. As I wrote:
>> I don't understand the Pope's failure to lead. I don't
>> understand his 'altar girls' ruling, his remarks on evolution, his
>> participation in pagan rituals, his banning The Mass from St. Peter's,
>> and whatever else I've mentioned. I _don't_ understand. If it pleases
>> Our Lord, if it does, we pray for His Holiness to put away worldly
>> schemes, and show the world what a Pope once stood for. He's taken
>> some steps with recent rather moderate documents. But the follow-up,
>> if any, is yet to be seen.
>Pray first for your own understanding before you condemn.
You do like to sling, don't you? What a gentle soul you are. I don't
condemn His Holiness. I criticize him. Your exaggeration is telling,
and suggests more about your own makeup, than mine, I think.
>> It's all of the above, and more. The case is made by what is quoted.
>> And what is quoted is the Summa and the Roman Catechism.
>Who read your page and gave it an imprimature then? Not your source
>material, since that can be cut and pasted to support anything. Your
>page.
You think I took anything out of context - make the case. Don't whine.
Write. Think about it. Put it in some reasonable order. And show me
why Aquinas really meant something else, why The Roman Catechism needs
to be more 'carefully nuanced'.
>> >In the end result, you can print out that web page and use it for toliet
>> >paper, it does not contain church teaching.
>> I'm afraid it does. And you just prefer a 'better way'. But it's never
>> the answer.
>Where is your apostolic authority to claim that?
Trent. Your complaint, ultimately, is with Aquinas, Trent, Pius V, the
Saints and Doctors - really, The Church, itself. That's who you think
is wrong in all this. I hope you come to realize it.
>> >And still does in the "New Order", which any Saint would be proud of, but
>> >you Mark, are no saint.
>> Didn't say I was. But I won't be one by joining the new religion.
>> That's all I can tell _you_, as well.
>That's my point. In the end result, you have no apostolic authority, just
>like Luther.
The question of valid ordination was raised recently by apparent
changes to the rite. That's under the new religion, not Catholicism.
It's this that you defend which has a real problem with the apostolic
authority, thing. Time, and later councils, will tell how much.
>> >I'm pointing out that you're more like a Mormon than like a Catholic.
>> No, you were writing as a Protestant slamming the Catholic. Step back,
>> here. Look at what you're actually writing. This new religion is no
>> answer. What you're looking for is - The Church.
>You are no Catholic, you have no Apostolic Authority.
Most Catholics did not have the bishop lay hands on them in Orders.
But we're still Catholic. We're just not ordained. You must have meant
to say something else. You shouldn't be so cagey, or 'clever'. Say
what you mean. Then you won't be misunderstood.
>> >It should be offensive, I find your entire argument to be offensive and just
>> >a little bit blasephamous.
>> If you were . . . Protestant. Sure. But I'm not.
>You have become so.
On what basis? My confession of a Creed that is unfamiliar to you? My
confession of Trent which you seem to regard as a dead letter?
And what about you? You defend all the above, all the heresy, all the
'spirit of' from Bugnini, though Paul VI, through the words but
inaction of JPII and even his odd remarks and behavior at times. You
defend 'altar girls' and communion in the hand, to oppose the late
Mother Teresa. You defend the absurdities of even a 'pristine' 'new
order', to oppose Ottaviani, Bacci, and the rest who objected. You
elevate Vatican II to a level Paul VI would not, and suggest it was
more than Trent in a way von Hildebrand said it never could be. You
have embraced a new religion, one at odds with Catholicism, as Cranmer
was at odds with Catholicism, as Calvin was, as Luther, as the Prot
translators were, as were those who went to war on The Church, killed
the priests, seized the monasteries for their 'summer homes', and so
on. But you say - no?
>> And this is a
>> Catholic ng. And you should _expect_ Catholics to defend and explain
>> the Faith, here. You don't write what you do, above, about The Holy
>> Mass and still retain anything more than a Clintonian credibility in
>> _your_ claim to be faithful to orthodox teaching. It's orthodoxy,
>> after all, which is referred to in the Canon, if not in 'new order'
>> (and can we wonder why?).
>But that's the problem. The New Order has Apostolic Authority. The
>Trinitine Mass has Apostolic Authority. You, Mark Johnson, do not.
>It's simple.
Tridentine, they call it. But it long predates Trent. I never claimed
to be ordained. So let your straw man expire. And 'new order' appears
invalid on its face. It is not legitimate, not valid, and so possessed
of NO authority, if so. What you are vaguely trying to claim, without
realizing it, is some infallibility for the promulgation of this new
liturgy. You wish to equate it with the declaration of The Vatican
Council on infallibity, itself. But it's not that. 'New order' is not
infallible. It can be wrong. And turns out, it is. It should be put to
rest, immediately, just like Clinton should resign tomorrow. Neither
is likely to happen, but ought to.
>> The new religion is adopting an old tradition, to be fair. It's
>> Protestant, and rationalist as Protestants were and became, and pagan
>> as rationalists are fascinated by the occult. Apostolic tradition, on
>> the other hand, means more than laying on of hands, and valid
>> succession. It means the continuation of dogma, and the succession of
>> belief. It means that what was true, then, is also confessed as true,
>> today - or it weren't, then. I do wish you'd think about that.
>I checked. The Pius V Mass has a Liturgy of the Word in it. Why you want
>to change the Pius V Mass to remove the Liturgy of the Word is beyond me.
>But the point is, you don't have the Apostolic Authority to do so.
Again, let straw men lie. Read what I write, instead. That way you'll
know what I've written.
>> >That last part is important. Within the communion of Rome. I'm not so
>> >sure anymore, despite the indult, that the traditionalists are (for the
>> >simple reason that they refuse to recognize the rest of the communion of
>> >Rome as being valid).
>> Who's doing his 'private interpreting' now? You _sure_ do like to have
>> it both ways. The indult is pretty clear. The follow-up memos were, as
>> well. And when a bishop tried to excommunicate some SSPX parishioners,
>> Rome reinstated them. You're going to have to look somewhere other
>> than Rome, right now, to find support for your opinion.
>I will not look outside of Rome, for I am in communion with Rome. Why do
>you turn outside of Rome to support your arguments?
I don't. It _IS_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. No
doubt, when Athanasius questioned the opinion of some in Rome, you
would have called him, heretic, and not the Saint that he was.
And don't be so eager to be evasive, as well. You suggested something
unsavory about the SSPX, and particularly those who attend their
Masses. I was making the point that Rome doesn't support your opinion,
here. But you may find support for it, elsewhere. And before you
accuse _me_ of building straw men, I did assume you meant the SSPX. If
you meant someone else - again, you need to actually say what you
mean, if you don't wish to be misunderstood.
>> You're a heretic if you subscribe to the new religion, if you hold
>> holy tradition in contempt, if you can't be bothered with the lives of
>> the Saints, or councils before Vatican II, and so on. You're a heretic
>> if you are. I just think you are very ignorant. But that's _not_ a
>> permanent condition, or a comment, necessarily, on one's
>> intelligence.
>My point is that you're not paying attention to the lives of the Saints or
>the current council either. You've totally ignored Francis in your
>arguments, why?
How do you figure? Do you think St. Francis of Assissi ignored the
councils? or Church doctrine? You might be surprized at the patron
saint, as such, of the new religion.
>You've ignored St. Pius X, the only pope in our century
>to be sainted, why?
"In our century"? Don't the other centuries count? And what do you
think Pius X wrote that supports 'new order', rather than condemns it?
>> >Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
>> >verancular?
>> No.
>I warned you, Yes or now answer, rest snipped.
The libral is - after all - a 'control freak'. Deny it if you will.
>Rather, as you did point out, they DID ask for the mass in the vernacular.
No, just as I wrote:
They called for the Epistle and Gospel, one of each, perhaps to be
read aloud in the vernacular. All of this was already translated into
the local vernacular, after all - those facing pages, that someone
here seemed so to loathe. They suggested perhaps vernacular for the
'dialogue' responses, which had been sort of used or not for decades
by that point. Vernacular for some of the propers. Maybe vernacular
even for the closing Gospel, not found obv. in 'new order'. They never
imagined Bugnini. They never wanted 'new order'.
>That some translators failed to follow their suggestions 100% is not
>important, the fact is that they did. Your initial conclusion of No is
>wrong, and that's the point.
Delude yourself, then. That's something I know _I_ can't control.
>> But you don't know what The Magisterium is. It's The Magisterium which
>> holds against 'new order'. Again, either Catholics were right, then,
>> or the 'spirit of' crowd are right, today. But there's your
>> contradiction.
>Except for the fact that the "Spirit Of" crowd ARE part of the
>magisterium. And thus your contradiction is not one at all, but a lack of
>understanding of how the Magisterium works.
Or yours, correct? A 'magisterium' for our time - am I right? Who
needs the past. It only just gets in the way.
>> >And the Holy Mass is definitely protected by God, The Holy Spirit. You
>> >can't narrowly define it to only the Trinidine and still be on solid
>> >ground if the Pope does not support you in entirety.
>> You're putting words in the Pope's mouth to make _your_ case.
>Nope. He supports the Italian.
How so? What did he actually say?
>He's come out in cautious support of ICEL.
I think that's what you wish. I can't believe _he_ actually said that.
>And he's come out in support of the Trinidine.
The Holy Mass, called by some the Tridentine. And yes - _he_ signed
Ecclessia Dei. I think you're missing the big picture, as they say.
>All of which are the Holy Mass.
'New order' appears invalid on its face. You can't say that of any
other approved liturgy in the Catholic Church.
>And you have no right to change it.
Straw men never die, I suppose. I didn't change it. Bugnini did. Time
for his experiment to be put on the shelf.
>> Evolution goes to faith, as much as anything - however you cut it. And
>> yet he can be wrong in his personal opinion. 'New order' was not an
>> infallible decree. And to the extent it departs from Catholic
>> tradition and teaching, it comes off more as a Protestant's service
>> than the Catholic Mass. So be it. But I'll take The Mass, instead.
>> It's what Catholics do.
>A Pope taught the "New Order", thus it is infalible.
I see. You don't realize what you're even _trying_ to say, here. I
just wish you'd stop being so arrogant, and at least find _some_
interest in pursuing some study of - what Catholics believe. That _is_
what you're looking for. You do want to call yourself, Catholic, after
all, unlike various other posters to these ngs.
>Not to follow the Pope is to become Protestant.
>There is no other line to be drawn without leaving the church.
That's an exaggeration, and unfair to His Holiness. He was wrong about
'altar girls', it would seem in his views (or whoever's they were) on
evolution, on participating as he has in pagan rituals, banning The
Mass in St. Peter's, and the rest. I don't 'follow' him in that
because there's good reason no to. You suggest not infallibility, but
impeccability. Again, that's not holy, it's not . . 'papal', it does
no service to the Pope to put him in such a position.
>> He was wrong on altar girls, for the very reasons his former defenders
>> so zealously offered _before_ the ruling came down.
>My point is this: He is Pope, you are not. For me that's enough to say
>that he is right and you are wrong.
You wish to imply he left his fallen nature at the door when he become
Pope. He didn't. He _can_ be wrong. And 'new order' can be wrong. And
it is.
>> >He's Pope. He's final authority, not some nut with a computer.
>> Don't be so hard on yourself, you mean?
>No, you're the nut with the computer.
No - you're a nut. So there we are, right?
Why not actually consider this stuff, instead of exaggerating, and
making hysterical comments, and defending the new religion instead of
fighting it?
>> >And you sir, have become Schismatic when you talk about the church that
>> >way.
>> Then Athanasius was a 'schismatic'.
>Why do you think the Lutherans use his creed?
You think _Saint_ Athanasius was a . . schismatic? Seriously?
(know who he was?)
>> You need to confess not bishops
>> who are no longer faithful, not committees which could care less about
>> holy humility, but the doctrine of the Saints if that's what you wish
>> to become yourself. In times of heresy, there has always been a
>> remnant. There remains so today, in the institution, some wearing the
>> collar, other in the ranks of the laity. But not all are faithful. Not
>> all orders are to be followed. The standard of God must apply, not the
>> standard of men. We _can_ know - what Catholics believe - in this era
>> of 'the net'; and I would think even if one must use UNIX.
>That's my point. If the Net becomes your only standard, you open yourself
>up to error. But if God, and his appointed representative on earth, the
>Pope, is your standard, you cannot err.
Unless he does? He's Pope. He's not impeccable.
>Don't follow some nut on the net, follow the Pope.
And don't call just anyone who dares disagree with you - a nut. People
might start to think such of you. Who knows? If you can't carry on a
discussion, on UseNet of all things, maybe it's not for you.
>> >You're the one with a new denomination, for you no longer follow the Pope.
>> But I do. By implying he ought to be impeccable, _you_ are the one
>> showing not the proper respect for the office.
>Then why do you attack, on the face, every Pope since Vat. II?
>Why do you tear down the church?
I didn't. If I'd been around for Bugnini, I like to think I would have
a) punched him in the face and then b) made sure _I_ did all I could
to rescind what authority for the Concillium, and place the reform, as
such, called for by the fathers of the council back in the proper
institutional channels. I didn't desacralize The Church. I didn't
build those canopies, and those high altars. I didn't put in the altar
rails. And I didn't then tear them out, and ignore the sanctuary, and
put up a folding table, and place girls up on the altar sitting facing
the audience, backs to the crucifix and tabernacle, or change the
prayers, or 'personalize' the Bible, or emphasize salvation over
contrition - or even vote for Clinton.
I criticize Paul VI for 'new order'. I criticize JP II for various
things, and for _not_ acting to put away 'new order', as he ought. If
it pleases Our Lord, I pray for JP II. You should as well. And I pray
that in His Mercy, He will end this trial of our faith, one way or
another, as He tests the love, trust and obedience, we really do
profess for His Good News, all of it and not just a bit.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >> That remains something of a hypothetical, save for the sedevacantist.
> >> The conflict, here, is between Bugnini and Trent, basically, between
> >> Paul VI and Vatican II.
>
> >So who is greater, Pope or Council, is that where your problem lies?
>
> The Magisterium is the standard, even for Popes and councils. I just
> don't believe you understand something so basic as that.
Your definition of Magisterium is apparently different than what I've
heard before if the Popes and Councils are not a part of it.
In fact, if your Magisterium goes against the Deposit of Faith, I'd have a
tendency to question it.
> >It isn't as clear once you look at WHY TRENT AND AQUINAS WROTE THE WORDS.
> >Which, oddly enough, you seem to refuse to do. Why?
>
> It is self-evident why they wrote proscriptions. It was to proscribe
> behavior, that specific behavior, and those specific words, for the
> specific reasons you can read there, for yourself.
It's the specific reasons that are not included in the web page. Once
again, why? Why ignore the heresies that they were fighting against? Is
it because once you look at those heresies, you see that ICEL is nothing
of the sort?
> >Your misquoteing of the Saints and the Doctors
>
> How? Any fool can level such a charge. But you're no fool, right? So
> tell me why? "Misquoting" - how?
By not including the heresies that they were fighting against. You tell
us the what, but not the why.
> >infalibility. And that's why I simply can't believe you. Go get a Nihil
> >Obstat, and an Imprimature, for your work, then we'll talk.
>
> Again, the Summa and The Roman Catechism are pretty much in line,
> let's say, with - what Catholics believe.
They are, your page is not.
And I can cut and paste the parts of the Bible and the Roman Catechism to
show that abortion is just and good. Does that mean that it is what
Catholics believe? Of course not.
> >Nuremberg is secular. Secular courts hold no bearing on the faith and
> >morals of the church.
>
> So you argue for a LESSER standard of conduct for The Church than for
> the world? Can I say - I told you so? It's kind of in the nature of .
> . new religions.
I consider Nuremberg's punishment of the innocent along with the guilty to
be unjust. Thus I hold Nuremberg to the lesser standard of conduct, not
the church.
> >And just because you remove Trent and Aquinas from the very real heresies
> >they were fighting against just so you can critcize the Pope is NOT valid
> >either.
>
> I've criticized JP II for a number of things. I criticize Paul VI for
> the very 'new order' you so blindly defend, in my opinion.
Which is the very thing that makes you a Protestant.
> >Snip corollary comparing the Pope to Hitler.
>
> But I never did. Only in your twisted mind; too much of the new
> religion, I'm guessing.
Then why bring up Nuremberg at all?
> >Yes, in fact it is. ICEL is not Jean Calvin, no matter how much you try
> >to force them into the silly little mold.
>
> Sure looks Prot to me.
so? You are not infalible.
You can be decieved.
> I mean, consider: in some churches you still have the vestige of
> Catholicism. I refer to the high altar, marble, consecrated (that's
> right), sitting below a large carved canopy. At one time there would
> have been statuary in the alcoves alongside, as one can still find in
> various South American and European cathedrals and churches.
And in some extremely ancient churches in Europe, you have the vestige of
the original version of Catholicism: A simple table for the alter and no
pews at all, very little statuary, and open-air roof for lighting.
So what?
The church develops. Always has, always will, and it means NOTHING
towards doctrine.
> But,
> nonetheless, if you'll cast your gaze upward, you'll see that canopy,
> maybe 20 feet above the floor of the sanctuary, or what used to be
> such, shielding and symbolically enclosing the altar and maybe the
> steps up to the altar. But wait, you'll say - THAT'S not the altar.
> That's just a big creedence table, or something. The altar is that
> folding table, below the steps, facing _away_ from the high altar and
> the canopy, symbolically out from under that canopy even (save for in
> some modernist churches, a few), and facing toward the audience (er,
> congregation, in 'gathering').
"modernist", a word from Pope Pius X. Ok, but he started the development
of communion for all (as opposed to just for the Priest). So even he had
development.
> I suggest to you that the 'creedence table' up top is really still,
> and always was, the altar, and that the folding table below is the
> pre-eminent symbol of the Protestant service, which 'new order' sure
> appears to be.
A suggestion that's obviously false if you look at the churches that were
worshiped in before 400 A.D.
But of course, you don't care about that one whit, do you?
> When the folding altar was set in place, let me remind
> you that other changes were made to 'desanctify', as it were, the
> sanctuary. The communion rails were likely removed. The sanctuary
> became an extension of the pews. The pipe organ in the loft most
> likely was no longer used, or sold off, and a piano dragged up to the
> side near where the communion rails had been. The stained glass,
> bequeathed by faithful Catholics of earlier generations may have been
> allowed to fall into disrepair, so that all could be removed in favor
> of some abstract, or just plain glass (who knows). And the Mass - The
> Mass was substituted with 'new order', in much of the world, an
> English language, vernacular thing, stripping creeds and prayers
> seemingly at random of entire passages, spare with terms such as holy,
> and orthodox, and venerable and so on, lacking the numerous signs of
> the cross found in The Holy Mass, lacking its reverence and holiness,
> lacking even on its face, the very claim to validity.
And what I suggest to you is something entirely different. That the
Church, in her infinite wisdom that you don't understand, has made the
Mass MORE valid, more sacred, by doing all of the above.
I'm sorry you don't understand this. But it is a sign of your heresy that
you do not.
> All of this you defend. And I'm on the other side. Fair enough. I
> think all Protestants are wrong to deny The Church. But you then claim
> to speak for the Saints and Doctors, for The Church itself. And this
> is particularly where I'm suggesting you're wrong. You don't seem to
> know what The Church teaches, what it taught, and so are not as eager
> as myself to defend - what Catholics believe. It's just ignorance on
> your part. And you need only educate yourself, while God gives you the
> opportunity to confess, and repent.
You never understood what the church taught, that's the problem.
> >So does the 'better way', by doing the commandment of Christ.
>
> But it doesn't. The 'spirit of' sort think they've found something
> that Catholics of recently previous generations, those who helped
> build not only the nation but churches and hospitals, charities and
> missions, and all the rest, never knew or could have understood.
They understood it better than you do. Go look at the African churches in
the missions sometime.
> They've found, they think - the 'better way'. It never is. It's never
> better. In fact, it's never new. It's just the same old shopworn
> heresies, tarted up to folks studiously ignorant of the past. They not
> only don't "do" the commandments, they really could care less. _Their_
> commandments seem so much more 'revelant' and interesting to
> themselves.
It isn't new. It isn't the 'better way' It's just following the
commandment of Christ to spread the religion. Which you do not
accomplish.
> >In fact, let's look at those four basic commandments upon which all else
> >is built:
> >1. Love the Lord your God with all of your mind, heart, and soul.
> >2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
>
> Well, the first is key. The second actually goes more like - love even
> your enemy as God loves you.
Which you do not do. I've seen your attacks against liberals. I've seen
your attacks against the CTA. You hold no love for your enemy.
> >3. Spread the truth of the Gospel.
>
> If you know what it is. Never beg the question, here - not if you're
> honest.
I know what that is. You apparently do not, you show no love, no
forgiveness, for anybody, just dry rule of law, letter only, no spirit at
all.
> >4. The truth of the Gospel is forgiveness.
>
> "The" truth. The truth was captured in 1 and 2, above. That was the
> very sense Our Lord gave to it. Your refinement, your new discovery,
> here, suggests too much by the emphasis and omission of the rest.
This is the point. Without forgiveness, you have no love. Augustine knew
that in 380 A.D. Do you?
> God
> forgives, if we want to be forgiven, not if we don't. Was Hitler
> forgiven for committing suicide? not to mention the satanic slaughter
> of so many, or even the petty mind games he played routinely. If we
> are judged wanting, in our last hour, it is because we are, because we
> sought the 'better way', not The Way - because the world beckoned, and
> we even scorned and mocked those who told us that's not the way.
There is no difference. That's what you do not understand. And that's
why you hate me so.
> >In thse four that the Church has upheld for 2000 years now, where does
> >your quibling over language stand?
>
> It really is The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. Our Lord
> died for all. But the fruits of His Passion do not go to all, but to
> many. This is - what Catholics believe, if not in 'new order'.
It is not. You misinterpret the Magisterium because you fail to recognize
what they were fighting against. You fail to notice the change in the
meanings of words over the last 5 centuries. And finally, you fail to use
love.
> >Wax notwithstanding (isn't important, just making a point), without a
> >Nihil Obstat and Imprimature, we have no way of knowing what is in error
> >and what is not.
> >Have you recieved either for your website?
>
> Basically, yes, unless you want to make the case I'm taking them out
> of context. It's a pointlessly easy thing to _claim_. But try to make
> the case . . .
The point is, you are.
> But do try. You've made the charge. I want to see you make the case,
> as well. And _don't_ tell me the 'world is the context'. Spend a
> little more effort on it, than that, please.
I have, you failed to listen.
Please include the definitions of the actual words from the original
documents, NOT SOME TRAD TRANSLATION. Figure out for yourself what the
word ALL means in modern english vs what it meant 5 centuries ago.
And learn what the heresies taught, because without it, your
interpretation is just as relevant as my pointing out that Ecclesiastes 6
can be interpreted to be the argument of the pro-choicers.
As in, not relevant at all.
> >I believe that the history surrounding these documents, without which
> >proper interpretation cannot be done, has in fact been stripped from these
> >documents. You still have the letter of the law, but you're missing the
> >SPIRIT of the law, which is so essential.
>
> Of course, the 'better' interpretation. The spin.
The ONLY TRUE INTERPRETATION. Not better. ONLY.
> Why spin? Why not deal with cases?
No spin. Just looking at the times instead of stripping the words out to
something that the council of Trent never meant.
> Sometimes the consensus is wrong. Sometimes it's right. That's not the
> standard, though often the reputation of the consensus leaders _does_
> have some bearing on the weight given to it. And some of the folks who
> have been critical over the last 30-40 years have had rather
> upstanding reputations, and have been greatly respected and admired.
> You do recall even Mother Teresa being eager to report that 'altar
> girls' would _not_ be approved, just before they were, and of her
> disgust with a practice I'm sure you defend of communion in the hand?
Oftentimes, as we get older, the liberals of the day become the
conservatives.
The things we are most scared of in our children, their children will take
for granted as how the world works.
I feel sorry for the older population. But I will NOT sacrifice the
development of the church to their fears.
Just as I will not submit the doctrine of the church to the fears of the
CTA.
The Pope is supposed to toe the line of the middle ground: Allowing
enough changes to keep the church moving, to keep it alive, to recognize
new interpretations out of the Deposit of Faith. And to keep those
changes tied to the Deposit.
> >> There were Catholics before your day, before mine. It's their
> >> tradition you want, if you want to call yourself Catholic. It's that
> >> of God, not that of man.
>
> >Tradition in the Catholic Church is built upon tradition. That's called
> >Development, and has been since the very beginning.
>
> You're trying to say - what - now?
There is nothing in ICEL that has not been practiced at some time in the
last 2000 years by the Church.
There is nothing in Trinidine that has not been practiced at some time in
the last 2000 years by the Church.
There is nothing in Catholicism that has not been practiced at some time
in the last 2000 years by the Church.
There is nothing new. It's all tradition, development upon tradition.
The "New Order" was thought to be new, was thought to be the better way,
but in reality, it's just the old way. There's nothing NEW about it.
Anything anybody sees as "new" means that they haven't done enough
research to know the difference between new and old.
Which is as it should be. Thanks be to the Holy Spirit for the
preservation of the Church.
> >As far as I'm concerned, that's all that web address is, hearsay.
>
> You can read the Summa and Roman Catechism, the Scripture passages I
> cite, for yourself. That's not what is meant by the term - hearsay -
> even to the most broadbrush of librals.
Except for you don't cite, except for individual sentences and paragraphs.
You don't include the history _surrounding_ the document, you include only
the document. And that is hearsay.
For instance:
From the Douay Rheims Bible, in Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament, we
find:
Chapter 6
1 There is also another evil, which I have seen under the sun, and that
frequent among men:
2 A man to whom God hath given riches, and substance, and honour, and his
soul wanteth nothing of all that he desireth: yet God doth not give him
power to eat
thereof, but a stranger shall eat it up. This is vanity and a great
misery.
3 If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, and attain to a
great age, and his soul make no use of the goods of his substance, and he
be without burial:
of this man I pronounce, that the untimely born is better than he.
4 For he came in vain, and goeth to darkness, and his name shall be wholly
forgotten.
I point out that Verses 3 and 4 are basically the argumenment of today's
pro-choice movement, that babies are better off never have lived than to
have bad parents.
This is the sort of interpretation that hearsay can lead us to. I cited
as much as you cite in your document, but the conclusion I came to is
exactly the opposite that the Church comes to.
The Church is right and I am wrong. Do you understand why?
> >Once again, I don't read documents online, it's too easy to change them.
>
> The Prots did nothing _but_ change Scripture, from the very moment the
> moveable type press come into use. You don't need a computer for the
> sort of thing you suggest. Instead, you have to argue that this or
> that on-line Bible is phony in some way - and many are. I was recently
> pointed to a 'Douay' version that listed Maccabees, I believe, as
> apocryphal. So, I didn't recommend those. I recommended The Roman
> Catechism, the Summa, and the real Douay-Rhiems, or Challoner if
> that's all you can find, as you might have "on your shelf". Surely you
> can read what I wrote.
My point is that I don't trust what you wrote as far as I can throw it.
It's the same sort as my disingenious justification for abortion above:
cutting and pasting church documents so that you can attack the church.
> >Maybe if you had ONE REAL THEOLOGIAN checking your work...But even then,
> >an Imprimature on the net?
>
> Again, if you think I'm taking anything out of context, short of the
> 'world' being my 'context' - make the case. Others have balked, not
> surprizingly. But you're different, right? You _believe_ what you're
> saying. So be Calvin, be Luther. Write, and write some more. Make the
> case for what you believe, and why the Catholic is wrong.
I will not, because your interpretation is Not Catholic.
That's my context: The beliefs of the church then, and the beliefs of the
church today. You need to prove that you've taken the words in context.
Expand your document to show why ICEL is the same as Calvin and Luther.
Show me, why in essence, you believe ICEL to be twisting doctrine to
subvert the power of the Pope.
> >I'm talking about the Current Pope. JP2.
> >Check out what he's written on the topic. If you dare.
>
> Don't put words in his mouth. You make it sound as if _he_ dares to
> disagree with Pius V, Leo 13th, "and so on".
He doesn't. He explains why they agree with him, instead of with you,
which is something else entirely.
> Quote him instead, unless
> you really don't care what he actually wrote - which I sort of
> suspect.
Rather than quoteing him out of context, here's the book:
_Crossing the Threshold of Hope_. It's been remaindered, you should be
able to pick it up for around $14. I found it at borders for $3.
Here's the Amazon page on it:
---------
Crossing the Threshold of Hope
by John Paul, Pope John Paul Ii, Vittorio Messori
List Price: $20.00
Our Price: $14.00
You Save: $6.00 (30%)
Availability: This title usually ships
within 24 hours.
Learn more about
1-ClickSM ordering
Hardcover - 244 pages (October 1994)
Knopf; ISBN: 0679440585 ; Dimensions (in inches):
1.13 x 8.32 x 4.82
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 59,909
Avg. Customer Review: ; Number of Reviews: 2
Write an online review and share your thoughts with
other readers!
Customers who bought this book also bought:
Annulment; A Step-By-Step Guide for Divorced
Catholics; Ronald T. Smith
The Millionaire Next Door : The Surprising
Secrets of America's Wealthy; Thomas J. Stanley, et al
What It Means to Be Catholic; Joseph M.
Champlin, Rev. Joseph M. Champlin
Reviews
Book Description
Fifteen years into his Papacy, and on the eve of the
third millennium, Pope John Paul II goes to the heart of his personal
beliefs and
speaks with passion about the existence of God; about
pain, suffering, and evil; about "salvation"; and about the relationship
of
Catholicism to other branches of the Christian faith.
With the humility and generosity of spirit for which he is well known,
John Paul
speaks forthrightly to all people. (Religion--Roman
Catholic)
Synopsis
Fifteen years into his Papacy, and on the eve of the
third millennium, Pope John Paul II goes to the heart of his personal
beliefs and
speaks with passion about the existence of God; about
pain, suffering, and evil; about "salvation"; and about the relationship
of
Catholicism to other branches of the Christian faith.
With the humility and generosity of spirit for which he is well known,
John Paul
speaks forthrightly to all people. (Religion--Roman
Catholic)
Synopsis
With the humility and generosity of spirit for which
he is known, John Paul II speaks directly and forthrightly to all people.
His Message:
"BE NOT AFRAID!.
Click here for all reviews...
Customer Comments
Average Customer Review: Number of Reviews: 2
Hugh Frazer (9q...@iname.com) from Andrews, NC ,
April 11, 1998
On the Eve of Easter 1998- Be Not Afraid- says the
Pope!
This is the best little book on theology one could
ever hope to read- Catholic or Protestant. Vittorio Messori (think of him
as the Larry
King of Italian television) poses the questions and
the Pope responds in his own script! It was supposed to be a television
interview. The
theme is pure and simple and so right-BE NOT AFRAID.
From Christmas mystery to Good Friday tragedy to Easter joy, be not
afraid-
God is there- with us. The first chapter is almost
humorous. Vittorio says to the Pope, 'Some people are nervous about you
calling
yourself the 'Vicar of Christ''. Says the Pope,in so
many words, 'Don't worry about it-be not afraid- look at the big picture-
trust God-
He will see you through'. The whole thing is done
with humility and compassion.
A reader, January 22, 1997
Unexpectedly readable, passionate, sympathetic toward
ALL.
In days when organized, traditional Christian
religion--esp. Roman Catholicism--is not so chic, few persons receive
attention when
speaking on morals. The current Pope, love or hate
him, gains the ear of more than any other figure in the world today. The
book is
surprisingly sympathetic toward those who do not yet
have an inclination toward any religion in particular. His inspirational
words exhort
us to turn deaf ears to the prophets of doom. For the
contemporary believer who unavoidably gives in to despair occasionally
("Children
today are worse than ever," "The world is fearless of
God"), the Roman Pontiff's words comfort and remind of the shame we ought
feel
for forgetting--however momentarily--that God walks
with those who thirst for His ways, even those who walk with Him but do
not
explicitly recognize His friendship. To the as-yet
non-believer, he also offers peace and urges patience, and patience with
as-yet
non-believers is urged from believers. To destroy
hope--be it by personal despair or institutionalized practices like
assisted suicide,
euthanasia, eugenics or genocide, abortion, violence,
oppression, poverty--is to tear down the greatest gift the Gospel offers.
--This text
refers to the paperback edition of this title
--------
> >I'm Catholic, and no, I don't believe your stupid, heretical, web page.
>
> I think you subscribe to the new religion. It's heresy. There's a
> standard, here. It's not what _you_ believe. It's - what Catholics
> believe. I can understand your _not_ understanding this, considering
> that the creed you swear to, at 'new order', is a really bastardized
> version of even the Creed. You _start_ in ignorance, in this. You've
> got doctored prayers, a substitute liturgy, but you insist you're
> _not_ like those in the embryonic Church of England, who were won over
> to a new religion in just a similar fashion. As I wrote:
And your twisting of the words of Trent and Aquinas is just absolutely
fine?
> >I'm pointing out that web sites, in general, are not print and contain
> >error.
>
> Then your newsprint missallette is similarly in error. That's what I
> was referring to. Compare if you dare, to paraphrase yourself.
It's been YEARS since I had to look at a missallette.
> >You're the only one saying that. No one else is. In fact, most of the
> >Diocean preachers don't like the CTA any better than you do. Which you'd
> >know, if you weren't busy writing anti-diocean tracts all the time.
>
> "Most" is anecdotal, as best. My 'most' would contradict your 'most',
> I believe.
Depends on what the Pope says, doesn't it?
> RENEW 2000 anyone?
Never even heard of it. Is that a part of the Jubilee plans?
> >Has it ever occured to you, just maybe, that times have changed since
> >1500?
>
> a) you can't seriously tell me you _believe_ in the 'development' of
> Our Lord's words at The Last Supper.
No, but I believe that language changes, and that both translations are
equally accurate for the times the translation was made.
> And b) what about the role of
> God, The Holy Spirit, _during_ your 1500 years?
He's the one doing the development.
> Is that to be ignored?
Not at all, though you seem to be trying to.
> Did God make a mistake?
Not a bit, but you have in ignoreing him.
> Or is some 'development' to be esteemed, and
> the rest to be ignored?
Of course it is. That supported by the Pope and the councils, the real
Magisterium, is to be esteemed.
The lack of development, the heresies of the Protestants and the CTA, is
to be ignored.
> You should think about it, just to be
> consistent.
I have, why haven't you?
> >It's not obvious to anybody else. In the end result, YOU DON'T HAVE
> >APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, JPII DOES!
>
> Well, again, the majority isn't always right. But the heresy notion
> wasn't originally my own. I read it about it, somewhere.
Yes, in a book designed to undermine the power of the Pope.
> And then I
> began to see it, for myself.
The majority is hardly ever right, that's why we have the Pope.
> As for JP II, I don't know why he doesn't
> lead. He issues. He decrees. And the issues and decrees are ignored by
> the bishops.
Which is why those bishops are now in schism.
> What to do? It's a mess. If it pleases Our Lord, pray
> that His Holiness will act as Popes used to act.
He is, but you refuse to see it. As has the CTA. You're both in the same
boat, one of you is paddleing backward, the other is paddling forward, and
the Pope is the guy with the rudder steering....
> Pray that the example
> made of Lefebvre becomes an example for many more, as it were. There's
> no reason it shouldn't.
And in the last few weeks, has.
> As I wrote:
>
> >> I don't understand the Pope's failure to lead. I don't
> >> understand his 'altar girls' ruling, his remarks on evolution, his
> >> participation in pagan rituals, his banning The Mass from St. Peter's,
> >> and whatever else I've mentioned. I _don't_ understand. If it pleases
> >> Our Lord, if it does, we pray for His Holiness to put away worldly
> >> schemes, and show the world what a Pope once stood for. He's taken
> >> some steps with recent rather moderate documents. But the follow-up,
> >> if any, is yet to be seen.
>
> >Pray first for your own understanding before you condemn.
>
> You do like to sling, don't you? What a gentle soul you are. I don't
> condemn His Holiness. I criticize him. Your exaggeration is telling,
> and suggests more about your own makeup, than mine, I think.
Criticizing is condemning, as far as I'm concerned. You wrote above that
His Holiness actually has "worldly schemes". I don't consider him to have
any such thing, except of course for the scheme Christ commanded all the
Popes to have: Spread the faith.
> >Who read your page and gave it an imprimature then? Not your source
> >material, since that can be cut and pasted to support anything. Your
> >page.
>
> You think I took anything out of context - make the case. Don't whine.
> Write. Think about it. Put it in some reasonable order. And show me
> why Aquinas really meant something else, why The Roman Catechism needs
> to be more 'carefully nuanced'.
I have, several times. You're not the only anti-catholic troll on this
list, you know.
> >Where is your apostolic authority to claim that?
>
> Trent. Your complaint, ultimately, is with Aquinas, Trent, Pius V, the
> Saints and Doctors - really, The Church, itself. That's who you think
> is wrong in all this. I hope you come to realize it.
No, I have no complaint with any of the above.
I have a complaint with your charge that the Pope has commissioned a new
religion, when he has done no such thing.
I have a complaint with you telling me that ICEL and Calvinism are one and
the same, when in fact they are opposite.
I have a complaint with your conclusions, not with your source material.
> >That's my point. In the end result, you have no apostolic authority, just
> >like Luther.
>
> The question of valid ordination was raised recently by apparent
> changes to the rite. That's under the new religion, not Catholicism.
> It's this that you defend which has a real problem with the apostolic
> authority, thing. Time, and later councils, will tell how much.
The question of valid ordination has been in since 1054 and the Great
Schism. What do you mean it's only under the "new religion" (which
doesn't seem to exist outside of traditionalist teaching)?
> >You are no Catholic, you have no Apostolic Authority.
>
> Most Catholics did not have the bishop lay hands on them in Orders.
So what? My point is that you have no authority to slam the Pope as you
did above.
> But we're still Catholic. We're just not ordained. You must have meant
> to say something else. You shouldn't be so cagey, or 'clever'. Say
> what you mean. Then you won't be misunderstood.
You can't be Catholic and criticize the Pope at the same time.
I can't make it any more plain than that.
> >You have become so.
>
> On what basis? My confession of a Creed that is unfamiliar to you? My
> confession of Trent which you seem to regard as a dead letter?
Your calling the Pope a heretic.
Your calling Catholicism heresy.
Your lack of love.
Your lack of forgiveness.
That's the basis on which I call you a Protestant, on the basis of your
protest.
> >But that's the problem. The New Order has Apostolic Authority. The
> >Trinitine Mass has Apostolic Authority. You, Mark Johnson, do not.
> >It's simple.
>
> Tridentine, they call it. But it long predates Trent.
So does the "New Order". So what? Proves nothing.
> I never claimed
> to be ordained. So let your straw man expire.
Not until you stop criticizing those who ARE ordained.
> And 'new order' appears
> invalid on its face. It is not legitimate, not valid, and so possessed
> of NO authority, if so.
You've yet to prove that adaquately.
You've yet to prove that ICELism is Calvinism. Without that, you're whole
argument is just so much bilgewater.
> What you are vaguely trying to claim, without
> realizing it, is some infallibility for the promulgation of this new
> liturgy.
If accepted by the Pope, it does. If not, it doesn't.
> You wish to equate it with the declaration of The Vatican
> Council on infallibity, itself. But it's not that. 'New order' is not
> infallible. It can be wrong. And turns out, it is.
You sir have no right to say so.
You have no real evidence backing up that claim, just cut and pasted text.
> >I checked. The Pius V Mass has a Liturgy of the Word in it. Why you want
> >to change the Pius V Mass to remove the Liturgy of the Word is beyond me.
> >But the point is, you don't have the Apostolic Authority to do so.
>
> Again, let straw men lie. Read what I write, instead. That way you'll
> know what I've written.
READ WHAT I WRITE, not what your diseased brain thinks.
> >I will not look outside of Rome, for I am in communion with Rome. Why do
> >you turn outside of Rome to support your arguments?
>
> I don't. It _IS_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. No
> doubt, when Athanasius questioned the opinion of some in Rome, you
> would have called him, heretic, and not the Saint that he was.
Trent is outside of Rome.
Aquinas was never Pope.
Athanasius was Lutheran.
> And don't be so eager to be evasive, as well. You suggested something
> unsavory about the SSPX, and particularly those who attend their
> Masses. I was making the point that Rome doesn't support your opinion,
> here. But you may find support for it, elsewhere. And before you
> accuse _me_ of building straw men, I did assume you meant the SSPX. If
> you meant someone else - again, you need to actually say what you
> mean, if you don't wish to be misunderstood.
I meant those who twist trent to say that ICEL is invalid are not in
communion with Rome, where ICEL is.
That's all.
> >My point is that you're not paying attention to the lives of the Saints or
> >the current council either. You've totally ignored Francis in your
> >arguments, why?
>
> How do you figure? Do you think St. Francis of Assissi ignored the
> councils? or Church doctrine? You might be surprized at the patron
> saint, as such, of the new religion.
The "new religion" does NOT ignore councils or Church doctrine, but you
apparently do.
> >You've ignored St. Pius X, the only pope in our century
> >to be sainted, why?
>
> "In our century"? Don't the other centuries count? And what do you
> think Pius X wrote that supports 'new order', rather than condemns it?
Because it does. ICEL is not modernism, much as you seem to think it is.
If anything, it's ECFism. It goes too far into the writings of the Early
Church Fathers, ignoreing the development of past centuries. But you
wouldn't understand that one bit, because you think ICEL is modernism, and
you are unwilling to look before.
> >> >Did or did not Vatican II ask to have the mass translated into the
> >> >verancular?
>
> >> No.
>
> >I warned you, Yes or now answer, rest snipped.
>
> The libral is - after all - a 'control freak'. Deny it if you will.
My point is that Vat II asked for a mass in the vernacular. That ICEL
went further is of no consequence. Thank you for supporting my view.
> >That some translators failed to follow their suggestions 100% is not
> >important, the fact is that they did. Your initial conclusion of No is
> >wrong, and that's the point.
>
> Delude yourself, then. That's something I know _I_ can't control.
You're the delusional idiot who thinks that the Magisterium died and left
no one to continue development past 1500.
> >Except for the fact that the "Spirit Of" crowd ARE part of the
> >magisterium. And thus your contradiction is not one at all, but a lack of
> >understanding of how the Magisterium works.
>
> Or yours, correct? A 'magisterium' for our time - am I right? Who
> needs the past. It only just gets in the way.
It's one and the same. Past, present, future, it's all an illusion.
That you can't see that is your own blindness.
> >Nope. He supports the Italian.
>
> How so? What did he actually say?
The Mass in Italian.
Or did you miss the worldwide broadcast?
> >He's come out in cautious support of ICEL.
>
> I think that's what you wish. I can't believe _he_ actually said that.
It was in The Catholic Sentinel, three weeks ago.
I'm sorry that you can't believe Catholics. But it's a symptom of your
disease.
> >And he's come out in support of the Trinidine.
>
> The Holy Mass, called by some the Tridentine. And yes - _he_ signed
> Ecclessia Dei. I think you're missing the big picture, as they say.
I think you are.
> >All of which are the Holy Mass.
>
> 'New order' appears invalid on its face.
Says you. I don't believe your lie for a second.
> You can't say that of any
> other approved liturgy in the Catholic Church.
But I can. The Latin change in 380 looked "invalid on it's face" because
it wasn't in Greek, it caused the schism of 1054, in the end.
The translations on the faceing page that you're so fond of were
criticized as being "invalid on it's face" in 1870.
The Trinitine itself was condemned by the Protestants as being "invalid on
it's face" for it's strict translation of the Latin that eliminated their
arguments.
Why is your argument of "invalid on it's face" different from any of the
above?
> >A Pope taught the "New Order", thus it is infalible.
>
> I see. You don't realize what you're even _trying_ to say, here. I
> just wish you'd stop being so arrogant, and at least find _some_
> interest in pursuing some study of - what Catholics believe. That _is_
> what you're looking for. You do want to call yourself, Catholic, after
> all, unlike various other posters to these ngs.
I wish you'd stop denying Catholicism, but we're stuck with it.
> >Not to follow the Pope is to become Protestant.
> >There is no other line to be drawn without leaving the church.
>
> That's an exaggeration, and unfair to His Holiness.
No, it's the very line Trent drew. Too bad you can't see it.
> He was wrong about
> 'altar girls', it would seem in his views (or whoever's they were) on
> evolution, on participating as he has in pagan rituals, banning The
> Mass in St. Peter's, and the rest.
You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
> I don't 'follow' him in that
> because there's good reason no to. You suggest not infallibility, but
> impeccability. Again, that's not holy, it's not . . 'papal', it does
> no service to the Pope to put him in such a position.
You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
> >My point is this: He is Pope, you are not. For me that's enough to say
> >that he is right and you are wrong.
>
> You wish to imply he left his fallen nature at the door when he become
> Pope. He didn't. He _can_ be wrong. And 'new order' can be wrong. And
> it is.
If he didn't leave his "fallen nature" at the door when he became Pope,
then all of Catholicism is false.
Since Catholcism is not false, your statement is.
> Why not actually consider this stuff, instead of exaggerating, and
> making hysterical comments, and defending the new religion instead of
> fighting it?
Because there is no "new religion"
No "Black Helicopters"
No conspiracy theories.
People who believe that there are are either insane or insufficiently
studied.
> >Why do you think the Lutherans use his creed?
>
> You think _Saint_ Athanasius was a . . schismatic? Seriously?
>
> (know who he was?)
The Man Luther followed into schism.
Do you even understand why the reformation happened?
> >That's my point. If the Net becomes your only standard, you open yourself
> >up to error. But if God, and his appointed representative on earth, the
> >Pope, is your standard, you cannot err.
>
> Unless he does? He's Pope. He's not impeccable.
He is the appointed Vicar of Christ. That makes him a LOT more impeccable
than you are.
> And don't call just anyone who dares disagree with you - a nut. People
> might start to think such of you. Who knows? If you can't carry on a
> discussion, on UseNet of all things, maybe it's not for you.
There is no discussion when there is fundamentalism.
You've taken a stand on a single sentence of Trent. I've taken a Stand on
the Pope, the leader of Catholicism.
> >Then why do you attack, on the face, every Pope since Vat. II?
> >Why do you tear down the church?
>
> I didn't. If I'd been around for Bugnini, I like to think I would have
> a) punched him in the face and then b) made sure _I_ did all I could
> to rescind what authority for the Concillium, and place the reform, as
> such, called for by the fathers of the council back in the proper
> institutional channels.
Thus tearing down all the development the church has made.
> I didn't desacralize The Church. I didn't
> build those canopies, and those high altars. I didn't put in the altar
> rails. And I didn't then tear them out, and ignore the sanctuary, and
> put up a folding table, and place girls up on the altar sitting facing
> the audience, backs to the crucifix and tabernacle, or change the
> prayers, or 'personalize' the Bible, or emphasize salvation over
> contrition - or even vote for Clinton.
I've yet to see a church with the folding table.
However, that asside, who are you to go against Christ "Where two or more
are gathered in my name ..." Do you even remember that quote?
And I've NEVER voted for Clinton, or Bush, or any of the other
conservative crooks that have run for president in my lifetime.
> I criticize Paul VI for 'new order'. I criticize JP II for various
> things, and for _not_ acting to put away 'new order', as he ought. If
> it pleases Our Lord, I pray for JP II. You should as well. And I pray
> that in His Mercy, He will end this trial of our faith, one way or
> another, as He tests the love, trust and obedience, we really do
> profess for His Good News, all of it and not just a bit.
I will not. To do such is to protest. And to protest is to be a
PROTESTant.
Ted
Mark Johnson
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>In fact, if your Magisterium goes against the Deposit of Faith, I'd have a
>tendency to question it.
The Magisterium is, and is based upon, the deposit of faith. The
Creed, if not that of 'new order', is The Magisterium. Trent is The
Magisterium. One can get into these certain degrees of dogmatic
certainty, as Ott, for ex., lays out in the intro to his book on the
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. But dogma, itself, the very essentials
of what Catholics believe, is The Magisterium because it is from The
Magisterium and the very purpose of that 'teaching authority'. An
essential part of that is this fact that Our Lord's Passion, while He
died for all, does not extend to all, but to many. Not all receive the
grace of the Sacrament. This appears not to be the thinking in 'new
order', which suggests otherwise by the very words - the very words -
proscribed by The Roman Catechism, centuries before.
>> It is self-evident why they wrote proscriptions. It was to proscribe
>> behavior, that specific behavior, and those specific words, for the
>> specific reasons you can read there, for yourself.
>It's the specific reasons that are not included in the web page. Once
>again, why? Why ignore the heresies that they were fighting against? Is
>it because once you look at those heresies, you see that ICEL is nothing
>of the sort?
It is word for word that which was proscribed. If you think I take it
out of context, you've had opportunity to explain yourself. Maybe you
ought to begin to do just that, in one of these messages.
>By not including the heresies that they were fighting against. You tell
>us the what, but not the why.
It's a point of doctrine, here. You so desperately wish to spin this
whole thing, following the lead of the secular pols, today, that you
can't read what they wrote. You want to reduce that Magisterium to the
sort of temporized mish-mash you imagine this 'magisterium' to be at
present. I'll tell you, if you want to make the case that their
proscription ought to be 'carefully nuanced', then begin to make that
case. But don't just keep repeating yourself.
>And I can cut and paste the parts of the Bible and the Roman Catechism to
>show that abortion is just and good. Does that mean that it is what
>Catholics believe? Of course not.
Again, this is getting tired. If you think I take them out of context,
show me how. You keep complaining, here, about this stuff, but don't
want to lift a single finger to even begin trying to make your case.
Really, you have the opportunity. About time you started, I think.
That's fair, is it not?
>I consider Nuremberg's punishment of the innocent along with the guilty to
>be unjust. Thus I hold Nuremberg to the lesser standard of conduct, not
>the church.
I referred to the notion that - I was just following orders - is
hardly an excuse for following them, even at gunpoint, which was the
legitimate fear of many who did just that under the Third Reich. As
for the trials themselves, they were obviously tainted simply by the
presence of the Soviet judges, whose participation offended all
equally, even at the time.
>why bring up Nuremberg at all?
See above.
>> I mean, consider: in some churches you still have the vestige of
>> Catholicism. I refer to the high altar, marble, consecrated (that's
>> right), sitting below a large carved canopy. At one time there would
>> have been statuary in the alcoves alongside, as one can still find in
>> various South American and European cathedrals and churches.
>And in some extremely ancient churches in Europe, you have the vestige of
>the original version of Catholicism: A simple table for the alter and no
>pews at all, very little statuary, and open-air roof for lighting.
>So what?
>The church develops. Always has, always will, and it means NOTHING
>towards doctrine.
A simple table? (and why you keep spelling it, alter, I don't know,
unless that's just conscience fighting your ego, or something - but .
. .) Read on:
>> But,
>> nonetheless, if you'll cast your gaze upward, you'll see that canopy,
>> maybe 20 feet above the floor of the sanctuary, or what used to be
>> such, shielding and symbolically enclosing the altar and maybe the
>> steps up to the altar. But wait, you'll say - THAT'S not the altar.
>> That's just a big creedence table, or something. The altar is that
>> folding table, below the steps, facing _away_ from the high altar and
>> the canopy, symbolically out from under that canopy even (save for in
>> some modernist churches, a few), and facing toward the audience (er,
>> congregation, in 'gathering').
>"modernist", a word from Pope Pius X. Ok, but he started the development
>of communion for all (as opposed to just for the Priest). So even he had
>development.
He did _what_ now?
>> I suggest to you that the 'creedence table' up top is really still,
>> and always was, the altar, and that the folding table below is the
>> pre-eminent symbol of the Protestant service, which 'new order' sure
>> appears to be.
>A suggestion that's obviously false if you look at the churches that were
>worshiped in before 400 A.D.
>But of course, you don't care about that one whit, do you?
Why don't _you_ tell me about "the churches that were worshipped in
before 400". I wanna know. Pending that, read on:
>> When the folding altar was set in place, let me remind
>> you that other changes were made to 'desanctify', as it were, the
>> sanctuary. The communion rails were likely removed. The sanctuary
>> became an extension of the pews. The pipe organ in the loft most
>> likely was no longer used, or sold off, and a piano dragged up to the
>> side near where the communion rails had been. The stained glass,
>> bequeathed by faithful Catholics of earlier generations may have been
>> allowed to fall into disrepair, so that all could be removed in favor
>> of some abstract, or just plain glass (who knows). And the Mass - The
>> Mass was substituted with 'new order', in much of the world, an
>> English language, vernacular thing, stripping creeds and prayers
>> seemingly at random of entire passages, spare with terms such as holy,
>> and orthodox, and venerable and so on, lacking the numerous signs of
>> the cross found in The Holy Mass, lacking its reverence and holiness,
>> lacking even on its face, the very claim to validity.
>And what I suggest to you is something entirely different. That the
>Church, in her infinite wisdom that you don't understand, has made the
>Mass MORE valid, more sacred, by doing all of the above.
Sure. And long live the 'mass'.
The Church of England types were convinced of _their_ holiness, too,
of course - while they hunted Catholics down in the 'colonies' next
door.
>I'm sorry you don't understand this. But it is a sign of your heresy that
>you do not.
Yes - but - I think you wouldn't know heresy if it popped up in the
sanctuary of a once Catholic church and said - boo. As I wrote:
>> All of this you defend. And I'm on the other side. Fair enough. I
>> think all Protestants are wrong to deny The Church. But you then claim
>> to speak for the Saints and Doctors, for The Church itself. And this
>> is particularly where I'm suggesting you're wrong. You don't seem to
>> know what The Church teaches, what it taught, and so are not as eager
>> as myself to defend - what Catholics believe. It's just ignorance on
>> your part. And you need only educate yourself, while God gives you the
>> opportunity to confess, and repent.
>You never understood what the church taught, that's the problem.
Taught about what, exactly? You want to deny your membership in a new
religion. So tell me, as a knowledgable and literate Catholic - what
has "the church taught" that supports all the things you've been
writing in these messages. Surely, _I'm_ missing something, as you
say. But you won't help me with your continuing jibes and
generalities. You're going to have to get specific, here, at some
point. You're going to actually have to say what you mean. And I look
forward to it.
>> >So does the 'better way', by doing the commandment of Christ.
>> But it doesn't. The 'spirit of' sort think they've found something
>> that Catholics of recently previous generations, those who helped
>> build not only the nation but churches and hospitals, charities and
>> missions, and all the rest, never knew or could have understood.
>They understood it better than you do. Go look at the African churches in
>the missions sometime.
I was referring to the US. But, yes, what orthodoxy and faithfulness
remains in corners of the institutional Church _does_ seem to have
mostly, but not entirely, escaped the rather conceited 'first world',
in favor of the so-called 'third'. You're right to suggest devotion
among the poor, and among nations which know strife and cruelty
unimagined, in the last decade or so, and so foreign even to the
'gritty' life of those living in the midst of 'Dodge', in big cities
and small towns. But in this country, what I mentioned about the 'dark
ages' prior to Vatican II, to hear your sort tell it, was
characteristic of something called Catholic action. Such if it
survives as a label, today, surely would refer to little more than
canned food drives, and 'lay minister' training seminars. Don't get me
wrong. I don't deny people doing good works, selfless works. But I
know Prots do as much. I know Prots did as much centuries ago when
other Prots were killing Catholics, for being Catholic. Good works,
seemingly so generous and 'human', can be barren, nonetheless,
depending on why they are performed. But that's another thread, I
guess.
>> They've found, they think - the 'better way'. It never is. It's never
>> better. In fact, it's never new. It's just the same old shopworn
>> heresies, tarted up to folks studiously ignorant of the past. They not
>> only don't "do" the commandments, they really could care less. _Their_
>> commandments seem so much more 'revelant' and interesting to
>> themselves.
>It isn't new. It isn't the 'better way' It's just following the
>commandment of Christ to spread the religion. Which you do not
>accomplish.
No, the 'better way' isn't new. It isn't 'better'.
>> >In fact, let's look at those four basic commandments upon which all else
>> >is built:
>> >1. Love the Lord your God with all of your mind, heart, and soul.
>> >2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
>> Well, the first is key. The second actually goes more like - love even
>> your enemy as God loves you.
>Which you do not do. I've seen your attacks against liberals.
I hate libralism, even as it finds its way into the thinking of
'economic conservatives' and professional conservative pols. Libralism
is a snake, finding its way in through any little weakness. But I
don't hate librals, or the old classic liberal even. It think they're
wrong, and were wrong. I think they're more dangerous than the Nazis
ever were, and even still are in pockets. The padre had it right -
liberalism is a sin.
>I've seen your attacks against the CTA. You hold no love for your enemy.
I hardly ever mention CTA. But I think the 'spirit of' gang is wrong.
I think you're wrong for defending them. But you don't do yourself any
favors by then trotting out the comfortable straw man. Deal with what
people write, rather than what you _wished_ they'd write.
>This is the point. Without forgiveness, you have no love. Augustine knew
>that in 380 A.D. Do you?
Without a holy fear of God, there is no love. Without a purpose of
amendment and a reliance upon God's grace because we are fallen,
remission would be trite, and pointless. You seem to so esteem _some_
practices of the ancient past. I wonder what you'd think if you had
any idea of the severity to which mortal sins, particularly, were
treated, the degree of penance demanded, and the means of
reconciliation. You couldn't afford to be consistent, in this.
>> God
>> forgives, if we want to be forgiven, not if we don't. Was Hitler
>> forgiven for committing suicide? not to mention the satanic slaughter
>> of so many, or even the petty mind games he played routinely. If we
>> are judged wanting, in our last hour, it is because we are, because we
>> sought the 'better way', not The Way - because the world beckoned, and
>> we even scorned and mocked those who told us that's not the way.
>There is no difference. That's what you do not understand. And that's
>why you hate me so.
I don't hate you. I just think you're very ignorant, and wrong, and
not at all eager to want to change your ways. And don't you go around
_looking_ for enemies. They'll find you quick enough. Personal
experience talking.
>Please include the definitions of the actual words from the original
>documents, NOT SOME TRAD TRANSLATION.
So how are the translations in error? You should be specific, and
enough with the unsupported complaints. Start the 'heavy lifting'
already. It's no more than I'd do, myself. Not asking you to do
anything I wouldn't, and haven't.
>Figure out for yourself what the
>word ALL means in modern english vs what it meant 5 centuries ago.
Are you trying to say that, all, didn't mean all - "5 centuries ago".
Did someone _tell_ you this? Cite your source.
>And learn what the heresies taught, because without it, your
>interpretation is just as relevant as my pointing out that Ecclesiastes 6
>can be interpreted to be the argument of the pro-choicers.
How do you figure? Lay it out, fer me. Take me through it. Maybe at
least _this_ is something you can explain in a suggestion of detail.
>Oftentimes, as we get older, the liberals of the day become the
>conservatives.
No, the history is that they become - librals. The history is that
they start off better than they wind up. The history is that they get
twisted by rudderless altruism into voting, one day, for Bill Clinton
- not once, but twice. That's the history.
>The things we are most scared of in our children, their children will take
>for granted as how the world works.
It's not the 'gen xers' that concern me. They're a continuation of all
previous generations, to some extent. The anomaly, the dangerous
cohort, was and remains the 'boomers'. May they pass into retirement
sooner, not later.
>The Pope is supposed to toe the line of the middle ground:
There's no virtue in compromise for its own sake. Goldwater suggested
as much in a famous line of his. Leadership isn't defined by watching
the polls, or guaging the opinion of the palace regulars. The Pope is
Pope of The Church. He's not like other bishops. And Popes of the past
understood this. Again, Lefebvre was excommunicated, and even on shaky
grounds. The cause is much more sure in the case of various bishops
around, today. But they haven't gone the way of Lefebvre, and they
should.
>enough changes to keep the church moving,
The Church is _not_ a shark. The new religion now . . .
>to keep it alive, to recognize
>new interpretations out of the Deposit of Faith. And to keep those
>changes tied to the Deposit.
Odd use of language, I think.
>There is nothing in ICEL that has not been practiced at some time in the
>last 2000 years by the Church.
Sure there is. But not by The Church. By heretics. That's the issue,
here.
>There is nothing in Trinidine
Do you have a cold?
>that has not been practiced at some time in
>the last 2000 years by the Church.
Some of the Saints hadn't been born 2000 years ago. But . . .
>There is nothing in Catholicism that has not been practiced at some time
>in the last 2000 years by the Church.
Some of the forms have changed, and become regularized. Some doctrines
were clarified - councils and all. And not all the Saints were born
2000 years ago. You understand, btw, how important the Saints were and
are to The Church - don't you?
>There is nothing new. It's all tradition, development upon tradition.
>The "New Order" was thought to be new, was thought to be the better way,
>but in reality, it's just the old way. There's nothing NEW about it.
Boy, have you got _that_ right. Case in point, what The Roman
Catechism says about it.
But you know that, already.
>From the Douay Rheims Bible, in Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament, we
>find:
>Chapter 6
>3 If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, and attain to a
>great age, and his soul make no use of the goods of his substance, and he
>be without burial:
>of this man I pronounce, that the untimely born is better than he.
>4 For he came in vain, and goeth to darkness, and his name shall be wholly
>forgotten.
>I point out that Verses 3 and 4 are basically the argumenment of today's
>pro-choice movement, that babies are better off never have lived than to
>have bad parents.
That's not what it says - not even how it reads. Who told you this is
a 'reasonable' interpretation? I can't say I've been in the forefront
of the prolife movement, myself. But I have had _some_ involvement
since the late 1980s. And I never seen such offered in defence of the
abortionists.
>This is the sort of interpretation that hearsay can lead us to. I cited
>as much as you cite in your document, but the conclusion I came to is
>exactly the opposite that the Church comes to.
>The Church is right and I am wrong. Do you understand why?
No. If you think I took something out of context, fine. Make the case
for it. But if I say it's going to rain on Monday, whether it will or
not, and include it in among a number of other related comments, which
don't qualify the statement, it's not taking me out of context to cite
just that one line on the topic of - will it rain on Monday? Do you
understand why?
>You need to prove that you've taken the words in context.
Again, guilty till proven innocent, eh? That's not how it works.
You've made the complaints. Now you back them up. It _is_ only fair.
What the __ are you talking about, in other words?
>Expand your document to show why ICEL is the same as Calvin and Luther.
Whatever is shared in common seems sufficiently self-evident.
>Show me, why in essence, you believe ICEL to be twisting doctrine to
>subvert the power of the Pope.
Just read what's on the page, of the 'dreaded' URL -
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . You can complain
about specifics. Wish you would.
>_Crossing the Threshold of Hope_. It's been remaindered,
Nice to know. _What_ passages in particular do you think defend this
new religion? What do you say he wrote? Quote a few lines. I would. Or
are you afraid I'll accuse _you_ of taking a man out of context? Just
don't, and I won't. (fair?)
>> >I'm Catholic, and no, I don't believe your stupid, heretical, web page.
>> I think you subscribe to the new religion. It's heresy. There's a
>> standard, here. It's not what _you_ believe. It's - what Catholics
>> believe. I can understand your _not_ understanding this, considering
>> that the creed you swear to, at 'new order', is a really bastardized
>> version of even the Creed. You _start_ in ignorance, in this. You've
>> got doctored prayers, a substitute liturgy, but you insist you're
>> _not_ like those in the embryonic Church of England, who were won over
>> to a new religion in just a similar fashion. As I wrote:
>And your twisting of the words of Trent and Aquinas is just absolutely
>fine?
This is getting tired. Make the case. Make the case, already.
>> >You're the only one saying that. No one else is. In fact, most of the
>> >Diocean preachers don't like the CTA any better than you do. Which you'd
>> >know, if you weren't busy writing anti-diocean tracts all the time.
>> "Most" is anecdotal, as best. My 'most' would contradict your 'most',
>> I believe.
>Depends on what the Pope says, doesn't it?
You wrote "most of the diocesan preachers". Please make up your mind.
>> RENEW 2000 anyone?
>Never even heard of it. Is that a part of the Jubilee plans?
I see.
>> >Has it ever occured to you, just maybe, that times have changed since
>> >1500?
>> a) you can't seriously tell me you _believe_ in the 'development' of
>> Our Lord's words at The Last Supper.
>No, but I believe that language changes, and that both translations are
>equally accurate for the times the translation was made.
So, all is synonymous with many, and many with all - categorically.
Why, my dictionary is in need of repair. All men are created equal,
when they could just have easily written - many men are created equal?
Makes you think, don't it?
>> And b) what about the role of
>> God, The Holy Spirit, _during_ your 1500 years?
>He's the one doing the development.
>> Is that to be ignored?
>Not at all, though you seem to be trying to.
I don't write what you do about The Latin Mass, about the past, about
tradition. I'm not ignoring Christendom.
>> Did God make a mistake?
>Not a bit, but you have in ignoreing him.
Think about what you write, first.
>> Or is some 'development' to be esteemed, and
>> the rest to be ignored?
>Of course it is. That supported by the Pope and the councils, the real
>Magisterium, is to be esteemed.
>The lack of development, the heresies of the Protestants and the CTA, is
>to be ignored.
So who'll start the ball rolling?
>> Well, again, the majority isn't always right. But the heresy notion
>> wasn't originally my own. I read it about it, somewhere.
>Yes, in a book designed to undermine the power of the Pope.
One of them was called, Trojan Horse in the City of God. I have that
and other listed as suggested reading at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
>> And then I
>> began to see it, for myself.
>The majority is hardly ever right, that's why we have the Pope.
Some of the bishops act as if they see him as more of an interloping
annoyance than anything. Are _they_ right? And if not, what do _you_
call their behavior, and the things they've done in their dioceses?
>> As for JP II, I don't know why he doesn't
>> lead. He issues. He decrees. And the issues and decrees are ignored by
>> the bishops.
>Which is why those bishops are now in schism.
Well - we agree. They are in de facto schism. But they still exercise
the official authority of the institutional church. They still control
the stamps and ledgers. This is typical of heresies. And they do so,
now, to such a widespread international degree, because the Pope
_doesn't_ lead. But this _is_ the worst heresy to afflict The Church,
Militant. And perhaps, if it pleases God, we ought to pray for The
Pope to do what he ought to do, by God, and not by human schemes.
>> Pray that the example
>> made of Lefebvre becomes an example for many more, as it were. There's
>> no reason it shouldn't.
>And in the last few weeks, has.
How so?
>You wrote above that
>His Holiness actually has "worldly schemes".
I said they shouldn't enter his considerations on what to do about
discipline among the bishops. Lefebvre presented no such apparent
obstacle. To a greater degree, then, neither do any of these guys.
>I have a complaint with your charge that the Pope has commissioned a new
>religion, when he has done no such thing.
I'm not sure he's responsible for the 'spirit of'. I think he refuses
to douse it. Why, I don't know.
>I have a complaint with you telling me that ICEL and Calvinism are one and
>the same, when in fact they are opposite.
Not exactly opposite.
>Your calling the Pope a heretic.
Save the straw, again. I don't agree with the sede case. I don't say
JP II is a heretic. I think he's wrong on some things.
>Your calling Catholicism heresy.
I know what Catholicism is. And I just don't believe you do.
>Your lack of love.
No love in the room, kind of thing. Thought that nonsense went out
with Phil Donahue's last show.
>Your lack of forgiveness.
Such as?
>That's the basis on which I call you a Protestant, on the basis of your
>protest.
Yes, but I suggest you're a Protestant, on the other hand, because you
seem to defend - Protestantism. There we are.
>> Tridentine, they call it. But it long predates Trent.
>So does the "New Order". So what? Proves nothing.
'New order' was a concoction, an innovation, of the Concilium, against
the wishes of the fathers of Vatican II. It was new, if combined with
old heresies. It was intended to be a clean break with holy tradition.
It ignored the council. So what, you say? That's what.
>> And 'new order' appears
>> invalid on its face. It is not legitimate, not valid, and so possessed
>> of NO authority, if so.
>You've yet to prove that adaquately.
You just don't want to read what's on the screen, is all. You're only
kidding yourself.
>READ WHAT I WRITE, not what your diseased brain thinks.
I see. The charity of the new religion, demonstrated? You keep making
my point for me, and don't even realize it.
>> >I will not look outside of Rome, for I am in communion with Rome. Why do
>> >you turn outside of Rome to support your arguments?
>> I don't. It _IS_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. No
>> doubt, when Athanasius questioned the opinion of some in Rome, you
>> would have called him, heretic, and not the Saint that he was.
>Trent is outside of Rome.
Actually, geographically, literally, perhaps. Figuratively, no.
>Aquinas was never Pope.
He was the mainstay of Catholic education for centuries. Don't
denigrate Aquinas just to build up the new religion. Gain the world -
lose your . . what?
>Athanasius was Lutheran.
(Didn't see that one coming.)
>> And don't be so eager to be evasive, as well. You suggested something
>> unsavory about the SSPX, and particularly those who attend their
>> Masses. I was making the point that Rome doesn't support your opinion,
>> here. But you may find support for it, elsewhere. And before you
>> accuse _me_ of building straw men, I did assume you meant the SSPX. If
>> you meant someone else - again, you need to actually say what you
>> mean, if you don't wish to be misunderstood.
>I meant those who twist trent to say that ICEL is invalid are not in
>communion with Rome, where ICEL is.
ICEL is hardly in Communion with Rome. They are officially approved.
That's not the same as saying they hold true to - what Catholics
believe, or the unwavering tradition of the Popes and councils down
through the centuries.
>That's all.
>> Do you think St. Francis of Assissi ignored the
>> councils? or Church doctrine? You might be surprized at the patron
>> saint, as such, of the new religion.
>The "new religion" does NOT ignore councils or Church doctrine, but you
>apparently do.
It do. I don't.
>> >You've ignored St. Pius X, the only pope in our century
>> >to be sainted, why?
>> "In our century"? Don't the other centuries count? And what do you
>> think Pius X wrote that supports 'new order', rather than condemns it?
>Because it does. ICEL is not modernism, much as you seem to think it is.
Wouldn't just be _my_ opinion.
>If anything, it's ECFism. It goes too far into the writings of the Early
>Church Fathers, ignoreing the development of past centuries.
Superficially. But that's been a tack of heretics, as well,
historically. They think they've found a 'better way', unknown to the
Saints and Doctors. And by gum, they're a goin to implement this
'better way', if it kills 'em.
>wouldn't understand that one bit, because you think ICEL is modernism, and
>you are unwilling to look before.
I can't believe you are defending ICEL, of all things. Saw that limb
while you're at it.
>My point is that Vat II asked for a mass in the vernacular.
No it didn't. I explained why. That you cut it out - your problem, not
mine.
>You're the delusional idiot who thinks that the Magisterium died and left
>no one to continue development past 1500.
Development is not the same as contradiction, just as many is not the
same as all.
>> >Except for the fact that the "Spirit Of" crowd ARE part of the
>> >magisterium. And thus your contradiction is not one at all, but a lack of
>> >understanding of how the Magisterium works.
>> Or yours, correct? A 'magisterium' for our time - am I right? Who
>> needs the past. It only just gets in the way.
>It's one and the same. Past, present, future, it's all an illusion.
It's very real. Only comfort and idleness lead people to make such
rash statements.
>That you can't see that is your own blindness.
Someone should see the eye doctor, that's fer sure.
>> >Nope. He supports the Italian.
>> How so? What did he actually say?
>The Mass in Italian.
>Or did you miss the worldwide broadcast?
That shows he goes along, and doesn't lead. If asked about this or
that bit, perhaps he _would_ express some . . concern, for the
translation. That's why I wondered what he actually did say.
>> >He's come out in cautious support of ICEL.
>> I think that's what you wish. I can't believe _he_ actually said that.
>It was in The Catholic Sentinel, three weeks ago.
>I'm sorry that you can't believe Catholics. But it's a symptom of your
>disease.
Medicine is clearly not your strong suit. Stick to polemics. As for
the Catholic Sentinel, I suspect the article read a bit differently
that you . . 'interpret' it.
>> >And he's come out in support of the Trinidine.
>> The Holy Mass, called by some the Tridentine. And yes - _he_ signed
>> Ecclessia Dei. I think you're missing the big picture, as they say.
>I think you are.
I mean, that by signing the document, he pretty clearly signed off on
The Latin Mass. That's all.
>> 'New order' appears invalid on its face.
>Says you. I don't believe your lie for a second.
I'm not lying. Neither were they. Bugnini's your man.
>> You can't say that of any
>> other approved liturgy in the Catholic Church.
>But I can. The Latin change in 380 looked "invalid on it's face" because
>it wasn't in Greek, it caused the schism of 1054, in the end.
What the Greek say and what The Church says, are two different things.
You should understand that. You can't say any other approved liturgy
appears invalid on its face. 'New order' stands alone and proud.
>The translations on the faceing page that you're so fond of were
>criticized as being "invalid on it's face" in 1870.
Really?
>The Trinitine
? (you keep writing it this way)
>itself was condemned by the Protestants as being "invalid on
>it's face" for it's strict translation of the Latin that eliminated their
>arguments.
What the Prot swears to as true and what The Church teaches, are often
two different things. Understand that.
>Why is your argument of "invalid on it's face" different from any of the
>above?
Read it again, that URL. Just read it as written. Try.
>> >Not to follow the Pope is to become Protestant.
>> >There is no other line to be drawn without leaving the church.
>> That's an exaggeration, and unfair to His Holiness.
>No, it's the very line Trent drew. Too bad you can't see it.
Because they never said that. By "follow" what you mean, and have made
very clear, is to disagree at all, with anything the Pope says or
does. That's to presume something invested in the man who holds the
office that isn't there. Correction should be reasonable, and
supported, and open itself to correction, as mine is and as I am, as
I've repeatedly said. But to tell Catholics to never offer holy
correction is to insist Catholics join the new religion, and not
attempt to defend their own.
>> He was wrong about
>> 'altar girls', it would seem in his views (or whoever's they were) on
>> evolution, on participating as he has in pagan rituals, banning The
>> Mass in St. Peter's, and the rest.
>You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
Protestants protest the very Holy See, itself. I don't. Frankly,
neither do the sedes. I question some of the Popes decisions and
actions. I question his failure to lead. I pray for Him, if it pleases
God.
>> I don't 'follow' him in that
>> because there's good reason no to. You suggest not infallibility, but
>> impeccability. Again, that's not holy, it's not . . 'papal', it does
>> no service to the Pope to put him in such a position.
>You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
Thinking isn't so hard, Ted. This broken record mantra is hardly
convincing. Try responding to what's at issue. Try to discuss, not
nag.
>> >My point is this: He is Pope, you are not. For me that's enough to say
>> >that he is right and you are wrong.
>> You wish to imply he left his fallen nature at the door when he become
>> Pope. He didn't. He _can_ be wrong. And 'new order' can be wrong. And
>> it is.
>If he didn't leave his "fallen nature" at the door when he became Pope,
>then all of Catholicism is false.
You attribute something to the Pope which is pointedly false. The Pope
is not impeccable. You must confess this.
>> Why not actually consider this stuff, instead of exaggerating, and
>> making hysterical comments, and defending the new religion instead of
>> fighting it?
>Because there is no "new religion"
But there is.
>No "Black Helicopters"
It's part of the 'night mission' of some to be painted in this
fashion.
>No conspiracy theories.
Plenty. Some are even on to something - such as the media conspiracy
to cover their . . . y'knows, in regard to ginning everyone up to vote
Clinton in the last two elections.
>People who believe that there are are either insane or insufficiently
>studied.
Joe Heller aside, if someone insists they're insane, maybe they are.
>> >Why do you think the Lutherans use his creed?
>> You think _Saint_ Athanasius was a . . schismatic? Seriously?
>> (know who he was?)
>The Man Luther followed into schism.
>Do you even understand why the reformation happened?
whoa.
>> >That's my point. If the Net becomes your only standard, you open yourself
>> >up to error. But if God, and his appointed representative on earth, the
>> >Pope, is your standard, you cannot err.
>> Unless he does? He's Pope. He's not impeccable.
>He is the appointed Vicar of Christ. That makes him a LOT more impeccable
>than you are.
You don't understand the reference, here, do you?
>> And don't call just anyone who dares disagree with you - a nut. People
>> might start to think such of you. Who knows? If you can't carry on a
>> discussion, on UseNet of all things, maybe it's not for you.
>There is no discussion when there is fundamentalism.
I know. I used to attend the 'spirit of' parishes. Saw it firsthand.
>You've taken a stand on a single sentence of Trent.
Even worse than that - a single word.
>I've taken a Stand on the Pope, the leader of Catholicism.
Yeah, you've suggested he's impeccable.
>> >Then why do you attack, on the face, every Pope since Vat. II?
>> >Why do you tear down the church?
>> I didn't. If I'd been around for Bugnini, I like to think I would have
>> a) punched him in the face and then b) made sure _I_ did all I could
>> to rescind what authority for the Concillium, and place the reform, as
>> such, called for by the fathers of the council back in the proper
>> institutional channels.
>Thus tearing down all the development the church has made.
That was the Concilium. That was ICEL. That was Paul VI.
>> I didn't desacralize The Church. I didn't
>> build those canopies, and those high altars. I didn't put in the altar
>> rails. And I didn't then tear them out, and ignore the sanctuary, and
>> put up a folding table, and place girls up on the altar sitting facing
>> the audience, backs to the crucifix and tabernacle, or change the
>> prayers, or 'personalize' the Bible, or emphasize salvation over
>> contrition - or even vote for Clinton.
>I've yet to see a church with the folding table.
>However, that asside, who are you to go against Christ "Where two or more
>are gathered in my name ..." Do you even remember that quote?
But which means what to you? That any liturgy is pleasing to God, not
objectively based on the liturgy itself, but on whether two people,
not even Catholic, not even Prot for that matter, "gather together" in
His name, in some sense to you? What do you think the context of Our
Lord saying that actually was?
>> I criticize Paul VI for 'new order'. I criticize JP II for various
>> things, and for _not_ acting to put away 'new order', as he ought. If
>> it pleases Our Lord, I pray for JP II. You should as well. And I pray
>> that in His Mercy, He will end this trial of our faith, one way or
>> another, as He tests the love, trust and obedience, we really do
>> profess for His Good News, all of it and not just a bit.
>I will not. To do such is to protest. And to protest is to be a
>PROTESTant.
Then may the priests and nuns on the lines outside the abortuaries
name themselves Protestant for the benefit of Ted. It's not what you
meant, is it? What you meant is that the Pope is impeccable? Right?
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >In fact, if your Magisterium goes against the Deposit of Faith, I'd have a
> >tendency to question it.
>
> The Magisterium is, and is based upon, the deposit of faith. The
> Creed, if not that of 'new order', is The Magisterium. Trent is The
> Magisterium.
If Trent is the Magisterium, then Vat. II certainly is as well.
Would you agree that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, and that
any apparent argument, as shown below, is therefore due to wrong
interpretation?
> One can get into these certain degrees of dogmatic
> certainty, as Ott, for ex., lays out in the intro to his book on the
> Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. But dogma, itself, the very essentials
> of what Catholics believe, is The Magisterium because it is from The
> Magisterium and the very purpose of that 'teaching authority'.
So far, I'm still with you, because nothing in this would make any of the
"spirit of" folks or VatII outside of the Magisterium.
> An
> essential part of that is this fact that Our Lord's Passion, while He
> died for all, does not extend to all, but to many. Not all receive the
> grace of the Sacrament. This appears not to be the thinking in 'new
> order', which suggests otherwise by the very words - the very words -
> proscribed by The Roman Catechism, centuries before.
This last bit, however, is in the opinion of only a few traditionalists
who to me appear to seek to twist the words of the Magisterium to make it
appear to disagree with itself.
This is an extraordinary claim, and in a paraphrase of the atheist James
Randi, requires extraordinary proof to be true. Mere Appearance is not
enough, you have to dig into the works of ICEL and show that this was
truly their intent.
I'm going to skip over most of the rest, we need to cut the space down on
this argument a bit, and we're just going over the same points again and
again with NEITHER of us saying anything new.
> >it because once you look at those heresies, you see that ICEL is nothing
> >of the sort?
>
> It is word for word that which was proscribed. If you think I take it
> out of context, you've had opportunity to explain yourself. Maybe you
> ought to begin to do just that, in one of these messages.
I did, above.
The context was that of intent on the part of the heretic. What is the
intent of ICEL?
Not the appearance, but the actual intent.
> I referred to the notion that - I was just following orders - is
> hardly an excuse for following them, even at gunpoint, which was the
> legitimate fear of many who did just that under the Third Reich. As
> for the trials themselves, they were obviously tainted simply by the
> presence of the Soviet judges, whose participation offended all
> equally, even at the time.
And thus, you compare two totally separate methods and beliefs
inappropriately.
My belief in the Pope stems from my belief in Christ. The german
soldier's belief in Hitler stemed from a belief in his own personal
superiority.
Do you see the difference? It's intent that makes the sin, not action.
> A simple table? (and why you keep spelling it, alter, I don't know,
> unless that's just conscience fighting your ego, or something - but .
> . .) Read on:
Quite often, that's all it was. After all, the first churches were
private homes.
As for alter/Altar, I'm using a keyboard with divorak layout.
Home row is EATON
> >"modernist", a word from Pope Pius X. Ok, but he started the development
> >of communion for all (as opposed to just for the Priest). So even he had
> >development.
>
> He did _what_ now?
Started three things:
1. Eucharist for all, at all masses
2. Lowering of the age of first Eucharist
3. Availability of the cup.
Of course, it wasn't until these things were confirmed by Vatican II that
they were actually adopted universally.
> >A suggestion that's obviously false if you look at the churches that were
> >worshiped in before 400 A.D.
> >But of course, you don't care about that one whit, do you?
>
> Why don't _you_ tell me about "the churches that were worshipped in
> before 400". I wanna know. Pending that, read on:
I did.
Personal homes, sometimes only caves. Altar was light and moveable, as
sometimes the anti-Catholic soldiers would roll through the town, looking
for Catholics to kill. Many times, the church itself was no more than a
tent.
You thought that the Basilicas and Cathedrals were there from day one or
something?
> >And what I suggest to you is something entirely different. That the
> >Church, in her infinite wisdom that you don't understand, has made the
> >Mass MORE valid, more sacred, by doing all of the above.
>
> Sure. And long live the 'mass'.
Absolutely, as long as it is under the Pope.
> The Church of England types were convinced of _their_ holiness, too,
> of course - while they hunted Catholics down in the 'colonies' next
> door.
Invalid, as the Church of England is under the monarch and the Archbishop
of Canterbury, not the Bishop of Rome.
> Taught about what, exactly? You want to deny your membership in a new
> religion. So tell me, as a knowledgable and literate Catholic - what
> has "the church taught" that supports all the things you've been
> writing in these messages. Surely, _I'm_ missing something, as you
> say. But you won't help me with your continuing jibes and
> generalities. You're going to have to get specific, here, at some
> point. You're going to actually have to say what you mean. And I look
> forward to it.
May I suggest you start reading the Early Church Fathers, as well as the
Saints fighting the Reformation, to find out?
> >They understood it better than you do. Go look at the African churches in
> >the missions sometime.
>
> I was referring to the US. But, yes, what orthodoxy and faithfulness
> remains in corners of the institutional Church _does_ seem to have
> mostly, but not entirely, escaped the rather conceited 'first world',
> in favor of the so-called 'third'.
I see it in both. That some parishes are full of people doing the Judas
Shuffle is a lot more local than the entire United States, or even
California in general.
> You're right to suggest devotion
> among the poor, and among nations which know strife and cruelty
> unimagined, in the last decade or so, and so foreign even to the
> 'gritty' life of those living in the midst of 'Dodge', in big cities
> and small towns. But in this country, what I mentioned about the 'dark
> ages' prior to Vatican II, to hear your sort tell it, was
> characteristic of something called Catholic action.
I'm sorry to have given you that impression.
It certainly WAS NOT.
It was Characteristic of certain lower-class Catholics who never got
around to learning Latin.
It was NOT Characteristic of the entire church.
Snip rest, as it does NOT survive that way in my archdiocese.
> other Prots were killing Catholics, for being Catholic. Good works,
> seemingly so generous and 'human', can be barren, nonetheless,
> depending on why they are performed. But that's another thread, I
> guess.
One that would have me pointing out the book of James from the Bible.
The book that Protestants can't seem to stand, but goes to the heart of
more liberal CTA beliefs.
> >Which you do not do. I've seen your attacks against liberals.
>
> I hate libralism, even as it finds its way into the thinking of
> 'economic conservatives' and professional conservative pols.
And right there, you fail in showing love for your enemy.
> Libralism
> is a snake, finding its way in through any little weakness. But I
> don't hate librals, or the old classic liberal even. It think they're
> wrong, and were wrong. I think they're more dangerous than the Nazis
> ever were, and even still are in pockets. The padre had it right -
> liberalism is a sin.
Except for the fact that true liberalism is NOTHING like what you hate...
> >I've seen your attacks against the CTA. You hold no love for your enemy.
>
> I hardly ever mention CTA. But I think the 'spirit of' gang is wrong.
> I think you're wrong for defending them. But you don't do yourself any
> favors by then trotting out the comfortable straw man. Deal with what
> people write, rather than what you _wished_ they'd write.
That you have a different name for them makes no difference. I'm not
neccessarily defending them. The enemy of my enemy is not neccessarily my
friend.
However, I do say this: They are showing more of the Spirit of Christ
than I do.
And they're showing a lot less of adherance to tradition than EITHER of us
do.
> >This is the point. Without forgiveness, you have no love. Augustine knew
> >that in 380 A.D. Do you?
>
> Without a holy fear of God, there is no love. Without a purpose of
> amendment and a reliance upon God's grace because we are fallen,
> remission would be trite, and pointless. You seem to so esteem _some_
> practices of the ancient past. I wonder what you'd think if you had
> any idea of the severity to which mortal sins, particularly, were
> treated, the degree of penance demanded, and the means of
> reconciliation. You couldn't afford to be consistent, in this.
Forgiveness is part of the Holy Fear of God.
Unless you are able to forgive your enemies, unilaterally, without
penance, without revenge, you have no fear of God in you.
> >There is no difference. That's what you do not understand. And that's
> >why you hate me so.
>
> I don't hate you. I just think you're very ignorant, and wrong, and
> not at all eager to want to change your ways. And don't you go around
> _looking_ for enemies. They'll find you quick enough. Personal
> experience talking.
You seem to go looking for them, as you hypocritically proclaim your
differences instead of looking for common ground.
> >Please include the definitions of the actual words from the original
> >documents, NOT SOME TRAD TRANSLATION.
>
> So how are the translations in error? You should be specific, and
> enough with the unsupported complaints. Start the 'heavy lifting'
> already. It's no more than I'd do, myself. Not asking you to do
> anything I wouldn't, and haven't.
You fail to take into account the "spirit" of the words, taking into
account only the literal translation.
> >Figure out for yourself what the
> >word ALL means in modern english vs what it meant 5 centuries ago.
>
> Are you trying to say that, all, didn't mean all - "5 centuries ago".
> Did someone _tell_ you this? Cite your source.
I'm trying to say that ALL doesn't mean UNIVERSAL, today, but that it did
5 centuries ago.
> >Oftentimes, as we get older, the liberals of the day become the
> >conservatives.
>
> No, the history is that they become - librals. The history is that
> they start off better than they wind up. The history is that they get
> twisted by rudderless altruism into voting, one day, for Bill Clinton
> - not once, but twice. That's the history.
Then why does my generation consider Clinton's to be hopelessly
conservative?
> >The things we are most scared of in our children, their children will take
> >for granted as how the world works.
>
> It's not the 'gen xers' that concern me. They're a continuation of all
> previous generations, to some extent. The anomaly, the dangerous
> cohort, was and remains the 'boomers'. May they pass into retirement
> sooner, not later.
Not before the GIers die out, I hope.
The GIers were in power for far too long.
> >The Pope is supposed to toe the line of the middle ground:
>
> There's no virtue in compromise for its own sake. Goldwater suggested
> as much in a famous line of his. Leadership isn't defined by watching
> the polls, or guaging the opinion of the palace regulars. The Pope is
> Pope of The Church. He's not like other bishops. And Popes of the past
> understood this. Again, Lefebvre was excommunicated, and even on shaky
> grounds. The cause is much more sure in the case of various bishops
> around, today. But they haven't gone the way of Lefebvre, and they
> should.
Now you put Goldwater above the Church. Who is the Protestant?
> >to keep it alive, to recognize
> >new interpretations out of the Deposit of Faith. And to keep those
> >changes tied to the Deposit.
>
> Odd use of language, I think.
It's the use in the "new religion" if not the "old".
But then again, it's the use of Vatican I.
And Trent.
Why didn't you know this?
> >From the Douay Rheims Bible, in Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament, we
> >find:
>
> >Chapter 6
> >3 If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, and attain to a
> >great age, and his soul make no use of the goods of his substance, and he
> >be without burial:
> >of this man I pronounce, that the untimely born is better than he.
>
> >4 For he came in vain, and goeth to darkness, and his name shall be wholly
> >forgotten.
>
> >I point out that Verses 3 and 4 are basically the argumenment of today's
> >pro-choice movement, that babies are better off never have lived than to
> >have bad parents.
>
> That's not what it says - not even how it reads. Who told you this is
> a 'reasonable' interpretation? I can't say I've been in the forefront
> of the prolife movement, myself. But I have had _some_ involvement
> since the late 1980s. And I never seen such offered in defence of the
> abortionists.
That's because it is an invalid interpretation. It reads better even than
that in the New American translation, where it replaces "untimely born"
with "born dead".
It's even better than that in the Latin, where it uses the word for
"miscarriage".
But at anyrate it isn't neccessarily a "reasonable" interpretation, that's
why we have 30,000 Protestant churches out there, not all interpretations
are reasonable to all people.
> >The Church is right and I am wrong. Do you understand why?
>
> No. If you think I took something out of context, fine. Make the case
> for it. But if I say it's going to rain on Monday, whether it will or
> not, and include it in among a number of other related comments, which
> don't qualify the statement, it's not taking me out of context to cite
> just that one line on the topic of - will it rain on Monday? Do you
> understand why?
But the point is, it is. If you say, it's going to rain on Monday of Next
week if the Huricane doesn't turn and hit the coast, but I quote you as
saying "It's going to rain on Monday", that's inaccurate.
> >You need to prove that you've taken the words in context.
>
> Again, guilty till proven innocent, eh? That's not how it works.
In America, that's not how it works.
In Theology and Science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> You've made the complaints. Now you back them up. It _is_ only fair.
To quote your generation, Life is rarely fair.
> >Expand your document to show why ICEL is the same as Calvin and Luther.
>
> Whatever is shared in common seems sufficiently self-evident.
But it isn't shared in common at all, that's my point.
Sometimes words have two meanings.
> >Show me, why in essence, you believe ICEL to be twisting doctrine to
> >subvert the power of the Pope.
>
> Just read what's on the page, of the 'dreaded' URL -
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . You can complain
> about specifics. Wish you would.
Someday when I have the leisure of retirement, maybe.
However, the point is, I have complained about a specific thing. Intent
as related to context.
> >_Crossing the Threshold of Hope_. It's been remaindered,
>
> Nice to know. _What_ passages in particular do you think defend this
> new religion? What do you say he wrote? Quote a few lines. I would. Or
> are you afraid I'll accuse _you_ of taking a man out of context? Just
> don't, and I won't. (fair?)
I will not because it would be taking the book out of context.
And while you may not call me on it, I'd call myself on it.
I will not be intellectually disingenious in that way.
> >No, but I believe that language changes, and that both translations are
> >equally accurate for the times the translation was made.
>
> So, all is synonymous with many, and many with all - categorically.
No, just in context, not categorically.
> Why, my dictionary is in need of repair. All men are created equal,
> when they could just have easily written - many men are created equal?
> Makes you think, don't it?
Notice that even in this document "All men are created equal" EXCEPT,
apparently: Black slaves, indentured servants, red indians, women,
children under the age of 18, and people who don't own land.
Other than those categories, sure, "All men are created equal".
> >> Is that to be ignored?
>
> >Not at all, though you seem to be trying to.
>
> I don't write what you do about The Latin Mass, about the past, about
> tradition. I'm not ignoring Christendom.
Neither do I, to me Christendom was the closest thing man's ever gotten to
perfect competition or perfect communism (and at that level, there's
really no difference between the two).
But I don't ignore all of the church past 1963 either...
> >The lack of development, the heresies of the Protestants and the CTA, is
> >to be ignored.
>
> So who'll start the ball rolling?
Apparently not you, since instead of these you're denying the development
of an entire church council.
> >Yes, in a book designed to undermine the power of the Pope.
>
> One of them was called, Trojan Horse in the City of God. I have that
> and other listed as suggested reading at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
I did look at them. All were specifically designed to undermine the power
of the Popes since 1963.
> >The majority is hardly ever right, that's why we have the Pope.
>
> Some of the bishops act as if they see him as more of an interloping
> annoyance than anything. Are _they_ right? And if not, what do _you_
> call their behavior, and the things they've done in their dioceses?
You have to take it on a case by case basis. First of all, did they
bother to get dispensation from Rome? I know my archbishops here in
Oregon always have. Did yours?
Secondly, can what they teach be tied to the Deposit of Faith?
Those two must be taken into consideration.
> >Which is why those bishops are now in schism.
>
> Well - we agree. They are in de facto schism. But they still exercise
> the official authority of the institutional church. They still control
> the stamps and ledgers. This is typical of heresies. And they do so,
> now, to such a widespread international degree, because the Pope
> _doesn't_ lead. But this _is_ the worst heresy to afflict The Church,
> Militant. And perhaps, if it pleases God, we ought to pray for The
> Pope to do what he ought to do, by God, and not by human schemes.
As I remember, Arianism holds that role.
> How so?
OS.
> >You wrote above that
> >His Holiness actually has "worldly schemes".
>
> I said they shouldn't enter his considerations on what to do about
> discipline among the bishops. Lefebvre presented no such apparent
> obstacle. To a greater degree, then, neither do any of these guys.
Unless, of course, they have gotten dispensation from Rome and the
authority of the Pope behind them...
> >I have a complaint with your charge that the Pope has commissioned a new
> >religion, when he has done no such thing.
>
> I'm not sure he's responsible for the 'spirit of'. I think he refuses
> to douse it. Why, I don't know.
ICEL was commissioned by the Pope.
So were quite a few of the other reforms.
> >I have a complaint with you telling me that ICEL and Calvinism are one and
> >the same, when in fact they are opposite.
>
> Not exactly opposite.
Exactly opposite, for Calvin claimed that Christ died for All thus our
salvation is predetermined, where ICEL teaches that Christ died for all
yet the many have the CHOICE OF FREE WILL.
Exact opposites.
> Save the straw, again. I don't agree with the sede case. I don't say
> JP II is a heretic. I think he's wrong on some things.
For a Pope to be wrong, that would make him a heretic.
> >Your lack of love.
>
> No love in the room, kind of thing. Thought that nonsense went out
> with Phil Donahue's last show.
It's been here since Christ. It's not going away.
> >Your lack of forgiveness.
>
> Such as?
Blaming ICEL for things they repented of 10 years ago...for instance.
> >That's the basis on which I call you a Protestant, on the basis of your
> >protest.
>
> Yes, but I suggest you're a Protestant, on the other hand, because you
> seem to defend - Protestantism. There we are.
I do not protest the Pope. You do.
You're the one defending the Protest of the Pope, not me.
> 'New order' was a concoction, an innovation, of the Concilium, against
> the wishes of the fathers of Vatican II. It was new, if combined with
> old heresies. It was intended to be a clean break with holy tradition.
> It ignored the council. So what, you say? That's what.
So says you. I don't believe it for a second. You can twist the words of
Vatican II all you want.
> >You've yet to prove that adaquately.
>
> You just don't want to read what's on the screen, is all. You're only
> kidding yourself.
What's on the screen is NOT PROOF.
> >Trent is outside of Rome.
>
> Actually, geographically, literally, perhaps. Figuratively, no.
My point is that Trent did not neccessarily teach from Rome.
> >Aquinas was never Pope.
>
> He was the mainstay of Catholic education for centuries. Don't
> denigrate Aquinas just to build up the new religion. Gain the world -
> lose your . . what?
Mainstay? Or one of many voices?
> >Athanasius was Lutheran.
>
> (Didn't see that one coming.)
That's because you're unfamiliar with the heresy of twisting words of the
saints, despite your own use of that particular heresy.
> >I meant those who twist trent to say that ICEL is invalid are not in
> >communion with Rome, where ICEL is.
>
> ICEL is hardly in Communion with Rome. They are officially approved.
And commissioned by the Pope. You fail to see that one, for some reason.
> That's not the same as saying they hold true to - what Catholics
> believe, or the unwavering tradition of the Popes and councils down
> through the centuries.
So? Neither do you.
> >The "new religion" does NOT ignore councils or Church doctrine, but you
> >apparently do.
>
> It do. I don't.
Then why do you deny the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI?
Why do you deny the legitimacy of Vatican II as an eccumenical Council?
Why must you go back 500 years to find ANY support of your position?
> >Because it does. ICEL is not modernism, much as you seem to think it is.
>
> Wouldn't just be _my_ opinion.
But it would be just the opinion of the Traditionalists.
> >If anything, it's ECFism. It goes too far into the writings of the Early
> >Church Fathers, ignoreing the development of past centuries.
>
> Superficially. But that's been a tack of heretics, as well,
> historically. They think they've found a 'better way', unknown to the
> Saints and Doctors. And by gum, they're a goin to implement this
> 'better way', if it kills 'em.
Are the Early Church Fathers among your Saints and Doctors?
Actually, Luther and Calvin both appealed to the same saints and doctors
you do, so what's the difference?
> >My point is that Vat II asked for a mass in the vernacular.
>
> No it didn't. I explained why. That you cut it out - your problem, not
> mine.
You're claim of No is wrong. Period. End of argument.
> Development is not the same as contradiction, just as many is not the
> same as all.
There was no contradiction, except in the minds of people who were unable
to understand.
The Magisterium cannot contradict itself.
Ever.
> >It's one and the same. Past, present, future, it's all an illusion.
>
> It's very real. Only comfort and idleness lead people to make such
> rash statements.
If you can't see that time is an illusion, then no wonder you're a
conservative, tied to man made illusions.
> That shows he goes along, and doesn't lead. If asked about this or
> that bit, perhaps he _would_ express some . . concern, for the
> translation. That's why I wondered what he actually did say.
If he's saying the mass in italian, and is the officiant for the
ceremony, I call that leadership.
And concern for the translation does not equal rejection of the group that
translated it.
> What the Greek say and what The Church says, are two different things.
> You should understand that. You can't say any other approved liturgy
> appears invalid on its face. 'New order' stands alone and proud.
I'm pointing out that what the Greek say is what the church said, at one
time, at least as validly as you quote trent.
> >The translations on the faceing page that you're so fond of were
> >criticized as being "invalid on it's face" in 1870.
>
> Really?
Yes, they were a decision of Vatican I, and Vatican I didn't have 100%
majority votes either.
> >itself was condemned by the Protestants as being "invalid on
> >it's face" for it's strict translation of the Latin that eliminated their
> >arguments.
>
> What the Prot swears to as true and what The Church teaches, are often
> two different things. Understand that.
My point is, that they used the same arguments against the Church than you
now use, word for word.
> >Why is your argument of "invalid on it's face" different from any of the
> >above?
>
> Read it again, that URL. Just read it as written. Try.
I did. Again. And still find it to be invalid. Or rather, only as valid
as the Protestant arguments above.
Which isn't valid, which is why I'm Catholic.
> >No, it's the very line Trent drew. Too bad you can't see it.
>
> Because they never said that. By "follow" what you mean, and have made
> very clear, is to disagree at all, with anything the Pope says or
> does.
By twisting his words and letting yourself judge the Church rather than
letting the Church judge you.
> That's to presume something invested in the man who holds the
> office that isn't there.
There is someting invested in the office, however, if not the Man.
Clement I had it when he healed the schism of Corinth.
Leo X had it when he proclaimed the greek as anathema.
JP2 has it today when he approved development such as altar girls.
You, sir, do not have it.
> Correction should be reasonable, and
> supported, and open itself to correction, as mine is and as I am, as
> I've repeatedly said.
But you haven't been. You keep repeating the same arguments over and
over, without taking into account ANYTHING that I've brought up.
I don't understand why.
> But to tell Catholics to never offer holy
> correction is to insist Catholics join the new religion, and not
> attempt to defend their own.
I keep telling you, there is no difference. Ever wonder why I insist on
that point, that the Magisterium can't be devided in the way you're trying
to do?
> >You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
>
> Protestants protest the very Holy See, itself. I don't. Frankly,
> neither do the sedes. I question some of the Popes decisions and
> actions. I question his failure to lead. I pray for Him, if it pleases
> God.
The altar girls was a proclaimation of the Holy See. To protest the
proclaimations of the Holy See is to protest against the power of the Holy
See.
This isn't rocket science, it's very simple.
> >> I don't 'follow' him in that
> >> because there's good reason no to. You suggest not infallibility, but
> >> impeccability. Again, that's not holy, it's not . . 'papal', it does
> >> no service to the Pope to put him in such a position.
>
> >You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
>
> Thinking isn't so hard, Ted. This broken record mantra is hardly
> convincing. Try responding to what's at issue. Try to discuss, not
> nag.
Then stop Protesting, first and foremost.
> >If he didn't leave his "fallen nature" at the door when he became Pope,
> >then all of Catholicism is false.
>
> You attribute something to the Pope which is pointedly false. The Pope
> is not impeccable. You must confess this.
It is not "pointedly false". It is the very base of the entire
infalibility argument.
To deny it is to deny the Church itself.
> >Because there is no "new religion"
>
> But there is.
Only in the minds of the paranoid.
> >No "Black Helicopters"
>
> It's part of the 'night mission' of some to be painted in this
> fashion.
Nope, dark blue, not black.
And certainly not owned by the UN.
> >No conspiracy theories.
>
> Plenty. Some are even on to something - such as the media conspiracy
> to cover their . . . y'knows, in regard to ginning everyone up to vote
> Clinton in the last two elections.
So says the losers, repeatedly.
> >The Man Luther followed into schism.
> >Do you even understand why the reformation happened?
>
> whoa.
I suggest you read Luther's _Little_Catechism_ sometime. It bears
striking resembellance to your web page.
> >He is the appointed Vicar of Christ. That makes him a LOT more impeccable
> >than you are.
>
> You don't understand the reference, here, do you?
My point is, neither are you. And the Pope holds a lot more respect in my
mind than you do.
That, in the end, is all that counts.
> >I've yet to see a church with the folding table.
> >However, that asside, who are you to go against Christ "Where two or more
> >are gathered in my name ..." Do you even remember that quote?
>
> But which means what to you? That any liturgy is pleasing to God, not
> objectively based on the liturgy itself, but on whether two people,
> not even Catholic, not even Prot for that matter, "gather together" in
> His name, in some sense to you? What do you think the context of Our
> Lord saying that actually was?
To the Apostles, not to the crowd. However, yes, as long as they are tied
to Apostolic Authority, the liturgy is not important (as the Pharasees at
the time were claiming), but rather, simply a gathering.
If you know of ANY protestants claiming Apostolic Authority, I'd love to
see it.
Mark Johnson
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> It is word for word that which was proscribed. If you think I take it
>> out of context, you've had opportunity to explain yourself. Maybe you
>> ought to begin to do just that, in one of these messages.
>The context was that of intent on the part of the heretic. What is the
>intent of ICEL?
>Not the appearance, but the actual intent.
Who cares? Who really cares? They worked themselves up into doing what
they did. They, no doubt, rationalized and dissembled and double
talked their way into heresy. I don't think there's any question
that's how people behave. What matters is what they signed off on at
the end of the day. What matters is what was approved as the liturgy
for the new religion. Deal with that. You'll find making excuses for
other people is typically a very unrewarding pasttime.
>My belief in the Pope stems from my belief in Christ. The german
>soldier's belief in Hitler stemed from a belief in his own personal
>superiority.
>Do you see the difference? It's intent that makes the sin, not action.
To some extent that's actually true. But objectively, some things are
heretical. Our Lord died for all. But the fruits of His Passion do not
go to all. This is a pretty unarguable point of doctrine. 'New order'
would suggest otherwise. It's not complicated. You just want it to be.
>Started three things:
>1. Eucharist for all, at all masses
>2. Lowering of the age of first Eucharist
>3. Availability of the cup.
>Of course, it wasn't until these things were confirmed by Vatican II that
>they were actually adopted universally.
The "cup"? You mean the, chalice? And don't blame Dvorak. And I also
have a feeling the late Pope Pius would be correcting you left and
right all throughout this. But . . .
>Personal homes, sometimes only caves. Altar was light and moveable, as
>sometimes the anti-Catholic soldiers would roll through the town, looking
>for Catholics to kill. Many times, the church itself was no more than a
>tent.
So you suggest tents rather than church buildings? Be consistent.
>You thought that the Basilicas and Cathedrals were there from day one or
>something?
Pretty much. The Fabiola is in reprint, without all the cool plates
perhaps. You might want to search out a copy. It's not on-line, yet.
>> The Church of England types were convinced of _their_ holiness, too,
>> of course - while they hunted Catholics down in the 'colonies' next
>> door.
>Invalid, as the Church of England is under the monarch and the Archbishop
>of Canterbury, not the Bishop of Rome.
I'm saying they were convinced they wuz the 'people of God', and that
they were quite good and dutiful go-to-church-Sunday Christians.
Meanwhile . . .
There has to be a standard, here. And it ain't that of the new
religion.
>> Taught about what, exactly? You want to deny your membership in a new
>> religion. So tell me, as a knowledgable and literate Catholic - what
>> has "the church taught" that supports all the things you've been
>> writing in these messages. Surely, _I'm_ missing something, as you
>> say. But you won't help me with your continuing jibes and
>> generalities. You're going to have to get specific, here, at some
>> point. You're going to actually have to say what you mean. And I look
>> forward to it.
>May I suggest you start reading the Early Church Fathers, as well as the
>Saints fighting the Reformation, to find out?
If you don't know - just say, you don't know. Don't give me a line
like this.
Every time I ask you to clarify, or explain yourself - you balk.
>> other Prots were killing Catholics, for being Catholic. Good works,
>> seemingly so generous and 'human', can be barren, nonetheless,
>> depending on why they are performed. But that's another thread, I
>> guess.
>One that would have me pointing out the book of James from the Bible.
>The book that Protestants can't seem to stand, but goes to the heart of
>more liberal CTA beliefs.
>> >Which you do not do. I've seen your attacks against liberals.
>> I hate libralism, even as it finds its way into the thinking of
>> 'economic conservatives' and professional conservative pols.
>And right there, you fail in showing love for your enemy.
I see. You split with Rome over this, too. That book, mentioned below,
came with a round of approval from Rome.
>> Libralism
>> is a snake, finding its way in through any little weakness. But I
>> don't hate librals, or the old classic liberal even. It think they're
>> wrong, and were wrong. I think they're more dangerous than the Nazis
>> ever were, and even still are in pockets. The padre had it right -
>> liberalism is a sin.
>Except for the fact that true liberalism is NOTHING like what you hate...
Read the book. It _is_ on-line.
>> >I've seen your attacks against the CTA. You hold no love for your enemy.
>> I hardly ever mention CTA. But I think the 'spirit of' gang is wrong.
>> I think you're wrong for defending them. But you don't do yourself any
>> favors by then trotting out the comfortable straw man. Deal with what
>> people write, rather than what you _wished_ they'd write.
>That you have a different name for them makes no difference. I'm not
>neccessarily defending them. The enemy of my enemy is not neccessarily my
>friend.
>However, I do say this: They are showing more of the Spirit of Christ
>than I do.
If you say so.
>And they're showing a lot less of adherance to tradition than EITHER of us
>do.
Speaking for myself, I would think that's obv.
>> Without a holy fear of God, there is no love. Without a purpose of
>> amendment and a reliance upon God's grace because we are fallen,
>> remission would be trite, and pointless. You seem to so esteem _some_
>> practices of the ancient past. I wonder what you'd think if you had
>> any idea of the severity to which mortal sins, particularly, were
>> treated, the degree of penance demanded, and the means of
>> reconciliation. You couldn't afford to be consistent, in this.
>Forgiveness is part of the Holy Fear of God.
>Unless you are able to forgive your enemies, unilaterally, without
>penance, without revenge, you have no fear of God in you.
Revenge?
>> >There is no difference. That's what you do not understand. And that's
>> >why you hate me so.
>> I don't hate you. I just think you're very ignorant, and wrong, and
>> not at all eager to want to change your ways. And don't you go around
>> _looking_ for enemies. They'll find you quick enough. Personal
>> experience talking.
>You seem to go looking for them,
No I doubt. It's UseNet. People will disagree. I mean . . .
>as you hypocritically proclaim your
>differences instead of looking for common ground.
You lost me. Where I agree with someone, fine. But it seems some
people are very committed to their beliefs, and these are typically
not Catholic on the Catholic ngs.
>> >Please include the definitions of the actual words from the original
>> >documents, NOT SOME TRAD TRANSLATION.
>> So how are the translations in error? You should be specific, and
>> enough with the unsupported complaints. Start the 'heavy lifting'
>> already. It's no more than I'd do, myself. Not asking you to do
>> anything I wouldn't, and haven't.
>You fail to take into account the "spirit" of the words, taking into
>account only the literal translation.
You still need to explain what you're talking about. Give it a shot.
Be specific. It's _your_ complaint, after all.
>> >Figure out for yourself what the
>> >word ALL means in modern english vs what it meant 5 centuries ago.
>> Are you trying to say that, all, didn't mean all - "5 centuries ago".
>> Did someone _tell_ you this? Cite your source.
>I'm trying to say that ALL doesn't mean UNIVERSAL, today, but that it did
>5 centuries ago.
So when they wrote - all men are created equal - 200 years ago, does
that fall under the threshold for you? Or are we going to start
separating out the equal from the 'more equal', now? You can't be
serious.
>> >Oftentimes, as we get older, the liberals of the day become the
>> >conservatives.
>> No, the history is that they become - librals. The history is that
>> they start off better than they wind up. The history is that they get
>> twisted by rudderless altruism into voting, one day, for Bill Clinton
>> - not once, but twice. That's the history.
>Then why does my generation consider Clinton's to be hopelessly
>conservative?
I take it you're a 'boomer'. Boomers would think anyone who doesn't
pine for the return of Stalin to be . . conservative.
>> >The things we are most scared of in our children, their children will take
>> >for granted as how the world works.
>> It's not the 'gen xers' that concern me. They're a continuation of all
>> previous generations, to some extent. The anomaly, the dangerous
>> cohort, was and remains the 'boomers'. May they pass into retirement
>> sooner, not later.
>Not before the GIers die out, I hope.
>The GIers were in power for far too long.
The 'prime timers', so-called. But they _did_ fight. And some, not
all, did barbeque and sell-out to materialism when they got home, and
allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by anyone wearing a
white lab coat and preaching the 'big science'. They seemed an odd mix
of the cynical and the credulous. Maybe the boomers have wound up much
the same. But to the extent the prime timers were gullible, or greedy,
it was only to extent generations have been so. The boomers were, and
are, different. They felt entitled, somehow, to almost be worshipped,
some of them - and they _didn't_ distinguish themselves as did the
prime timers. It was a generation of people full of themselves, with
all the arrogance that implies for public policy, when they got their
shot. That's particularly why they have been so destructive to society
- because there's no 'feedback' - it's a generation that doesn't
listen.
>> There's no virtue in compromise for its own sake. Goldwater suggested
>> as much in a famous line of his. Leadership isn't defined by watching
>> the polls, or guaging the opinion of the palace regulars. The Pope is
>> Pope of The Church. He's not like other bishops. And Popes of the past
>> understood this. Again, Lefebvre was excommunicated, and even on shaky
>> grounds. The cause is much more sure in the case of various bishops
>> around, today. But they haven't gone the way of Lefebvre, and they
>> should.
>Now you put Goldwater above the Church. Who is the Protestant?
Goldwater stated it well. But it's a Catholic sentiment. Compromise is
not a standard. Rather it's - what Catholics believe.
>> >The Church is right and I am wrong. Do you understand why?
>> No. If you think I took something out of context, fine. Make the case
>> for it. But if I say it's going to rain on Monday, whether it will or
>> not, and include it in among a number of other related comments, which
>> don't qualify the statement, it's not taking me out of context to cite
>> just that one line on the topic of - will it rain on Monday? Do you
>> understand why?
>But the point is, it is. If you say, it's going to rain on Monday of Next
>week if the Huricane doesn't turn and hit the coast, but I quote you as
>saying "It's going to rain on Monday", that's inaccurate.
I said if I didn't qualify it. What context do you think I
intentionally have withheld in what I quoted on my web page? Tell me.
Be specific. I wanna know.
>> You've made the complaints. Now you back them up. It _is_ only fair.
>To quote your generation, Life is rarely fair.
No excuse for being unfair. You made the complaints. Back 'em up. Only
fair.
>> >Show me, why in essence, you believe ICEL to be twisting doctrine to
>> >subvert the power of the Pope.
>> Just read what's on the page, of the 'dreaded' URL -
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . You can complain
>> about specifics. Wish you would.
>Someday when I have the leisure of retirement, maybe.
Reading can be dangerous to your ignorance. Is that it?
Asides, I _thought_ you previously wrote that you _did_ read that
page; if even just to skim over it, and not really read it. Can you
clear this up?
>> >_Crossing the Threshold of Hope_. It's been remaindered,
>> Nice to know. _What_ passages in particular do you think defend this
>> new religion? What do you say he wrote? Quote a few lines. I would. Or
>> are you afraid I'll accuse _you_ of taking a man out of context? Just
>> don't, and I won't. (fair?)
>I will not because it would be taking the book out of context.
>And while you may not call me on it, I'd call myself on it.
>I will not be intellectually disingenious in that way.
Sure. Easy out. There isn't anything there that's going to support the
sort of things you've been saying. Fish or cut bait - and you decided
the fish weren't biting?
>> So, all is synonymous with many, and many with all - categorically.
>> Why, my dictionary is in need of repair. All men are created equal,
>> when they could just have easily written - many men are created equal?
>> Makes you think, don't it?
>Notice that even in this document "All men are created equal" EXCEPT,
>apparently: Black slaves, indentured servants, red indians, women,
>children under the age of 18, and people who don't own land.
>Other than those categories, sure, "All men are created equal".
Then they lied? Is that what you want to say?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the debates over slavery, and the
compromises that didn't, ultimately, work. As for people under 18 not
being allowed to vote, it doesn't imply they are excluded from the
coverage. Two different things.
>But I don't ignore all of the church past 1963 either...
Actually, the catechists like to phrase it - I read nothing written
before 1965. That seems to be the watershed, not 1963.
>> >The lack of development, the heresies of the Protestants and the CTA, is
>> >to be ignored.
>> So who'll start the ball rolling?
>Apparently not you, since instead of these you're denying the development
>of an entire church council.
No - that was Bugnini. That was the 'spirit of' crowd. For all the
problems of the documents of Vatican II, if read in light of holy
tradition, to help clarify the unclear bits, the church council, as
you refer to it, was not followed. By the machinations of the 'better
way' bunch, it might as well have convened for a day, and then passed
implementation off the 'experts', right then and there. Cause that's
basically what happened. The Church of the Saints and Doctors wasn't
involved in this. Experts were. Historical-critical sorts were.
Heretics were. Trendy vicars were. The very stuff of RENEW 2000 was.
Wake up and see what's going on in the parishes.
>> >Yes, in a book designed to undermine the power of the Pope.
>> One of them was called, Trojan Horse in the City of God. I have that
>> and other listed as suggested reading at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm , if you are interested.
>I did look at them. All were specifically designed to undermine the power
>of the Popes since 1963.
You and your conspiracy theories.
>> >The majority is hardly ever right, that's why we have the Pope.
>> Some of the bishops act as if they see him as more of an interloping
>> annoyance than anything. Are _they_ right? And if not, what do _you_
>> call their behavior, and the things they've done in their dioceses?
>You have to take it on a case by case basis. First of all, did they
>bother to get dispensation from Rome? I know my archbishops here in
>Oregon always have. Did yours?
>Secondly, can what they teach be tied to the Deposit of Faith?
>Those two must be taken into consideration.
I see. What about Weakland - just for instance? How about Mahony's
latest speil on the 'bread at table'? How does _that_ fit your scheme.
>> >Which is why those bishops are now in schism.
>> Well - we agree. They are in de facto schism. But they still exercise
>> the official authority of the institutional church. They still control
>> the stamps and ledgers. This is typical of heresies. And they do so,
>> now, to such a widespread international degree, because the Pope
>> _doesn't_ lead. But this _is_ the worst heresy to afflict The Church,
>> Militant. And perhaps, if it pleases God, we ought to pray for The
>> Pope to do what he ought to do, by God, and not by human schemes.
>As I remember, Arianism holds that role.
Use to. This is worse than that was. The Arians never got their own
liturgy substituted for The Holy Mass - far as I know.
>> >You wrote above that
>> >His Holiness actually has "worldly schemes".
>> I said they shouldn't enter his considerations on what to do about
>> discipline among the bishops. Lefebvre presented no such apparent
>> obstacle. To a greater degree, then, neither do any of these guys.
>Unless, of course, they have gotten dispensation from Rome and the
>authority of the Pope behind them...
Dispensation to do what? destroy the church in their dioceses? What
are you talking about?
>> >I have a complaint with your charge that the Pope has commissioned a new
>> >religion, when he has done no such thing.
>> I'm not sure he's responsible for the 'spirit of'. I think he refuses
>> to douse it. Why, I don't know.
>ICEL was commissioned by the Pope.
>So were quite a few of the other reforms.
Besides 'altar girls' - which?
>> >I have a complaint with you telling me that ICEL and Calvinism are one and
>> >the same, when in fact they are opposite.
>> Not exactly opposite.
>Exactly opposite, for Calvin claimed that Christ died for All thus our
>salvation is predetermined, where ICEL teaches that Christ died for all
>yet the many have the CHOICE OF FREE WILL.
That's not how it reads in 'new order'. And I thought Calvin claimed
some were saved, almost whether they wanted to be or not - and that
others were not.
>> Save the straw, again. I don't agree with the sede case. I don't say
>> JP II is a heretic. I think he's wrong on some things.
>For a Pope to be wrong, that would make him a heretic.
You're just very wrong about that. You don't understand what's meant
by the term - impeccability. I wish you'd check it out, look it up.
>> >Your lack of love.
>> No love in the room, kind of thing. Thought that nonsense went out
>> with Phil Donahue's last show.
>It's been here since Christ. It's not going away.
Falsely accusing someone is what was _done_ to Our Lord, not what one
does to follow His _example_.
>Blaming ICEL for things they repented of 10 years ago...for instance.
I'd love to see that - the ICEList recantation. What was it called?
Cause it sure hasn't filtered down to the parishes, yet.
>> 'New order' was a concoction, an innovation, of the Concilium, against
>> the wishes of the fathers of Vatican II. It was new, if combined with
>> old heresies. It was intended to be a clean break with holy tradition.
>> It ignored the council. So what, you say? That's what.
>So says you. I don't believe it for a second. You can twist the words of
>Vatican II all you want.
Trust me, on this. I know you don't. I know you barely read. I know
you refuse to study up on any of this. So - trust me. Either that, or
check out some of the books I cite on 'the troubles' at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/Books.htm .
>> >Trent is outside of Rome.
>> Actually, geographically, literally, perhaps. Figuratively, no.
>My point is that Trent did not neccessarily teach from Rome.
Denying the Council of Trent, now, are we? You really should try at
least two sentences where one won't do. What _are_ you trying to say,
here?
>> >Aquinas was never Pope.
>> He was the mainstay of Catholic education for centuries. Don't
>> denigrate Aquinas just to build up the new religion. Gain the world -
>> lose your . . what?
>Mainstay? Or one of many voices?
Mainstay. You don't appreciate the importance of Aquinas, to Catholic
scholars, to The Church, to Trent in particular for that matter. You
just don't know. It's a shame.
>> >Athanasius was Lutheran.
>> (Didn't see that one coming.)
>That's because you're unfamiliar with the heresy of twisting words of the
>saints, despite your own use of that particular heresy.
No, I was stunned that you would think anyone canonized by The Church
was a - Lutheran, a heretic. I was even more so that you imagined
Saint Athanasius to be a contemporary, perhaps, of Martin Luther. You
got me good, on that one.
>> >I meant those who twist trent to say that ICEL is invalid are not in
>> >communion with Rome, where ICEL is.
>> ICEL is hardly in Communion with Rome. They are officially approved.
>And commissioned by the Pope. You fail to see that one, for some reason.
Not at all. Officially approved is . . officially approved. I hope the
approval is short-lived.
>Then why do you deny the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI?
I don't. I think he was desperately wrong to promulgate 'new order',
to even try to suppress The Holy Mass, as he did, against various
objections - but he was trying to make the case that 'new order'
wasn't some parallel liturgy, as is the revisionist take now, but
literally the same liturgy - updated. But it was, ultimately, just an
unholy substitute for The Mass.
>Why do you deny the legitimacy of Vatican II as an eccumenical Council?
I don't. That's was Bugnini and the 'spirit of' crowd. _They_ are the
ones who could have cared less what the council fathers wrote and
wanted.
>Why must you go back 500 years to find ANY support of your position?
Actually, to be fair, it goes back about 2000 years, to a place
Catholics call, the Cenacle, and a Jewish Passover that served Our
Lord for His institution of a new and daily Sacrifice, of Himself;
even prior to His once for all Sacrifice on Calvary.
>> >Because it does. ICEL is not modernism, much as you seem to think it is.
>> Wouldn't just be _my_ opinion.
>But it would be just the opinion of the Traditionalists.
Not everyone who thinks ICEL is wrong would call themselves a
traditionalist - sadly.
>> >My point is that Vat II asked for a mass in the vernacular.
>> No it didn't. I explained why. That you cut it out - your problem, not
>> mine.
>You're claim of No is wrong. Period. End of argument.
They didn't. You wish they had. Period?
>> Development is not the same as contradiction, just as many is not the
>> same as all.
>There was no contradiction, except in the minds of people who were unable
>to understand.
Odd thing for you to say, given what you've written above.
>The Magisterium cannot contradict itself.
>Ever.
How true. So why do you so distrust Trent? Again, either they were
right, or they're right, today. But there is a contradiction, there.
>> >It's one and the same. Past, present, future, it's all an illusion.
>> It's very real. Only comfort and idleness lead people to make such
>> rash statements.
>If you can't see that time is an illusion, then no wonder you're a
>conservative, tied to man made illusions.
I'm not a nihilist, or a wild skeptic. I am, therefore I know.
>> What the Prot swears to as true and what The Church teaches, are often
>> two different things. Understand that.
>My point is, that they used the same arguments against the Church than you
>now use, word for word.
It wasn't true, then, because we had The Mass. It is now, because the
Protestant got their way. So when they complain about worshipping a
wafer, it appears, now, that they're absolutely right, in 'new order'
- not The Holy Mass. They were never right about The Mass, and they
always hated it.
>> >Why is your argument of "invalid on it's face" different from any of the
>> >above?
>> Read it again, that URL. Just read it as written. Try.
>I did.
Wish you'd make up your mind.
>Again. And still find it to be invalid. Or rather, only as valid
>as the Protestant arguments above.
>Which isn't valid, which is why I'm Catholic.
Well - I'm Catholic. You're Catholic. One of us isn't being honest.
Others to judge, I suppose.
>> Correction should be reasonable, and
>> supported, and open itself to correction, as mine is and as I am, as
>> I've repeatedly said.
>But you haven't been. You keep repeating the same arguments over and
>over, without taking into account ANYTHING that I've brought up.
You haven't said anything. You haven't offered any reasons for why you
say what you do, save for an ignorant jab every now and then.
Everytime I ask you to explain yourself, you change the subject or
duck away somewhere. Explain yourself, already. Be specific. It's only
fair.
>I don't understand why.
Just told you. I keep telling you. You make me keep repeating this.
>> >You're saying so is a protest, thus you are protestant.
>> Protestants protest the very Holy See, itself. I don't. Frankly,
>> neither do the sedes. I question some of the Popes decisions and
>> actions. I question his failure to lead. I pray for Him, if it pleases
>> God.
>The altar girls was a proclaimation of the Holy See. To protest the
>proclaimations of the Holy See is to protest against the power of the Holy
>See.
>This isn't rocket science, it's very simple.
But that rocket won't get off the ground. Besides, 'altar girls' makes
sense, to the extent it does, only in the new religion and its new
rite. For thousands of years, and even today, it would be _nuts_ to
incorporate such a selfish, world-centered expression in The Holy
Mass.
>> >If he didn't leave his "fallen nature" at the door when he became Pope,
>> >then all of Catholicism is false.
>> You attribute something to the Pope which is pointedly false. The Pope
>> is not impeccable. You must confess this.
>It is not "pointedly false".
Is so.
>To deny it is to deny the Church itself.
To suggest what you do is to literally deny Church teaching. The Pope
is not impeccable.
>> >No "Black Helicopters"
>> It's part of the 'night mission' of some to be painted in this
>> fashion.
>Nope, dark blue, not black.
Black. Black as night. It the mission. That's what all the infrared
and sensing equipment is for. Fly at night. When's the last time you
saw an Apache at an air show - or SR71 for that matter?
>And certainly not owned by the UN.
Maybe not. But I was referring to the American arsenal, and maybe a
few adds in from foreign forces. Remember, the 'black helicopter' talk
isn't even so much about the paint job. They could be army drab, for
that matter, and still fly at night and look, black. The 'black
helicopter' is, basically, anonymous, unmarked (and here I thought all
aircraft were supposed to bear visible markings - FAA or something).
Myself, I have never seen an unmarked chopper or jet, or prop plane,
or whatever. But . . maybe there are such. When I've seen SR-71
fly-bys, I have to say I don't see any markings. But even at low
cruise, those things tend to whiz by awfully fast.
>> >No conspiracy theories.
>> Plenty. Some are even on to something - such as the media conspiracy
>> to cover their . . . y'knows, in regard to ginning everyone up to vote
>> Clinton in the last two elections.
>So says the losers, repeatedly.
No, simple fact. The national propaganda got this guy elected, and
then repeatedly covered up for him; until perhaps just recently, and
many will probably keep on at it until the day he announces his
resignation. Others, at this point, they don't know _what_ to do, it
seems.
Btw, Clinton should resign - immediately - for the good of the nation.
>> >The Man Luther followed into schism.
>> >Do you even understand why the reformation happened?
>> whoa.
>I suggest you read Luther's _Little_Catechism_ sometime. It bears
>striking resembellance to your web page.
I beginning to wonder if you even know who Martin Luther was.
>> >I've yet to see a church with the folding table.
>> >However, that asside, who are you to go against Christ "Where two or more
>> >are gathered in my name ..." Do you even remember that quote?
>> But which means what to you? That any liturgy is pleasing to God, not
>> objectively based on the liturgy itself, but on whether two people,
>> not even Catholic, not even Prot for that matter, "gather together" in
>> His name, in some sense to you? What do you think the context of Our
>> Lord saying that actually was?
>To the Apostles, not to the crowd. However, yes, as long as they are tied
>to Apostolic Authority, the liturgy is not important (as the Pharasees at
>the time were claiming), but rather, simply a gathering.
The liturgy is very important. Christ left a Sacrifice the Pharisees
never imagined. He left Himself, as the daily Sacrifice. The reverence
we show, there, the care for the words He used, are very important. It
is the central practice of Catholicism. It is The Sacrifice. It is at
the heart of The Mass, if not 'new order', and at the very core of The
Faith.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >> It is word for word that which was proscribed. If you think I take it
> >> out of context, you've had opportunity to explain yourself. Maybe you
> >> ought to begin to do just that, in one of these messages.
>
> >The context was that of intent on the part of the heretic. What is the
> >intent of ICEL?
> >Not the appearance, but the actual intent.
>
> Who cares? Who really cares?
A Catholic, to whom one half of sin is intent, really wrote this?
One would think you're a puritan, not a Catholic.
> >Do you see the difference? It's intent that makes the sin, not action.
>
> To some extent that's actually true.
More than to some extent; it's what is taught by the church.
The victim of Rape is still a virgin, after all....
> But objectively, some things are
> heretical. Our Lord died for all. But the fruits of His Passion do not
> go to all. This is a pretty unarguable point of doctrine. 'New order'
> would suggest otherwise. It's not complicated. You just want it to be.
Except for the fact that if you actually read the ICEL documents, take the
CCD classes, ICEL does NOT suggest otherwise.
Not all books can be judged by thier cover.
> >Of course, it wasn't until these things were confirmed by Vatican II that
> >they were actually adopted universally.
>
> The "cup"? You mean the, chalice? And don't blame Dvorak. And I also
> have a feeling the late Pope Pius would be correcting you left and
> right all throughout this. But . . .
Chalice and cup are the same word.
If you don't believe me, talk to your grandchildren about it.
> >Personal homes, sometimes only caves. Altar was light and moveable, as
> >sometimes the anti-Catholic soldiers would roll through the town, looking
> >for Catholics to kill. Many times, the church itself was no more than a
> >tent.
>
> So you suggest tents rather than church buildings? Be consistent.
I am. My point is that it doesn't matter. All of these forms of
buildings were used by the Early Church.
> >You thought that the Basilicas and Cathedrals were there from day one or
> >something?
>
> Pretty much. The Fabiola is in reprint, without all the cool plates
> perhaps. You might want to search out a copy. It's not on-line, yet.
I've seen it, and I doubt it's authenticity.
Even St. Peter's Basilica wasn't raised until the 200s.
You need to read the Book of Acts.
> >Invalid, as the Church of England is under the monarch and the Archbishop
> >of Canterbury, not the Bishop of Rome.
>
> I'm saying they were convinced they wuz the 'people of God', and that
> they were quite good and dutiful go-to-church-Sunday Christians.
> Meanwhile . . .
Doesn't matter here.
> There has to be a standard, here. And it ain't that of the new
> religion.
I told you the standard, you ignored it because it's inconvient to your
viewpoint.
> >May I suggest you start reading the Early Church Fathers, as well as the
> >Saints fighting the Reformation, to find out?
>
> If you don't know - just say, you don't know. Don't give me a line
> like this.
I'm pointing out you're ignorance of the Early Church Fathers.
> Every time I ask you to clarify, or explain yourself - you balk.
That is an explaination, to somebody who wants to learn rather than argue.
> >> I hate libralism, even as it finds its way into the thinking of
> >> 'economic conservatives' and professional conservative pols.
>
> >And right there, you fail in showing love for your enemy.
>
> I see. You split with Rome over this, too. That book, mentioned below,
> came with a round of approval from Rome.
My point is that you don't follow Rome yourself. Never have. You prefer
your American conservativeism to Catholicism.
> Read the book. It _is_ on-line.
I have, it's a fake.
> >That you have a different name for them makes no difference. I'm not
> >neccessarily defending them. The enemy of my enemy is not neccessarily my
> >friend.
>
> >However, I do say this: They are showing more of the Spirit of Christ
> >than I do.
>
> If you say so.
What, you can't see it?
> >And they're showing a lot less of adherance to tradition than EITHER of us
> >do.
>
> Speaking for myself, I would think that's obv.
You have a tendency to overlook the obvious.
> >Forgiveness is part of the Holy Fear of God.
> >Unless you are able to forgive your enemies, unilaterally, without
> >penance, without revenge, you have no fear of God in you.
>
> Revenge?
After all, that's what you're currently doing, taking revenge upon the
CTAers for imagined hurts.
> >You seem to go looking for them,
>
> No I doubt. It's UseNet. People will disagree. I mean . . .
Doubt is an American Conservative idea that I don't hold with.
> >as you hypocritically proclaim your
> >differences instead of looking for common ground.
>
> You lost me. Where I agree with someone, fine. But it seems some
> people are very committed to their beliefs, and these are typically
> not Catholic on the Catholic ngs.
My point is that you'd rather argue than find out what ICEL actually
teaches rather than what it appears to teach.
> >You fail to take into account the "spirit" of the words, taking into
> >account only the literal translation.
>
> You still need to explain what you're talking about. Give it a shot.
> Be specific. It's _your_ complaint, after all.
Ok. When you claim that Trent holds against ICEL, you fail to mention
that what Trent was really holding against was Calvinism, and that ICEL
teaches salvation by grace, where Calvin taught predestination.
In other words, you fail to mention the other side.
You also fail to mention the history surrounding trent, which ICEL was
still 500 years in the future.
Because of THAT, your argument is invalid, so abandon it and try again.
> >I'm trying to say that ALL doesn't mean UNIVERSAL, today, but that it did
> >5 centuries ago.
>
> So when they wrote - all men are created equal - 200 years ago, does
> that fall under the threshold for you? Or are we going to start
> separating out the equal from the 'more equal', now? You can't be
> serious.
Considering that it missed blacks, indians, hispanics, women...Wasn't very
all to me.
> >Then why does my generation consider Clinton's to be hopelessly
> >conservative?
>
> I take it you're a 'boomer'. Boomers would think anyone who doesn't
> pine for the return of Stalin to be . . conservative.
No, I'm a genxer, and we recognize that Stalin was a conservative too.
All of the GI generantion AND the boomer generation were selfish,
destroying the world for monetary gain.
They've left us with the mess.
> >Not before the GIers die out, I hope.
> >The GIers were in power for far too long.
>
> The 'prime timers', so-called. But they _did_ fight.
And in fighting, they did destroy, leaving my generation with a poisoned
world.
> And some, not
> all, did barbeque and sell-out to materialism when they got home, and
> allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by anyone wearing a
> white lab coat and preaching the 'big science'. They seemed an odd mix
> of the cynical and the credulous. Maybe the boomers have wound up much
> the same.
They certainly did.
> But to the extent the prime timers were gullible, or greedy,
> it was only to extent generations have been so. The boomers were, and
> are, different. They felt entitled, somehow, to almost be worshipped,
> some of them - and they _didn't_ distinguish themselves as did the
> prime timers. It was a generation of people full of themselves, with
> all the arrogance that implies for public policy, when they got their
> shot. That's particularly why they have been so destructive to society
> - because there's no 'feedback' - it's a generation that doesn't
> listen.
And I'm tired of the arogance of both.
Neither generation listens to mine, when we were being born deformed due
to the poisons the Boomers and the GIers dumped in the rivers and lakes.
Neither generation listens to mine, when we were being told that home
ownership was outside of our reach.
The only hope I have is that you'll all die off.
> >Now you put Goldwater above the Church. Who is the Protestant?
>
> Goldwater stated it well. But it's a Catholic sentiment. Compromise is
> not a standard. Rather it's - what Catholics believe.
Yeah, sure, and the church never compromised on:
The day of the Sabbath
The day of the birth of the Lord
The day of the death of the Lord
The day of the Assumption of Mary
All Soul's Day
etc.
Compromise has been the method of conversion since the 300s.
> >But the point is, it is. If you say, it's going to rain on Monday of Next
> >week if the Huricane doesn't turn and hit the coast, but I quote you as
> >saying "It's going to rain on Monday", that's inaccurate.
>
> I said if I didn't qualify it. What context do you think I
> intentionally have withheld in what I quoted on my web page? Tell me.
> Be specific. I wanna know.
The beliefs of Calvinism as compared with the beliefs of ICEL.
You're specifically witholding that information so that you can use
arguments designed to refute Calvinism against ICEL. That's invalid, and
you know it.
> >To quote your generation, Life is rarely fair.
>
> No excuse for being unfair. You made the complaints. Back 'em up. Only
> fair.
Ain't no such thing as fair in this life.
Enough GIers have told me that one to have pounded it into my skull.
> >Someday when I have the leisure of retirement, maybe.
>
> Reading can be dangerous to your ignorance. Is that it?
No, writing rebuttals is worth $25/hr.
> Asides, I _thought_ you previously wrote that you _did_ read that
> page; if even just to skim over it, and not really read it. Can you
> clear this up?
You asked me to write a multiple page rebuttal, I don't have the time to
do it.
> >I will not because it would be taking the book out of context.
> >And while you may not call me on it, I'd call myself on it.
> >I will not be intellectually disingenious in that way.
>
> Sure. Easy out. There isn't anything there that's going to support the
> sort of things you've been saying. Fish or cut bait - and you decided
> the fish weren't biting?
No. I'm saying that to quote anything less than the book with a comentary
on the history of the times is intellectually disingenious, and while your
generation might not have a proble with cutting and pasting other people's
works into little tiny bits to prove your point, my generation has a word
for it: Plagerism.
> >Notice that even in this document "All men are created equal" EXCEPT,
> >apparently: Black slaves, indentured servants, red indians, women,
> >children under the age of 18, and people who don't own land.
>
> >Other than those categories, sure, "All men are created equal".
>
> Then they lied? Is that what you want to say?
No, they didn't lie. All just didn't mean universal.
> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the debates over slavery, and the
> compromises that didn't, ultimately, work. As for people under 18 not
> being allowed to vote, it doesn't imply they are excluded from the
> coverage. Two different things.
In between there, people under 21 who weren't landowning males weren't
allowed the right to vote, the right to file a complaint with law
enforcement, and quite a few other rights as well.
Universally, men were not created equal.
But all those considered to be men were created equal.
> >But I don't ignore all of the church past 1963 either...
>
> Actually, the catechists like to phrase it - I read nothing written
> before 1965. That seems to be the watershed, not 1963.
Personally, I like 1963 better, that way you also get the debates in that
produced the works of 1965 and beyond.
> >Apparently not you, since instead of these you're denying the development
> >of an entire church council.
>
> No - that was Bugnini. That was the 'spirit of' crowd.
It's also the traditionalists.
> >I did look at them. All were specifically designed to undermine the power
> >of the Popes since 1963.
>
> You and your conspiracy theories.
Not a conspiracy theory. It's obvious.
> >You have to take it on a case by case basis. First of all, did they
> >bother to get dispensation from Rome? I know my archbishops here in
> >Oregon always have. Did yours?
> >Secondly, can what they teach be tied to the Deposit of Faith?
>
> >Those two must be taken into consideration.
>
> I see. What about Weakland - just for instance? How about Mahony's
> latest speil on the 'bread at table'? How does _that_ fit your scheme.
CTAers to me are the same as Traditionalists: Trying to speed up or slow
down development to fit themselves.
Development happens at it's own pace. Some people are speed boats, some
are canoes, and the Church Militant is a Supertanker.
Seems to me that all heresy boils down to two types: Closed minds or
impatient minds. Weakland and Mahoney, who don't bother to get
dispensation from Rome for new development, are impatient minds, much like
Luther was. They see a problem and they want it fixed NOW. But the
Catholic Church doesn't do that, developments of this sort take 3 or 4
generations.
Likewise traditionalists are closed minds. In previous generations, it
took them centuries of protest before they left. Today, with the net,
it's all speeded up, but I notice that the Traditionalist parishes have
the same problem the Methodists have run into: Aging population that is
dying off.
> >As I remember, Arianism holds that role.
>
> Use to. This is worse than that was. The Arians never got their own
> liturgy substituted for The Holy Mass - far as I know.
Then you don't know very much. Not only did they do that, but more than
75% of the bishops were using that liturgy.
> >Unless, of course, they have gotten dispensation from Rome and the
> >authority of the Pope behind them...
>
> Dispensation to do what? destroy the church in their dioceses? What
> are you talking about?
I'm talking about development. For every change in doctorine or dogma put
forth by the Pope, somebody has to try it first. There is a process to do
that. Weakland and Mahoney don't follow the process. Francis George did,
and he's on the fast track of promotion for it.
> >ICEL was commissioned by the Pope.
> >So were quite a few of the other reforms.
>
> Besides 'altar girls' - which?
Eucharistic Ministers (lay ministers to serve the wine in the new order),
Rock&Roll music at masses, moving around of Saint's days and some Holy
Days to better fit modern business schedules, ordination of a married
ex-Anglican minister, and that's only a small sample ( of stuff that I've
checked into, you have had that effect on me).
But, before doing ANY of this, the proper thing to do is to get a
dispensation from Rome for new development, and keep the Pope and the
Curia appraised every step of the way.
From what you've said, that little bit is something that Mahoney and
Weakland fail to do, quite often.
> >Exactly opposite, for Calvin claimed that Christ died for All thus our
> >salvation is predetermined, where ICEL teaches that Christ died for all
> >yet the many have the CHOICE OF FREE WILL.
>
> That's not how it reads in 'new order'.
It's how it read in my ICEList first communion book back when I was 7.
And just last week, I checked out the first communion books that St.
Paul's got in for the comming school year, and that's how it still reads.
So, apparently, you don't know very much about ICEL.
> And I thought Calvin claimed
> some were saved, almost whether they wanted to be or not - and that
> others were not.
No almost about either. Salvation was predetermined, whether the person
was actually Christian or not made no difference.
> >For a Pope to be wrong, that would make him a heretic.
>
> You're just very wrong about that. You don't understand what's meant
> by the term - impeccability. I wish you'd check it out, look it up.
You don't understand what my generation means by the term WRONG,
apparently.
> >It's been here since Christ. It's not going away.
>
> Falsely accusing someone is what was _done_ to Our Lord, not what one
> does to follow His _example_.
Love for Christ was done to Christ by the Pharasees?
Where?
> >Blaming ICEL for things they repented of 10 years ago...for instance.
>
> I'd love to see that - the ICEList recantation. What was it called?
> Cause it sure hasn't filtered down to the parishes, yet.
That's because the original never filtered down to the parishes either:
ICEL -> Pope -> Parish, if the doctrine is correct.
ICEL -> Pope -> ICEL, if the doctrine is incorrect.
Which is why the recantation never got there, because it was instead put
in all the first communion books to explain the language.
> >So says you. I don't believe it for a second. You can twist the words of
> >Vatican II all you want.
>
> Trust me, on this. I know you don't.
You've yet to give me a good reason to trust you, you've lied about it too
much.
> I know you barely read.
Yep, 3000 WPM with 90% comprehension is illeteracy....No wonder I don't
trust your generation.
> >Mainstay? Or one of many voices?
>
> Mainstay. You don't appreciate the importance of Aquinas, to Catholic
> scholars, to The Church, to Trent in particular for that matter. You
> just don't know. It's a shame.
So your version of the Church started in the 1300s?
Other than paying lip service to the Pope and not following his
leadership, what else is there to the partial Protestantism?
> >That's because you're unfamiliar with the heresy of twisting words of the
> >saints, despite your own use of that particular heresy.
>
> No, I was stunned that you would think anyone canonized by The Church
> was a - Lutheran, a heretic. I was even more so that you imagined
> Saint Athanasius to be a contemporary, perhaps, of Martin Luther. You
> got me good, on that one.
He wasn't a contemporary, but he was a forerunner. If you had read all of
the stuff that Trent put out, you would have known that many heretics
quote the Saints in an effort to make the Magisterium disagree with
itself.
Which, oddly enough, from my point of view, is exactly what you are
doing....
> >And commissioned by the Pope. You fail to see that one, for some reason.
>
> Not at all. Officially approved is . . officially approved. I hope the
> approval is short-lived.
And since it was originally commissioned to do exactly what it is doing by
the Pope (there isn't a single member of ICEL who wasn't appointed to the
position by Rome), that's why it has official approval.
> >Then why do you deny the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI?
>
> I don't. I think he was desperately wrong to promulgate 'new order',
> to even try to suppress The Holy Mass, as he did, against various
> objections - but he was trying to make the case that 'new order'
> wasn't some parallel liturgy, as is the revisionist take now, but
> literally the same liturgy - updated. But it was, ultimately, just an
> unholy substitute for The Mass.
But that's exactly what we claim to day, that it is both a parallel
liturgy to keep the traditionalists in the church and that it is the same
liturgy, updated for modern times and steming from the same roots as the
old.
> >Why do you deny the legitimacy of Vatican II as an eccumenical Council?
>
> I don't. That's was Bugnini and the 'spirit of' crowd. _They_ are the
> ones who could have cared less what the council fathers wrote and
> wanted.
In that case, show me what they showed me. Show me a copy, word for word,
of the Eucharistic Prayer that you use taken from 155 A.D. or earlier.
Either go back as far as they did, or don't claim greater apostolic
authority than they claim.
> >Why must you go back 500 years to find ANY support of your position?
>
> Actually, to be fair, it goes back about 2000 years, to a place
> Catholics call, the Cenacle, and a Jewish Passover that served Our
> Lord for His institution of a new and daily Sacrifice, of Himself;
> even prior to His once for all Sacrifice on Calvary.
Fine, then in that case, only the "for the many" should have been used up
until 1965, correct?
If even one parish in communion with Rome used the same version as ICEL
does before the year 200, then your claim is false.
> >> Wouldn't just be _my_ opinion.
>
> >But it would be just the opinion of the Traditionalists.
>
> Not everyone who thinks ICEL is wrong would call themselves a
> traditionalist - sadly.
Doesn't matter, very few heretics use the same name for themselves that
Catholics use for them.
> >You're claim of No is wrong. Period. End of argument.
>
> They didn't. You wish they had. Period?
No, you tried to show it and you failed. End of discussion.
> >There was no contradiction, except in the minds of people who were unable
> >to understand.
>
> Odd thing for you to say, given what you've written above.
Why? I'm part and parcel of those that do understand, that have read the
Early Church Fathers, that don't twist words out of history to fit cases
today.
> >The Magisterium cannot contradict itself.
> >Ever.
>
> How true. So why do you so distrust Trent? Again, either they were
> right, or they're right, today. But there is a contradiction, there.
An easy contradiction to get around. Interpret them for the Calvinists
alone. Interpret ICEL as eccumenicism, alone.
And voila, no more contradiction.
> >If you can't see that time is an illusion, then no wonder you're a
> >conservative, tied to man made illusions.
>
> I'm not a nihilist, or a wild skeptic. I am, therefore I know.
Could have fooled me, from my point of view, you appear to be both.
> >My point is, that they used the same arguments against the Church than you
> >now use, word for word.
>
> It wasn't true, then, because we had The Mass. It is now, because the
> Protestant got their way. So when they complain about worshipping a
> wafer, it appears, now, that they're absolutely right, in 'new order'
> - not The Holy Mass. They were never right about The Mass, and they
> always hated it.
Have you ever bothered to take a modern CCD class?
It's not a wafer, it is the body of Christ.
> >Again. And still find it to be invalid. Or rather, only as valid
> >as the Protestant arguments above.
>
> >Which isn't valid, which is why I'm Catholic.
>
> Well - I'm Catholic. You're Catholic. One of us isn't being honest.
> Others to judge, I suppose.
Others have, that's why you're ignored by every reasonable person on the
list.
I'm a Gen Xer, I'm not reasonable.
> >But you haven't been. You keep repeating the same arguments over and
> >over, without taking into account ANYTHING that I've brought up.
>
> You haven't said anything. You haven't offered any reasons for why you
> say what you do, save for an ignorant jab every now and then.
> Everytime I ask you to explain yourself, you change the subject or
> duck away somewhere. Explain yourself, already. Be specific. It's only
> fair.
I have, you've ignored it.
> >The altar girls was a proclaimation of the Holy See. To protest the
> >proclaimations of the Holy See is to protest against the power of the Holy
> >See.
>
> >This isn't rocket science, it's very simple.
>
> But that rocket won't get off the ground. Besides, 'altar girls' makes
> sense, to the extent it does, only in the new religion and its new
> rite. For thousands of years, and even today, it would be _nuts_ to
> incorporate such a selfish, world-centered expression in The Holy
> Mass.
Once again, the GI Generationer lies and calls selfless service
"selfishness".
This is why I don't trust your entire generation.
> >Nope, dark blue, not black.
>
> Black. Black as night. It the mission. That's what all the infrared
> and sensing equipment is for. Fly at night. When's the last time you
> saw an Apache at an air show - or SR71 for that matter?
SR 71's are dark blue as well. So is night, BTW, it's not like we
evacuate the oxygen of the planet when the sun goes down.
Black is the total abscence of color.
> >And certainly not owned by the UN.
>
> Maybe not. But I was referring to the American arsenal, and maybe a
> few adds in from foreign forces. Remember, the 'black helicopter' talk
> isn't even so much about the paint job. They could be army drab, for
> that matter, and still fly at night and look, black. The 'black
> helicopter' is, basically, anonymous, unmarked (and here I thought all
> aircraft were supposed to bear visible markings - FAA or something).
> Myself, I have never seen an unmarked chopper or jet, or prop plane,
> or whatever. But . . maybe there are such. When I've seen SR-71
> fly-bys, I have to say I don't see any markings. But even at low
> cruise, those things tend to whiz by awfully fast.
My point is that all the "Black Helicopter conspiracy" is wrong.
> >So says the losers, repeatedly.
>
> No, simple fact. The national propaganda got this guy elected, and
> then repeatedly covered up for him; until perhaps just recently, and
> many will probably keep on at it until the day he announces his
> resignation. Others, at this point, they don't know _what_ to do, it
> seems.
So says the loser.
> Btw, Clinton should resign - immediately - for the good of the nation.
The good of the nation would be to use this oportunity to teach
forgiveness.
But I forget, you're American conservative first, Catholic second.
> >I suggest you read Luther's _Little_Catechism_ sometime. It bears
> >striking resembellance to your web page.
>
> I beginning to wonder if you even know who Martin Luther was.
Dominican Monk of Germany who split off from the church and started his
own schism because he didn't like the deveolopment of the day.
Just like you're begining to do.
> >To the Apostles, not to the crowd. However, yes, as long as they are tied
> >to Apostolic Authority, the liturgy is not important (as the Pharasees at
> >the time were claiming), but rather, simply a gathering.
>
> The liturgy is very important. Christ left a Sacrifice the Pharisees
> never imagined. He left Himself, as the daily Sacrifice. The reverence
> we show, there, the care for the words He used, are very important. It
> is the central practice of Catholicism. It is The Sacrifice. It is at
> the heart of The Mass, if not 'new order', and at the very core of The
> Faith.
It's at the heart of the new order also. But you've decided to close your
eyes and become Protestant rather than listen.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> But objectively, some things are
>> heretical. Our Lord died for all. But the fruits of His Passion do not
>> go to all. This is a pretty unarguable point of doctrine. 'New order'
>> would suggest otherwise. It's not complicated. You just want it to be.
>Except for the fact that if you actually read the ICEL documents, take the
>CCD classes, ICEL does NOT suggest otherwise.
That's just how it reads.
>Not all books can be judged by thier cover.
You can begin by reading what's written on the pages. That's why I do.
>> The "cup"? You mean the, chalice? And don't blame Dvorak. And I also
>> have a feeling the late Pope Pius would be correcting you left and
>> right all throughout this. But . . .
>Chalice and cup are the same word.
Not in my dictionary. There's a reason for two words. Chalice refers
to something a bit more specific than the more generic, cup.
>> >Personal homes, sometimes only caves. Altar was light and moveable, as
>> >sometimes the anti-Catholic soldiers would roll through the town, looking
>> >for Catholics to kill. Many times, the church itself was no more than a
>> >tent.
>> So you suggest tents rather than church buildings? Be consistent.
>I am. My point is that it doesn't matter. All of these forms of
>buildings were used by the Early Church.
But not a cathedral, you're saying. Cathedrals are 'a lie', you're
trying to say?
>> >You thought that the Basilicas and Cathedrals were there from day one or
>> >something?
>> Pretty much. The Fabiola is in reprint, without all the cool plates
>> perhaps. You might want to search out a copy. It's not on-line, yet.
>I've seen it, and I doubt it's authenticity.
Cardinal Wiseman's book was published, I believe in the late 1880s,
with lots of colorful plates, on the subject of the church of the
catacombs. The reprint may not have all the plates. But I'm guessing
the text is the same. That's all. No one doubts its authenticity.
>> >Invalid, as the Church of England is under the monarch and the Archbishop
>> >of Canterbury, not the Bishop of Rome.
>> I'm saying they were convinced they wuz the 'people of God', and that
>> they were quite good and dutiful go-to-church-Sunday Christians.
>> Meanwhile . . .
>Doesn't matter here.
Unless one defends the new religion. Then the it's spot on.
>> There has to be a standard, here. And it ain't that of the new
>> religion.
>I told you the standard, you ignored it because it's inconvient to your
>viewpoint.
The Magisterium is the standard. But you don't know what it is.
>> >May I suggest you start reading the Early Church Fathers, as well as the
>> >Saints fighting the Reformation, to find out?
>> If you don't know - just say, you don't know. Don't give me a line
>> like this.
>I'm pointing out you're ignorance of the Early Church Fathers.
Which, in particular? You like to shovel it. I'm asking you to smell
it, too. Know what you're up to.
>> Every time I ask you to clarify, or explain yourself - you balk.
>That is an explaination, to somebody who wants to learn rather than argue.
What explanation? Where. Where's this . . explanation?
>> >> I hate libralism, even as it finds its way into the thinking of
>> >> 'economic conservatives' and professional conservative pols.
>> >And right there, you fail in showing love for your enemy.
>> I see. You split with Rome over this, too. That book, mentioned below,
>> came with a round of approval from Rome.
>My point is that you don't follow Rome yourself. Never have. You prefer
>your American conservativeism to Catholicism.
Read the book. Or, in other words, as I wrote before:
>> Read the book. It _is_ on-line.
>I have, it's a fake.
No it's not. Read the book - Liberalism is a Sin.
>You have a tendency to overlook the obvious.
All I ever seem to write is just the trivially obvious. So many folks
can't seem to get past that.
>> Revenge?
>After all, that's what you're currently doing, taking revenge upon the
>CTAers for imagined hurts.
You lost me. Explain yourself, if you'd like.
>> >You seem to go looking for them,
>> No I doubt. It's UseNet. People will disagree. I mean . . .
>Doubt is an American Conservative idea that I don't hold with.
I don't know what _you're_ trying to say. But I made a typo. It should
have read - No, I don't. But, true, I often _do_ doubt what people
write on UseNet.
>My point is that you'd rather argue than find out what ICEL actually
>teaches rather than what it appears to teach.
It appears to teach what it apparently teaches. I mean . . . You just
can't spin your way out of this.
>When you claim that Trent holds against ICEL, you fail to mention
>that what Trent was really holding against was Calvinism, and that ICEL
>teaches salvation by grace, where Calvin taught predestination.
You're missing the point, I think. However the ICEList sees it, his
error is that specifically proscribed by The Roman Catechism. Either
they were right, or the ICEList is. I would not bet on the ICEList.
>In other words, you fail to mention the other side.
>You also fail to mention the history surrounding trent, which ICEL was
>still 500 years in the future.
They were prescient in those days, I guess. Maybe it's just because
the ICEList never thought anyone would ever read The Roman Catechism,
or if they did, they could push their 'reforms' though, regardless.
They were and are clearly an arrogant bunch.
>> >I'm trying to say that ALL doesn't mean UNIVERSAL, today, but that it did
>> >5 centuries ago.
>> So when they wrote - all men are created equal - 200 years ago, does
>> that fall under the threshold for you? Or are we going to start
>> separating out the equal from the 'more equal', now? You can't be
>> serious.
>Considering that it missed blacks, indians, hispanics, women...Wasn't very
>all to me.
Went to war over slavery. Still holds to treaty obligations - even if
not typically fairly entered into at the time. And to argue, again,
over the franchise to vote, is just to argue that if a man must be in
his thirties to be Pres., you'd say he was not 'equal', in his
twenties. Don't fly.
>I'm a genxer, and we recognize that Stalin was a conservative too.
Then what do you label the conservatives he killed? And what _is_ a
conservative? a big gubment, command economy statist - at war not
merely with the church, but with all organized religion - eager to
promote a superficial 'women's rights' and easy abortion - and so on.
That's a conservative, to you?
>All of the GI generantion AND the boomer generation were selfish,
>destroying the world for monetary gain.
>They've left us with the mess.
The GIs won the peace. The boomers were spoiled by it.
>> But to the extent the prime timers were gullible, or greedy,
>> it was only to extent generations have been so. The boomers were, and
>> are, different. They felt entitled, somehow, to almost be worshipped,
>> some of them - and they _didn't_ distinguish themselves as did the
>> prime timers. It was a generation of people full of themselves, with
>> all the arrogance that implies for public policy, when they got their
>> shot. That's particularly why they have been so destructive to society
>> - because there's no 'feedback' - it's a generation that doesn't
>> listen.
>And I'm tired of the arogance of both.
>Neither generation listens to mine, when we were being born deformed due
>to the poisons the Boomers and the GIers dumped in the rivers and lakes.
Actually, that's the boomers. They poison the air to save the water.
The poison the water to save the air. They come up with academic
abstracts that should work in theory, and then could care less about
implementation. After all, they 'meant' well. That sentiment has never
been more damaging, more destructive, I think, than in the hands of
the boomers, once in power.
>The only hope I have is that you'll all die off.
More of that new religion charity at work, I see.
>> >Now you put Goldwater above the Church. Who is the Protestant?
>> Goldwater stated it well. But it's a Catholic sentiment. Compromise is
>> not a standard. Rather it's - what Catholics believe.
>Yeah, sure, and the church never compromised on:
>The day of the Sabbath
>The day of the birth of the Lord
>The day of the death of the Lord
>The day of the Assumption of Mary
>All Soul's Day
>etc.
>Compromise has been the method of conversion since the 300s.
Compromise has never been the method of ICEL. And it wasn't a
compromise, the above. And to compare The Church setting Sunday with
ICELism's 'new order' is rather a bizarre stretch.
>You're specifically witholding that information so that you can use
>arguments designed to refute Calvinism against ICEL. That's invalid, and
>you know it.
What are you talking about?
>> >To quote your generation, Life is rarely fair.
>> No excuse for being unfair. You made the complaints. Back 'em up. Only
>> fair.
>Ain't no such thing as fair in this life.
Sure there is. What _you_ do can and should be fair. If others won't
be, it's expected. Few are saved. Few are Catholic.
>> >Someday when I have the leisure of retirement, maybe.
>> Reading can be dangerous to your ignorance. Is that it?
>No, writing rebuttals is worth $25/hr.
Dial-up account. You want a PPP dial-up account.
>> Asides, I _thought_ you previously wrote that you _did_ read that
>> page; if even just to skim over it, and not really read it. Can you
>> clear this up?
>You asked me to write a multiple page rebuttal,
Nope. Just asked you to explain yourself when you level your numerous
accusations. It's only fair.
>I don't have the time to do it.
Then you don't have the time to level your silly charges, either.
>> >I will not because it would be taking the book out of context.
>> >And while you may not call me on it, I'd call myself on it.
>> >I will not be intellectually disingenious in that way.
>> Sure. Easy out. There isn't anything there that's going to support the
>> sort of things you've been saying. Fish or cut bait - and you decided
>> the fish weren't biting?
>No. I'm saying that to quote anything less than the book with a comentary
>on the history of the times is intellectually disingenious, and while your
>generation might not have a proble with cutting and pasting other people's
>works into little tiny bits to prove your point, my generation has a word
>for it: Plagerism.
It's not plagiarism. It's a fair use, to cite a few passages, and
quote the source. You could do it, if you wanted to do more than just
vent on UseNet.
>> >Apparently not you, since instead of these you're denying the development
>> >of an entire church council.
>> No - that was Bugnini. That was the 'spirit of' crowd.
>It's also the traditionalists.
No. There's no 'moral equivalence' there. Not everything is equal. And
traditionalists are the very opposite of the new religionists.
>> >I did look at them. All were specifically designed to undermine the power
>> >of the Popes since 1963.
>> You and your conspiracy theories.
>Not a conspiracy theory. It's obvious.
Anne Muggeridge, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Msgr. Wrenn, and so on. Like
I said - you and your conspiracy theories. Why not read what they
wrote? Stop hiding out.
>> >As I remember, Arianism holds that role.
>> Use to. This is worse than that was. The Arians never got their own
>> liturgy substituted for The Holy Mass - far as I know.
>Then you don't know very much. Not only did they do that, but more than
>75% of the bishops were using that liturgy.
I didn't realize that. What year did the Pope promulgate the Arian
liturgy, exactly?
>> >Unless, of course, they have gotten dispensation from Rome and the
>> >authority of the Pope behind them...
>> Dispensation to do what? destroy the church in their dioceses? What
>> are you talking about?
>I'm talking about development. For every change in doctorine or dogma put
>forth by the Pope, somebody has to try it first. There is a process to do
>that. Weakland and Mahoney don't follow the process. Francis George did,
>and he's on the fast track of promotion for it.
okay.
>> >ICEL was commissioned by the Pope.
>> >So were quite a few of the other reforms.
>> Besides 'altar girls' - which?
>Eucharistic Ministers (lay ministers to serve the wine in the new order),
>Rock&Roll music at masses, moving around of Saint's days and some Holy
>Days to better fit modern business schedules, ordination of a married
>ex-Anglican minister, and that's only a small sample ( of stuff that I've
>checked into, you have had that effect on me).
>But, before doing ANY of this, the proper thing to do is to get a
>dispensation from Rome for new development, and keep the Pope and the
>Curia appraised every step of the way.
You're saying JP II's been very busy, is that it? Rock n roll music?
What . . . Ozzie? the Monkees?
>It's how it read in my ICEList first communion book back when I was 7.
>And just last week, I checked out the first communion books that St.
>Paul's got in for the comming school year, and that's how it still reads.
How does it read? Type in the passage in question. I know you can do
it.
>So, apparently, you don't know very much about ICEL.
So hep me out, here.
>> And I thought Calvin claimed
>> some were saved, almost whether they wanted to be or not - and that
>> others were not.
>No almost about either. Salvation was predetermined, whether the person
>was actually Christian or not made no difference.
In his opinion, some couldn't be saved, right, no matter _what_ they
did?
>> >For a Pope to be wrong, that would make him a heretic.
>> You're just very wrong about that. You don't understand what's meant
>> by the term - impeccability. I wish you'd check it out, look it up.
>You don't understand what my generation means by the term WRONG,
>apparently.
That wasn't the term I mentioned.
>> >It's been here since Christ. It's not going away.
>> Falsely accusing someone is what was _done_ to Our Lord, not what one
>> does to follow His _example_.
>Love for Christ was done to Christ by the Pharasees?
>Where?
Where do straw men hang out? You tell me. I wrote something about
calumny, and you said I wrote something about love. Calumny ain't
love.
>> >Blaming ICEL for things they repented of 10 years ago...for instance.
>> I'd love to see that - the ICEList recantation. What was it called?
>> Cause it sure hasn't filtered down to the parishes, yet.
>That's because the original never filtered down to the parishes either:
convenient
>ICEL -> Pope -> Parish, if the doctrine is correct.
>ICEL -> Pope -> ICEL, if the doctrine is incorrect.
>Which is why the recantation never got there, because it was instead put
>in all the first communion books to explain the language.
So this 'recantation' is . . . where - in the first communion books?
>> I know you barely read.
>Yep, 3000 WPM with 90% comprehension is illeteracy....No wonder I don't
>trust your generation.
Read as in taking the time to read and study what you don't know. I
presume you can read, because this is not the first message I've
replied to of yours. What I meant is that you seem generally
uninterested in that pursuit.
>> >Mainstay? Or one of many voices?
>> Mainstay. You don't appreciate the importance of Aquinas, to Catholic
>> scholars, to The Church, to Trent in particular for that matter. You
>> just don't know. It's a shame.
>So your version of the Church started in the 1300s?
Straw man, again? Or just a silly question?
>Other than paying lip service to the Pope and not following his
>leadership, what else is there to the partial Protestantism?
Protestants deny The Holy See. I disagree with some of the things
Popes have done.
>> I was stunned that you would think anyone canonized by The Church
>> was a - Lutheran, a heretic. I was even more so that you imagined
>> Saint Athanasius to be a contemporary, perhaps, of Martin Luther. You
>> got me good, on that one.
>He wasn't a contemporary, but he was a forerunner.
No he wasn't, either. He was a Saint. Luther was a heretic. There's a
difference, least in _my_ dictionary.
>If you had read all of
>the stuff that Trent put out, you would have known that many heretics
>quote the Saints in an effort to make the Magisterium disagree with
>itself.
Nice spin. Anyway, least we agree that a) St. Athanasius was a Saint
and b) that he died long, lone before Luther was even born.
>Which, oddly enough, from my point of view, is exactly what you are
>doing....
Your point of view remains entirely unsupported - just an accusation
is all. It seems the best you can do. I keep asking you to explain
yourself, and you refuse.
>> >And commissioned by the Pope. You fail to see that one, for some reason.
>> Not at all. Officially approved is . . officially approved. I hope the
>> approval is short-lived.
>And since it was originally commissioned to do exactly what it is doing by
>the Pope (there isn't a single member of ICEL who wasn't appointed to the
>position by Rome), that's why it has official approval.
Like I wrote - pray it's short-lived.
>> >Then why do you deny the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI?
>> I don't. I think he was desperately wrong to promulgate 'new order',
>> to even try to suppress The Holy Mass, as he did, against various
>> objections - but he was trying to make the case that 'new order'
>> wasn't some parallel liturgy, as is the revisionist take now, but
>> literally the same liturgy - updated. But it was, ultimately, just an
>> unholy substitute for The Mass.
>But that's exactly what we claim to day, that it is both a parallel
>liturgy to keep the traditionalists in the church and that it is the same
>liturgy, updated for modern times and steming from the same roots as the
>old.
Two liturgies for the price of one, eh? That wasn't what Paul VI had
in mind. He was wrong. 'New order' is still wrong.
>> >Why do you deny the legitimacy of Vatican II as an eccumenical Council?
>> I don't. That's was Bugnini and the 'spirit of' crowd. _They_ are the
>> ones who could have cared less what the council fathers wrote and
>> wanted.
>In that case, show me what they showed me. Show me a copy, word for word,
>of the Eucharistic Prayer that you use taken from 155 A.D. or earlier.
Which? There are not merely even four. Which do you mean?
>Either go back as far as they did, or don't claim greater apostolic
>authority than they claim.
So all inbetween was just a horrible mistake - and God The Holy Spirit
should have known better? How inconsistent you are, to talk about
development, and then hold it in contempt when you find it
inconvenient.
>> >Why must you go back 500 years to find ANY support of your position?
>> Actually, to be fair, it goes back about 2000 years, to a place
>> Catholics call, the Cenacle, and a Jewish Passover that served Our
>> Lord for His institution of a new and daily Sacrifice, of Himself;
>> even prior to His once for all Sacrifice on Calvary.
>Fine, then in that case, only the "for the many" should have been used up
>until 1965, correct?
>If even one parish in communion with Rome used the same version as ICEL
>does before the year 200, then your claim is false.
Or they did it wrong. If a man knows the words to the Ave, but decides
to change them around - is the Ave wrong, or The Church . . . or the
guy who changed them around?
>> >> Wouldn't just be _my_ opinion.
>> >But it would be just the opinion of the Traditionalists.
>> Not everyone who thinks ICEL is wrong would call themselves a
>> traditionalist - sadly.
>Doesn't matter, very few heretics use the same name for themselves that
>Catholics use for them.
I just meant that not many _defend_ ICEL, as you do in your apparent
ignorance.
>> >You're claim of No is wrong. Period. End of argument.
>> They didn't. You wish they had. Period?
>No, you tried to show it and you failed. End of discussion.
Actually, they called for anything but 'new order'. How does _that_
"end" your discussion?
>> How true. So why do you so distrust Trent? Again, either they were
>> right, or they're right, today. But there is a contradiction, there.
>An easy contradiction to get around. Interpret them for the Calvinists
>alone. Interpret ICEL as eccumenicism, alone.
>And voila, no more contradiction.
You can't spin your way out of this one.
>> >If you can't see that time is an illusion, then no wonder you're a
>> >conservative, tied to man made illusions.
>> I'm not a nihilist, or a wild skeptic. I am, therefore I know.
>Could have fooled me, from my point of view, you appear to be both.
You missed what I was referring to. The universal skeptic contradicts
himself in his refusal to confess that not only, I think, I am, but
particularly also I am, and so know.
Time isn't an illusion. It's very real. It's limiting in the way God
wants us to be limited. Time is an illusion compare with something
else, which we can posit, and imagine. It's both, then. In one sense,
the everyday sense, it's very real - and often very inconvenient;
deadlines, and all. In another sense, we know there's something more,
and a different reality. We know physical theorists try to imagine
such, and even suggest the manipulation of it for purposes of
technology, perhaps. But ours is still one reality. And again, it's
how God wants it, in this life.
>> >My point is, that they used the same arguments against the Church than you
>> >now use, word for word.
>> It wasn't true, then, because we had The Mass. It is now, because the
>> Protestant got their way. So when they complain about worshipping a
>> wafer, it appears, now, that they're absolutely right, in 'new order'
>> - not The Holy Mass. They were never right about The Mass, and they
>> always hated it.
>Have you ever bothered to take a modern CCD class?
RCIA. I was once invited to RCIA - and then promptly thrown out.
>It's not a wafer, it is the body of Christ.
Isn't in The Holy Mass, you mean. 'New order' appears invalid on its
face.
>that's why you're ignored by every reasonable person on the list.
Well, if so, that's a shame.
>I'm a Gen Xer, I'm not reasonable.
That, too.
>> You haven't said anything. You haven't offered any reasons for why you
>> say what you do, save for an ignorant jab every now and then.
>> Everytime I ask you to explain yourself, you change the subject or
>> duck away somewhere. Explain yourself, already. Be specific. It's only
>> fair.
>I have, you've ignored it.
You haven't. And I'm not ignoring what you write. That should be
pretty self-evident.
>> >The altar girls was a proclaimation of the Holy See. To protest the
>> >proclaimations of the Holy See is to protest against the power of the Holy
>> >See.
>> >This isn't rocket science, it's very simple.
>> But that rocket won't get off the ground. Besides, 'altar girls' makes
>> sense, to the extent it does, only in the new religion and its new
>> rite. For thousands of years, and even today, it would be _nuts_ to
>> incorporate such a selfish, world-centered expression in The Holy
>> Mass.
>Once again, the GI Generationer lies and calls selfless service
>"selfishness".
It is selfishness, to impose feminism upon the sanctuary. It's not a
match made in Heaven, as they say. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it's
really not the sanctuary anymore, but just a Prot 'gathering place',
or whatever. You won't find 'altar girls' in The Holy Mass. You will
find little girls, women, nuns in habit, even, very carefully
following the Mass, offering their prayers and contrition, worshipping
God in The Eucharist. But they won't be 'altar girls'. And you bet
they would know why better than anyone, and entirely agree with the
proscription.
>This is why I don't trust your entire generation.
>> >Nope, dark blue, not black.
>> Black. Black as night. It the mission. That's what all the infrared
>> and sensing equipment is for. Fly at night. When's the last time you
>> saw an Apache at an air show - or SR71 for that matter?
>SR 71's are dark blue as well.
Pitch black. It's what you paint a plane nicknamed - black bird.
>So is night, BTW, it's not like we
>evacuate the oxygen of the planet when the sun goes down.
>Black is the total abscence of color.
Trust me. There are helicopters and jets in the US arsenal that are
painted - black.
>> >And certainly not owned by the UN.
>> Maybe not. But I was referring to the American arsenal, and maybe a
>> few adds in from foreign forces. Remember, the 'black helicopter' talk
>> isn't even so much about the paint job. They could be army drab, for
>> that matter, and still fly at night and look, black. The 'black
>> helicopter' is, basically, anonymous, unmarked (and here I thought all
>> aircraft were supposed to bear visible markings - FAA or something).
>> Myself, I have never seen an unmarked chopper or jet, or prop plane,
>> or whatever. But . . maybe there are such. When I've seen SR-71
>> fly-bys, I have to say I don't see any markings. But even at low
>> cruise, those things tend to whiz by awfully fast.
>My point is that all the "Black Helicopter conspiracy" is wrong.
Wouldn't know. Negatives are notoriously difficult to prove.
>> Btw, Clinton should resign - immediately - for the good of the nation.
>The good of the nation would be to use this oportunity to teach
>forgiveness.
Forgive all the while. Clinton should resign, nonetheless. But he's
not known exactly for putting the interests of the nation ahead of his
own personal ambition.
>But I forget, you're American conservative first, Catholic second.
He should resign - immediately. Al Gore should appoint a new Veep, and
then resign himself. Then the Dem will have their real next nominee,
and the Rep will have to put forth a real candidate, themselves.
>> >I suggest you read Luther's _Little_Catechism_ sometime. It bears
>> >striking resembellance to your web page.
>> I beginning to wonder if you even know who Martin Luther was.
>Dominican Monk of Germany who split off from the church and started his
>own schism because he didn't like the deveolopment of the day.
>Just like you're begining to do.
I'm beginning to wonder, I meant to write, if you even know who Martin
Luther was.
>> The liturgy is very important. Christ left a Sacrifice the Pharisees
>> never imagined. He left Himself, as the daily Sacrifice. The reverence
>> we show, there, the care for the words He used, are very important. It
>> is the central practice of Catholicism. It is The Sacrifice. It is at
>> the heart of The Mass, if not 'new order', and at the very core of The
>> Faith.
>It's at the heart of the new order also. But you've decided to close your
>eyes and become Protestant rather than listen.
I'm not the one defending the new religion. And I don't close my eyes
to Aquinas and Trent. I don't spin. I don't dissemble. And I cite my
sources. You might try it, yourself.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Except for the fact that if you actually read the ICEL documents, take the
> >CCD classes, ICEL does NOT suggest otherwise.
>
> That's just how it reads.
Only if you only read the "cover" (the Mass) and not the pages inside (the
catechism classes).
> >Not all books can be judged by thier cover.
>
> You can begin by reading what's written on the pages. That's why I do.
Have you? Have you even bothered? When I suggested it to you before, you
seemed highly resistant to the idea.
> >Chalice and cup are the same word.
>
> Not in my dictionary. There's a reason for two words. Chalice refers
> to something a bit more specific than the more generic, cup.
Your dictionary is not the same as my generation's understanding.
> >> So you suggest tents rather than church buildings? Be consistent.
>
> >I am. My point is that it doesn't matter. All of these forms of
> >buildings were used by the Early Church.
>
> But not a cathedral, you're saying. Cathedrals are 'a lie', you're
> trying to say?
NO!!!! Rather that cathedrals came later. They are as much of the
development as Trent itself is, but they weren't meant to replace all that
had come before.
> >I've seen it, and I doubt it's authenticity.
>
> Cardinal Wiseman's book was published, I believe in the late 1880s,
> with lots of colorful plates, on the subject of the church of the
> catacombs. The reprint may not have all the plates. But I'm guessing
> the text is the same. That's all. No one doubts its authenticity.
Sounds to me that it was about 1780 years too late to be of any real use.
> >I told you the standard, you ignored it because it's inconvient to your
> >viewpoint.
>
> The Magisterium is the standard. But you don't know what it is.
No, you're the one who's trying to redefine it to cut Paul VI out of the
Magisterium, not me.
You have no real standard, if it's inconvient to your position.
> >I'm pointing out you're ignorance of the Early Church Fathers.
>
> Which, in particular? You like to shovel it. I'm asking you to smell
> it, too. Know what you're up to.
How about Peter in Acts, for starters? Where did he say Mass?
In the synagogues and temples, or in private homes and catacombs? Or
maybe, just maybe, Jesus magically raised up a Cathedral for him to
practice in....
> >That is an explaination, to somebody who wants to learn rather than argue.
>
> What explanation? Where. Where's this . . explanation?
In the book I told you to read. _Crossing the Threshold of Hope_ by JPII.
Go and read it.
> >My point is that you don't follow Rome yourself. Never have. You prefer
> >your American conservativeism to Catholicism.
>
> Read the book. Or, in other words, as I wrote before:
I'm talking about using American definitions rather than the Italian
definitions of Liberalism. By the Italian, the Democrats and the
Republicans are both so right-wing conservative that they are considered
to be fascist.
> No it's not. Read the book - Liberalism is a Sin.
Do you know the difference between American and European Liberalism?
Do you know the difference between American and European conservativism?
Do you, in short, know why both liberalism and conservativism are sins?
> >After all, that's what you're currently doing, taking revenge upon the
> >CTAers for imagined hurts.
>
> You lost me. Explain yourself, if you'd like.
You're trying your best to remove from them any hint of Catholicism from
ICEL, and thus trying to remove the faith of the CTA. Trouble is, they're
as stubborn about their form of Catholicism as you are about yours.
> >Doubt is an American Conservative idea that I don't hold with.
>
> I don't know what _you're_ trying to say. But I made a typo. It should
> have read - No, I don't. But, true, I often _do_ doubt what people
> write on UseNet.
And, that form of doubt, that form of skepticism, is very convient for
ignoring the rest of the world outside of yourself.
> >My point is that you'd rather argue than find out what ICEL actually
> >teaches rather than what it appears to teach.
>
> It appears to teach what it apparently teaches. I mean . . . You just
> can't spin your way out of this.
Neither can you. Right wing spin ALWAYS looks at the "apparently", never
any deeper.
> >When you claim that Trent holds against ICEL, you fail to mention
> >that what Trent was really holding against was Calvinism, and that ICEL
> >teaches salvation by grace, where Calvin taught predestination.
>
> You're missing the point, I think. However the ICEList sees it, his
> error is that specifically proscribed by The Roman Catechism. Either
> they were right, or the ICEList is. I would not bet on the ICEList.
Or they are both right, for different reasons. That is the third option
you ALWAYS fail to see...
> >In other words, you fail to mention the other side.
> >You also fail to mention the history surrounding trent, which ICEL was
> >still 500 years in the future.
>
> They were prescient in those days, I guess. Maybe it's just because
> the ICEList never thought anyone would ever read The Roman Catechism,
> or if they did, they could push their 'reforms' though, regardless.
> They were and are clearly an arrogant bunch.
Or, they knew what Trent really taught and you don't. That's the other
option, no "apparently" about it.
I'm betting on the men that the Pope picked to make the decision, rather
than some GI generation nut who can't figure out that the world CHANGES!
> >Considering that it missed blacks, indians, hispanics, women...Wasn't very
> >all to me.
>
> Went to war over slavery. Still holds to treaty obligations - even if
> not typically fairly entered into at the time. And to argue, again,
> over the franchise to vote, is just to argue that if a man must be in
> his thirties to be Pres., you'd say he was not 'equal', in his
> twenties. Don't fly.
Is very true, however, and is the same stuck up arrogant conservativism
that you're desplaying right now.
> >I'm a genxer, and we recognize that Stalin was a conservative too.
>
> Then what do you label the conservatives he killed?
They're all conservatives, believing in the power of money over the power
of Christ.
> And what _is_ a
> conservative? a big gubment, command economy statist - at war not
> merely with the church, but with all organized religion - eager to
> promote a superficial 'women's rights' and easy abortion - and so on.
> That's a conservative, to you?
Yes, because like all conservatives, they have no answers, they just fight
against things without actually redesigning the assumptions.
> >All of the GI generantion AND the boomer generation were selfish,
> >destroying the world for monetary gain.
> >They've left us with the mess.
>
> The GIs won the peace. The boomers were spoiled by it.
The GIs used coal, oil, gas, and gunpowder. The boomers used nuclear and
chemical. Both destroyed the environment while winning their version of
peace.
May both rot in nursing homes for their crimes.
> >And I'm tired of the arogance of both.
> >Neither generation listens to mine, when we were being born deformed due
> >to the poisons the Boomers and the GIers dumped in the rivers and lakes.
>
> Actually, that's the boomers. They poison the air to save the water.
> The poison the water to save the air. They come up with academic
> abstracts that should work in theory, and then could care less about
> implementation. After all, they 'meant' well. That sentiment has never
> been more damaging, more destructive, I think, than in the hands of
> the boomers, once in power.
It's the GI generation that invented the internal combustion engine. It's
the GI generation who owns the oil rigs. You can't blame it all on the
boomers, they own hardly anything.
> >The only hope I have is that you'll all die off.
>
> More of that new religion charity at work, I see.
The point being the guys in charge of your generation, near as I can tell,
brought us to the brink of nuclear disaster.
Now the boomers are bringing us to the brink of ecconomic and ecological
disaster.
> >Compromise has been the method of conversion since the 300s.
>
> Compromise has never been the method of ICEL. And it wasn't a
> compromise, the above. And to compare The Church setting Sunday with
> ICELism's 'new order' is rather a bizarre stretch.
Compromise has been forced upon them by the Pope.
Which you'd know, if you had ever studied ICEL beyond the sunday service
in 1973 when you decided it weren't so.
> >You're specifically witholding that information so that you can use
> >arguments designed to refute Calvinism against ICEL. That's invalid, and
> >you know it.
>
> What are you talking about?
Your prescience, is not an accepted fact. In fact, it's just an invention
to try to use Trent to pull down the church.
> >Ain't no such thing as fair in this life.
>
> Sure there is. What _you_ do can and should be fair. If others won't
> be, it's expected. Few are saved. Few are Catholic.
As I said before, your generation has proved that to be a total falsehood.
> >No, writing rebuttals is worth $25/hr.
>
> Dial-up account. You want a PPP dial-up account.
No, that's what I charge for my time, it's what I'm worth.
I have a REAL job instead of living off of Social Security.
> >You asked me to write a multiple page rebuttal,
>
> Nope. Just asked you to explain yourself when you level your numerous
> accusations. It's only fair.
Once again, you appeal to fairness when you never showed it yourself.
> >No. I'm saying that to quote anything less than the book with a comentary
> >on the history of the times is intellectually disingenious, and while your
> >generation might not have a proble with cutting and pasting other people's
> >works into little tiny bits to prove your point, my generation has a word
> >for it: Plagerism.
>
> It's not plagiarism. It's a fair use, to cite a few passages, and
> quote the source. You could do it, if you wanted to do more than just
> vent on UseNet.
You haven't been listening, have you. No such thing as "Fair use"
anymore, Reagan removed it from the copyright law.
> >It's also the traditionalists.
>
> No. There's no 'moral equivalence' there. Not everything is equal. And
> traditionalists are the very opposite of the new religionists.
So opposite that from the center opinion, they look exactly the same.
They use the same words, attack the Pope and the Curates constantly,
ignore the same sets of things, and force their own opinions on the
church.
> >Then you don't know very much. Not only did they do that, but more than
> >75% of the bishops were using that liturgy.
>
> I didn't realize that. What year did the Pope promulgate the Arian
> liturgy, exactly?
The Pope never did. Because at that time, the Pope had yet to promulgate
a liturgy at all.
> >I'm talking about development. For every change in doctorine or dogma put
> >forth by the Pope, somebody has to try it first. There is a process to do
> >that. Weakland and Mahoney don't follow the process. Francis George did,
> >and he's on the fast track of promotion for it.
>
> okay.
Finally, you're begining to understand.
> >Eucharistic Ministers (lay ministers to serve the wine in the new order),
> >Rock&Roll music at masses, moving around of Saint's days and some Holy
> >Days to better fit modern business schedules, ordination of a married
> >ex-Anglican minister, and that's only a small sample ( of stuff that I've
> >checked into, you have had that effect on me).
> >But, before doing ANY of this, the proper thing to do is to get a
> >dispensation from Rome for new development, and keep the Pope and the
> >Curia appraised every step of the way.
>
> You're saying JP II's been very busy, is that it? Rock n roll music?
> What . . . Ozzie? the Monkees?
Actually, individual local bands using rock&roll tunes and lyrics from
ancient hymns and the Bible.
Makes me actually think that the Clan of Kohen used to really rock out.
And no, he hasn't been very busy. All he has to do with dispensation is
say yeah or neigh, it's the archbishops that write the proposals.
But, they are supposed to WRITE THE PROPOSAL FIRST.
I am glad that I've had these discussions with you, I never would have
known that some archbishops are failing to write the proposals, and I now
check for every new one that comes down the pike. It's a simple call to
the archbishop's office....
> >It's how it read in my ICEList first communion book back when I was 7.
> >And just last week, I checked out the first communion books that St.
> >Paul's got in for the comming school year, and that's how it still reads.
>
> How does it read? Type in the passage in question. I know you can do
> it.
I'm at work, don't have it with me. Let's see, from memory "At the
consecration of the wine, it becomes the blood of Jesus. The priest says
"Christ's blood shed for all and for you" to tell us that while Christ
died for everybody, the sacrafice is for those of us who belong".
I'll see if I can find my gold book at home sometime in the next couplea
weeks (I have very little time at home these days, need to work 60 hour
weeks just to pay for my gas).
> >No almost about either. Salvation was predetermined, whether the person
> >was actually Christian or not made no difference.
>
> In his opinion, some couldn't be saved, right, no matter _what_ they
> did?
Yes, just as some could be saved, no matter what they did. Which is why
Christ died for the All, in his mind, to make the judgement then 2000
years ago for everybody who would ever live.
Notice the difference between this and ICEL.
> >You don't understand what my generation means by the term WRONG,
> >apparently.
>
> That wasn't the term I mentioned.
I know it wasn't. To be WRONG means to teach FALSEHOOD in one's JOB, to
my generation.
Which means, since it's the Pope's job to declare infalibly on matters of
faith and morals, to contradict him on that is to say that Infalibility
doesn't exist, which is heresy according to Canon 822 of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church.
> >Love for Christ was done to Christ by the Pharasees?
> >Where?
>
> Where do straw men hang out? You tell me. I wrote something about
> calumny, and you said I wrote something about love. Calumny ain't
> love.
Calumny ain't a word unless you live in the Wild West of 1870, buckaroo.
> >That's because the original never filtered down to the parishes either:
>
> convenient
Of course not. Why should it? If it's incorrect, it should be changed
BEFORE it gets to the parishes, not after.
> >ICEL -> Pope -> Parish, if the doctrine is correct.
> >ICEL -> Pope -> ICEL, if the doctrine is incorrect.
>
> >Which is why the recantation never got there, because it was instead put
> >in all the first communion books to explain the language.
>
> So this 'recantation' is . . . where - in the first communion books?
In a way. In another way, it's in the ICEL documents that you refuse to
even look at.
> >Yep, 3000 WPM with 90% comprehension is illeteracy....No wonder I don't
> >trust your generation.
>
> Read as in taking the time to read and study what you don't know. I
> presume you can read, because this is not the first message I've
> replied to of yours. What I meant is that you seem generally
> uninterested in that pursuit.
And I see you as being uninterested in reading anything outside of your
little traditionalist arguments.
> >So your version of the Church started in the 1300s?
>
> Straw man, again? Or just a silly question?
You appeal to Aquinas and Trent, and ignore the Early Church Fathers.
SERIOUS question, if Aquinas is the only doctor of the church you study,
does that make you an Aquinian rather than a Catholic?
> >Other than paying lip service to the Pope and not following his
> >leadership, what else is there to the partial Protestantism?
>
> Protestants deny The Holy See. I disagree with some of the things
> Popes have done.
And when you do so, you use the exact same words that the Protestants use
to deny the Holy See.
Do you understand my problem with this? At all?
> >He wasn't a contemporary, but he was a forerunner.
>
> No he wasn't, either. He was a Saint. Luther was a heretic. There's a
> difference, least in _my_ dictionary.
Luther used the arguments of that "Saint" against the church. You use the
arguments of Aquinas against the Church. I say that makes you an
Aquinian, not a Catholic, and guilty of the exact same heresy Luther used.
> >the stuff that Trent put out, you would have known that many heretics
> >quote the Saints in an effort to make the Magisterium disagree with
> >itself.
>
> Nice spin. Anyway, least we agree that a) St. Athanasius was a Saint
> and b) that he died long, lone before Luther was even born.
Yes. And that Luther twisted his words, just as you twist the words of
Aquinas to make him against Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.
But of course, we know that can't be so, because it's an article of faith
that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, and where it appears to,
somebody hasn't done their homework.
> >Which, oddly enough, from my point of view, is exactly what you are
> >doing....
>
> Your point of view remains entirely unsupported - just an accusation
> is all. It seems the best you can do. I keep asking you to explain
> yourself, and you refuse.
My Point of View is shared by the majority in the church.
Unlike yours.
> >And since it was originally commissioned to do exactly what it is doing by
> >the Pope (there isn't a single member of ICEL who wasn't appointed to the
> >position by Rome), that's why it has official approval.
>
> Like I wrote - pray it's short-lived.
So you pray that the Pope fails in his listening to the Holy Spirit?
Treason and heresy.
> >But that's exactly what we claim to day, that it is both a parallel
> >liturgy to keep the traditionalists in the church and that it is the same
> >liturgy, updated for modern times and steming from the same roots as the
> >old.
>
> Two liturgies for the price of one, eh? That wasn't what Paul VI had
> in mind. He was wrong. 'New order' is still wrong.
You are not a mind reader, you don't know what Paul VI had in mind. Any
apparent contradiction is in your inability to understand the Magisterium
of which Paul VI was a part.
> >In that case, show me what they showed me. Show me a copy, word for word,
> >of the Eucharistic Prayer that you use taken from 155 A.D. or earlier.
>
> Which? There are not merely even four. Which do you mean?
Any given one with "for the many". But my point is, from 155A.D. or
earlier.
> >Either go back as far as they did, or don't claim greater apostolic
> >authority than they claim.
>
> So all inbetween was just a horrible mistake - and God The Holy Spirit
> should have known better? How inconsistent you are, to talk about
> development, and then hold it in contempt when you find it
> inconvenient.
NO! I never said trinidine was a mistake! It most certainly was NOT a
mistake!
It was EXTEREMELY NECESSARY for the time. Just as ICEL is EXTREMELY
NECCESSARY today. We would never have survived as a denomination among
the 30,000 without the Trinidine Mass, and the true church would have
been lost to the godlessness and faithlessness of the 1600s without the
Trinidine Mass!!!!!
It is certainly NOT a mistake. Catholics needed something to rally around
as we were being burnt at the stake by the Protestants. As our countries
were being overrun by the Protestants.
As we were makeing new lives in the new world, in generally conservative
Protestant countries like the United States.
As much as the Trinidine mass was responsible for a loss of faith at the
end of the 1950s, it was also responsible for the survival of that faith
for 500 years before that!
> >Fine, then in that case, only the "for the many" should have been used up
> >until 1965, correct?
> >If even one parish in communion with Rome used the same version as ICEL
> >does before the year 200, then your claim is false.
>
> Or they did it wrong. If a man knows the words to the Ave, but decides
> to change them around - is the Ave wrong, or The Church . . . or the
> guy who changed them around?
The original Deposit of Faith cannot be "wrong" without destoying
Apostolic Tradition itself.
Is that what you're trying to do?
> >Doesn't matter, very few heretics use the same name for themselves that
> >Catholics use for them.
>
> I just meant that not many _defend_ ICEL, as you do in your apparent
> ignorance.
You think I'm defending ICEL? No, I'm defending the right of the Pope to
tell us the truth.
> >No, you tried to show it and you failed. End of discussion.
>
> Actually, they called for anything but 'new order'. How does _that_
> "end" your discussion?
They gave the Pope the right to call for the new order.
That's enough. The council may have only gone halfway, but halfway was
all they needed to.
> >An easy contradiction to get around. Interpret them for the Calvinists
> >alone. Interpret ICEL as eccumenicism, alone.
> >And voila, no more contradiction.
>
> You can't spin your way out of this one.
Why? Your position is only spin to begin with, by interpreting the
decisions about the Calvinists to cover ICEL and the Pope who by Canon
822, cannot be in error.
> >Could have fooled me, from my point of view, you appear to be both.
>
> You missed what I was referring to. The universal skeptic contradicts
> himself in his refusal to confess that not only, I think, I am, but
> particularly also I am, and so know.
Ah, more protestant hogwash.
> Time isn't an illusion. It's very real. It's limiting in the way God
> wants us to be limited. Time is an illusion compare with something
> else, which we can posit, and imagine. It's both, then. In one sense,
> the everyday sense, it's very real - and often very inconvenient;
> deadlines, and all. In another sense, we know there's something more,
> and a different reality. We know physical theorists try to imagine
> such, and even suggest the manipulation of it for purposes of
> technology, perhaps. But ours is still one reality. And again, it's
> how God wants it, in this life.
The everyday sense is only what we've agreed it to be, nothing more. It
is not God, but merely manmade invention that constrains us.
> >Have you ever bothered to take a modern CCD class?
>
> RCIA. I was once invited to RCIA - and then promptly thrown out.
Thrown out or left of your own accord?
I ask, because it's entirely possible that under an Archbishop who appears
to do what you say Mahoney does, that you were thrown out.....and
shouldn't have been, because if nobody asks the hard questions, RCIA is
useless.
> >It's not a wafer, it is the body of Christ.
>
> Isn't in The Holy Mass, you mean. 'New order' appears invalid on its
> face.
What about deeper down, or have you ever bothered to ask beyond it's face?
> >I'm a Gen Xer, I'm not reasonable.
>
> That, too.
Well, you can blame your own generation for it. You've taught me that to
be reasonable is to get every human and constitutional right I've ever had
taken away from me.
I'd much rather be stubborn about it.
> >I have, you've ignored it.
>
> You haven't. And I'm not ignoring what you write. That should be
> pretty self-evident.
Then why haven't you gotten a copy of JP2's book yet, when I refer to it
constantly?
> >Once again, the GI Generationer lies and calls selfless service
> >"selfishness".
>
> It is selfishness, to impose feminism upon the sanctuary. It's not a
> match made in Heaven, as they say.
Or at least, so says the sexist pig of a GI generationer.
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, it's
> really not the sanctuary anymore, but just a Prot 'gathering place',
> or whatever. You won't find 'altar girls' in The Holy Mass. You will
> find little girls, women, nuns in habit, even, very carefully
> following the Mass, offering their prayers and contrition, worshipping
> God in The Eucharist. But they won't be 'altar girls'. And you bet
> they would know why better than anyone, and entirely agree with the
> proscription.
Except for of course, we've advanced a bit since the dinosaurs romed the
earth in your youth, gramps.
> >This is why I don't trust your entire generation.
Because you constantly lie like above.
> >So is night, BTW, it's not like we
> >evacuate the oxygen of the planet when the sun goes down.
>
> >Black is the total abscence of color.
>
> Trust me. There are helicopters and jets in the US arsenal that are
> painted - black.
Neat trick gramps, since we don't actually have any such color.
> >> Btw, Clinton should resign - immediately - for the good of the nation.
>
> >The good of the nation would be to use this oportunity to teach
> >forgiveness.
>
> Forgive all the while. Clinton should resign, nonetheless. But he's
> not known exactly for putting the interests of the nation ahead of his
> own personal ambition.
Neither was Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, or Kenedy.
Every last one of them a selfish old bastard.
> >But I forget, you're American conservative first, Catholic second.
>
> He should resign - immediately. Al Gore should appoint a new Veep, and
> then resign himself. Then the Dem will have their real next nominee,
> and the Rep will have to put forth a real candidate, themselves.
The Reps couldn't put forth a viable candidate if their lives depended
upon it. Neither could the dems.
> >Dominican Monk of Germany who split off from the church and started his
> >own schism because he didn't like the deveolopment of the day.
> >Just like you're begining to do.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder, I meant to write, if you even know who Martin
> Luther was.
Once again, a Dominican monk from germany who wanted to judge the Church
rather than letting the Church judge him.
> >It's at the heart of the new order also. But you've decided to close your
> >eyes and become Protestant rather than listen.
>
> I'm not the one defending the new religion. And I don't close my eyes
> to Aquinas and Trent. I don't spin. I don't dissemble. And I cite my
> sources. You might try it, yourself.
Nah, just to Iraeneous, Clement, Gregory, Augustine, and Francis.
What, did you forget that there was a church before 1300?
Gerard F. Bugge
Padraic42 wrote in message
>>I don't think english should be taken totally out of the mass. But I have
>>heard portions of latin in english masses before - they are beautiful and
>>give glory to God in their own way even if I didn't totally understand
what
>>was being said. But I would think a mass performed entirely in latin
would
>>disassociate itself from the community, the majority of whom don't
>>understand it.
>
> That is why Latin AND the vernacular were called on to be used together.
>
> It has been accused that one would not understand what was being said.
Is
>that true?
>
> Many people use other languages in expersions and know their meaning.
Why
>would latin be any different?
>
> Are we expected to believe that no one knows what "Hossana in excelsis"
>means?
>
>Or "Pater Noster" or "Agnus Die'? These are simple to learn and even
simpler
>to remember.........
Dear Patrick and all,
Just look at how often these past weeks the phrase "mea culpa" was used
by the media.....over and over and over.
That phrase comes from the Confiteor of the Latin Mass and has entered
into the vernacular vocabulary of many nations and peoples.
This usage of "mea culpa" made me realize just how the Latin Mass had a
way of entering deep into the psyche and imagination--even if not all of it
was immediately understandable.
I agree with you: it would be good to strike a good balance in the Roman
Rite: a significant use of English--especially for the readings and changing
parts--and a good use of Latin as well--especially in the ordinary of the
Mass....EWTN televises the daily conventual Mass of Our Lady of the Angels
monastery--and it is celebrated beautifully, with deep reverence and a sense
of continuity with the Church's great heritage of liturgical worship.
Gerard Serafin
A Catholic Page for Lovers:
http://www.praiseofglory.albanza.com
The New Liturgical Movement:
http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/newliturgical.htm
Legatus
<gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
> Dear Patrick and all,
>
> Just look at how often these past weeks the phrase "mea culpa" was used
> by the media.....over and over and over.
>
> That phrase comes from the Confiteor of the Latin Mass and has entered
> into the vernacular vocabulary of many nations and peoples.
>
> This usage of "mea culpa" made me realize just how the Latin Mass had a
> way of entering deep into the psyche and imagination--even if not all of it
> was immediately understandable.
>
> I agree with you: it would be good to strike a good balance in the Roman
> Rite: a significant use of English--especially for the readings and changing
> parts--and a good use of Latin as well--especially in the ordinary of the
> Mass....EWTN televises the daily conventual Mass of Our Lady of the Angels
> monastery--and it is celebrated beautifully, with deep reverence and a sense
> of continuity with the Church's great heritage of liturgical worship.
Sad to say, you aren't going to make many friends in this newsgroup by
praising Mother Angelica...and most of the flames (albeit "gentle flames")
will come from people who have never even SEEN EWTN. One of the happier
moments of my life was when I called into MA Live and made her laugh so
hard she almost fell out of her seat.
As far as I'm concerned, if 10% of the parishes in this country could pull
of a Holy Mass as reverent as what is regularly broadcast from Our Lady of
the Angels, we'd see a true "renewal" of the Faith...
Then again, I believe if only 10% of the parishes in this country had a
regular Indult Mass, we'd turn the world on its ear... So, there goes MY
credibility. :)
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >Chalice and cup are the same word.
>> Not in my dictionary. There's a reason for two words. Chalice refers
>> to something a bit more specific than the more generic, cup.
>Your dictionary is not the same as my generation's understanding.
Yes it is.
>NO!!!! Rather that cathedrals came later. They are as much of the
>development as Trent itself is, but they weren't meant to replace all that
>had come before.
Yes they were. Read the Fabiola again. You suggest you've seen a copy.
>> >I've seen it, and I doubt it's authenticity.
>> Cardinal Wiseman's book was published, I believe in the late 1880s,
>> with lots of colorful plates, on the subject of the church of the
>> catacombs. The reprint may not have all the plates. But I'm guessing
>> the text is the same. That's all. No one doubts its authenticity.
>Sounds to me that it was about 1780 years too late to be of any real use.
You should try to make sense.
>> >I'm pointing out you're ignorance of the Early Church Fathers.
>> Which, in particular? You like to shovel it. I'm asking you to smell
>> it, too. Know what you're up to.
>How about Peter in Acts, for starters? Where did he say Mass?
>In the synagogues and temples, or in private homes and catacombs? Or
>maybe, just maybe, Jesus magically raised up a Cathedral for him to
>practice in....
Tents it is, then. Suggest it to your pastor, next RENEW 2000 meeting.
>In the book I told you to read. _Crossing the Threshold of Hope_ by JPII.
>Go and read it.
It would offer no support for your many accusations or the rest. If
you think it does, in some way - you'd better start quoting.
Otherwise, don't put words in the mouth of JP II.
>> No it's not. Read the book - Liberalism is a Sin.
>Do you know the difference between American and European Liberalism?
>Do you know the difference between American and European conservativism?
>Do you, in short, know why both liberalism and conservativism are sins?
Just - as I wrote - . . . well, you can read.
>You're trying your best to remove from them any hint of Catholicism from
>ICEL, and thus trying to remove the faith of the CTA.
What faith, exactly, does CTA possess? You insist it's Catholic? Best
to make the case, I guess.
>> >Doubt is an American Conservative idea that I don't hold with.
>> I don't know what _you're_ trying to say. But I made a typo. It should
>> have read - No, I don't. But, true, I often _do_ doubt what people
>> write on UseNet.
>And, that form of doubt, that form of skepticism, is very convient for
>ignoring the rest of the world outside of yourself.
Assuming it were even true, better than your sort of one-note,
stubborn blindness. Sometimes - you gotta read stuff, not just dash
off a quick put down. If you want to even know what the issues are,
you'll need to begin with some of the books I've mentioned, or with
the web page, which I've often mentioned -
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm .
>I'm betting on the men that the Pope picked to make the decision, rather
>than some GI generation nut who can't figure out that the world CHANGES!
At this point, I'll just say - suit yourself. But your new religion
isn't the answer.
>> And what _is_ a
>> conservative? a big gubment, command economy statist - at war not
>> merely with the church, but with all organized religion - eager to
>> promote a superficial 'women's rights' and easy abortion - and so on.
>> That's a conservative, to you?
>Yes, because like all conservatives, they have no answers, they just fight
>against things without actually redesigning the assumptions.
Spin, you mean. Conservative pols spin, too. But it's this which is
failing not only Clinton and his toadies, right now, but the 'better
way' sort, as well.
>> The GIs won the peace. The boomers were spoiled by it.
>The GIs used coal, oil, gas, and gunpowder. The boomers used nuclear and
>chemical. Both destroyed the environment while winning their version of
>peace.
>May both rot in nursing homes for their crimes.
As I wrote before, the charity of the new religion, peeking through.
>> Actually, that's the boomers. They poison the air to save the water.
>> The poison the water to save the air. They come up with academic
>> abstracts that should work in theory, and then could care less about
>> implementation. After all, they 'meant' well. That sentiment has never
>> been more damaging, more destructive, I think, than in the hands of
>> the boomers, once in power.
>It's the GI generation that invented the internal combustion engine.
Their fathers, in the late 19th century, I believe.
>the GI generation who owns the oil rigs. You can't blame it all on the
>boomers, they own hardly anything.
The boomers are the ones in power, right now. Clintonia is the boomer
'paradise'.
>> >The only hope I have is that you'll all die off.
>> More of that new religion charity at work, I see.
>The point being the guys in charge of your generation, near as I can tell,
>brought us to the brink of nuclear disaster.
>Now the boomers are bringing us to the brink of ecconomic and ecological
>disaster.
You're right about the latter. The environment is probably more messed
up, now, thanks to the EPA and enviro regs than it's ever been, or I
say would otherwise not be had EPA and the enviro freaks been stopped
before they got going.
>> Compromise has never been the method of ICEL. And it wasn't a
>> compromise, the above. And to compare The Church setting Sunday with
>> ICELism's 'new order' is rather a bizarre stretch.
>Compromise has been forced upon them by the Pope.
>Which you'd know, if you had ever studied ICEL beyond the sunday service
>in 1973 when you decided it weren't so.
Actually, I only came back to The Church, only to find 'new order', in
the late 80s. And the missallettes I refer to are only a year or so
old.
>Your prescience, is not an accepted fact. In fact, it's just an invention
>to try to use Trent to pull down the church.
Your church, then. But not The Catholic Church. That's what Trent was
about.
>> >I'm talking about development. For every change in doctorine or dogma put
>> >forth by the Pope, somebody has to try it first. There is a process to do
>> >that. Weakland and Mahoney don't follow the process. Francis George did,
>> >and he's on the fast track of promotion for it.
>> okay.
>Finally, you're begining to understand.
Yeah, I think so. Poor boy Weakland was . . . impatient, I think you
said. Just wait you tell him, and all will be as pleases him, and his
sort. Do I understand?
>I'm at work, don't have it with me. Let's see, from memory "At the
>consecration of the wine, it becomes the blood of Jesus. The priest says
>"Christ's blood shed for all and for you" to tell us that while Christ
>died for everybody, the sacrafice is for those of us who belong".
All people includes, you. It's like saying this FAA recall affects all
aircraft, and 747s, or whatever.
The only way you're going to get up to speed on this, is by informing
yourself of what's going on. I can't do it for you. And you've taken
some pride, I think, in trying to double talk your point of view,
rather than deal with any of this very honestly. That's just my
opinion. No offense, intended.
>Which means, since it's the Pope's job to declare infalibly on matters of
>faith and morals, to contradict him on that is to say that Infalibility
>doesn't exist, which is heresy according to Canon 822 of the Catechism of
>the Catholic Church.
You seem to argue that every word the Pope says is infallible. It
isn't, of course. And you need to respect the Holy See, by not falsely
attributing powers no Pope has ever had. Infallibility was laid out by
The Vatican Council. The conditions for such an explicit declaration,
by Pope, or bishops, are known, and do not cover just everything that
is said or done. I wish you'd confess at least that much. I wish you'd
at least consider informing yourself, as well, on some of these things
you've only been able to superficially discuss, or worse.
>> >Love for Christ was done to Christ by the Pharasees?
>> >Where?
>> Where do straw men hang out? You tell me. I wrote something about
>> calumny, and you said I wrote something about love. Calumny ain't
>> love.
>Calumny ain't a word unless you live in the Wild West of 1870, buckaroo.
You need a new dictionary. You really do.
>> Read as in taking the time to read and study what you don't know. I
>> presume you can read, because this is not the first message I've
>> replied to of yours. What I meant is that you seem generally
>> uninterested in that pursuit.
>And I see you as being uninterested in reading anything outside of your
>little traditionalist arguments.
That's not what I wrote. Being contentious like you are has to, at
some point, even start bothering _you_? No? Why not be honest with
this stuff. No spin. No fear. No false accusations. Deal with cases.
Deal with the sad reality.
>> Straw man, again? Or just a silly question?
>You appeal to Aquinas and Trent, and ignore the Early Church Fathers.
>SERIOUS question, if Aquinas is the only doctor of the church you study,
>does that make you an Aquinian rather than a Catholic?
I understand, now. (?) You're trying to drag some vague 'church
fathers' - which ones who cares, right? - into supporting the new
religion. You want them to agree that many means all, and that ICEL is
quite orthodox according to _their_ Catholicism, if not that
necessarily of Aquinas?
Again, you need to read up on this stuff, or continue to sound
ignorant. I'm just telling you.
>you twist the words of
>Aquinas to make him against Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.
>But of course, we know that can't be so, because it's an article of faith
>that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, and where it appears to,
>somebody hasn't done their homework.
Again, really - you _love_ to hurl accusations. "Twist" - - - how?
What are you talking about? Explain yourself. Don't keep on with these
pointless shout and run accusations. Elaborate. Say what you mean.
>> >And since it was originally commissioned to do exactly what it is doing by
>> >the Pope (there isn't a single member of ICEL who wasn't appointed to the
>> >position by Rome), that's why it has official approval.
>> Like I wrote - pray it's short-lived.
>So you pray that the Pope fails in his listening to the Holy Spirit?
Pray he does. Pray your ICELism is short-lived.
>Treason and heresy.
But _I'm_ not the one defending the new religion, here.
>> Two liturgies for the price of one, eh? That wasn't what Paul VI had
>> in mind. He was wrong. 'New order' is still wrong.
>You are not a mind reader, you don't know what Paul VI had in mind. Any
>apparent contradiction is in your inability to understand the Magisterium
>of which Paul VI was a part.
You really don't know what you're talking about. It's clear. Read up
on this. Inform yourself. Learn. Maybe it's against your present
nature, I don't know. But vice can be unlearned, by God's grace.
>> >In that case, show me what they showed me. Show me a copy, word for word,
>> >of the Eucharistic Prayer that you use taken from 155 A.D. or earlier.
>> Which? There are not merely even four. Which do you mean?
>Any given one with "for the many". But my point is, from 155A.D. or
>earlier.
You can't _get_ any "earlier" than The Last Supper. Next is the
Petrine Mass, pretty much the substantial basis for what's now called
the Tridentine. Some things never change, except for 'new order' (and
in a sense, well . . .).
>As much as the Trinidine mass was responsible for a loss of faith at the
>end of the 1950s,
Not the Mass - trendy seminars, failure in priestly formation,
deference to experts, even then. Like that. It wasn't The Mass. It was
those who couldn't stand The Mass.
>The original Deposit of Faith cannot be "wrong" without destoying
>Apostolic Tradition itself.
>Is that what you're trying to do?
But as I keep saying, it _is_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new
order'.
>> Actually, they called for anything but 'new order'. How does _that_
>> "end" your discussion?
>They gave the Pope the right to call for the new order.
If you say so. But the council fathers had one thing in mind. Bugnini
and Paul VI had another. That's just how it was. At least Paul VI
should have then had the integrity to not _mention_ the council in his
promulgation.
>That's enough. The council may have only gone halfway, but halfway was
>all they needed to.
That's what the 'experts' said and believed. But it wasn't even
"halfway". The experts took the name of the council, and made up the
rest. Hildebrand's sense of it. I agree. The history of it, really.
You've got it all backwards, not surprizingly.
>> >Could have fooled me, from my point of view, you appear to be both.
>> You missed what I was referring to. The universal skeptic contradicts
>> himself in his refusal to confess that not only, I think, I am, but
>> particularly also I am, and so know.
>Ah, more protestant hogwash.
Didn't see _that_ one coming, either.
>> Time isn't an illusion. It's very real. It's limiting in the way God
>> wants us to be limited. Time is an illusion compare with something
>> else, which we can posit, and imagine. It's both, then. In one sense,
>> the everyday sense, it's very real - and often very inconvenient;
>> deadlines, and all. In another sense, we know there's something more,
>> and a different reality. We know physical theorists try to imagine
>> such, and even suggest the manipulation of it for purposes of
>> technology, perhaps. But ours is still one reality. And again, it's
>> how God wants it, in this life.
>The everyday sense is only what we've agreed it to be, nothing more. It
>is not God, but merely manmade invention that constrains us.
God, not man. We are as He made us, and live in the reality He
Created. It's very real. But by the theologian or the theoretical
physicist, we know it's not, all, but simply the reality in this life.
But it's real.
>> >Have you ever bothered to take a modern CCD class?
>> RCIA. I was once invited to RCIA - and then promptly thrown out.
>Thrown out or left of your own accord?
Tossed.
>I ask, because it's entirely possible that under an Archbishop who appears
>to do what you say Mahoney does, that you were thrown out.....and
>shouldn't have been, because if nobody asks the hard questions, RCIA is
>useless.
Such is RCIA. To be fair, _others_ at the time wrote to say _their_
RCIA was different. I have to trust them on that, perhaps. But one of
those books I suggested you take a look at, by Mgr. Wrenn, called
Catechisms and Controversies, examined the problem of catechesis,
prior to the publication of the new CCC, from the broad and historical
perspective, and suggested things even _I_ didn't see or hear people
say in those meetings. It was, and I think still is, a system out of
the control of the Pope and any real orthodoxy. It _is_ an outpost of
the 'spirit of' crowd, plain and simple. And there's nothing to be
done about it, except pray that the catechists and those they abuse
and mislead will see the error of their ways, repent, and convert to
The Church. The new religion is just the wide way, not hardly the way
to salvation.
>> It is selfishness, to impose feminism upon the sanctuary. It's not a
>> match made in Heaven, as they say.
>Or at least, so says the sexist pig of a GI generationer.
You write, I must say, like an aging feminist. 'Gen x'er, you say?
>> Trust me. There are helicopters and jets in the US arsenal that are
>> painted - black.
>Neat trick gramps, since we don't actually have any such color.
Like I say - go to an airshow, sometime. It's no big secret. The
'black helicopter' thing is really referring to anonymity of
ownership, more than anything. But . . . nuff said, I guess.
>> >> Btw, Clinton should resign - immediately - for the good of the nation.
>> >The good of the nation would be to use this oportunity to teach
>> >forgiveness.
>> Forgive all the while. Clinton should resign, nonetheless. But he's
>> not known exactly for putting the interests of the nation ahead of his
>> own personal ambition.
>Neither was Bush,
Sure he did.
>Reagan,
Especially Reagan. He said Iran/Contra snuck up on him, basically, not
that he was back there in the war room planning some grand cover-up.
Clinton now . . .
>Carter, Ford, Nixon,
Well . . maybe Nixon. But Nixon was a man who esteemed the Presidency,
and was too _honest_ to destroy the tapes once they became known.
Clinton now . . . .
>Johnson,
Lyndon Baines seems, to history, to have been something of a loud
mouth, and little more. I don't know.
>or Kennedy.
I like what I've heard of the late JFK - in his economic policies, in
bringing on the 'space race' (which I wish somebody would have the
guts to push, again). I don't know that if it had become common gossip
and news to the general public that he would have tried to bring down
the moral tone of the nation just to save himself and his position of
power, as Clinton and his toadies have done for months, if not years.
>Every last one of them a selfish old bastard.
Hardly. Clinton - that's your man. Worst Pres. in US history (or
didn't I write just that two years ago on UseNet?).
>> He should resign - immediately. Al Gore should appoint a new Veep, and
>> then resign himself. Then the Dem will have their real next nominee,
>> and the Rep will have to put forth a real candidate, themselves.
>The Reps couldn't put forth a viable candidate if their lives depended
>upon it. Neither could the dems.
The putative 'front runner' is Bush's son, governor of the great
nation of Texas. As for the Dem, they don't want Gore.
>> I'm not the one defending the new religion. And I don't close my eyes
>> to Aquinas and Trent. I don't spin. I don't dissemble. And I cite my
>> sources. You might try it, yourself.
>Nah, just to Iraeneous,
There isn't much I can think of erroneous in what survives of the
works of St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, martyr - ir ren A us). He was
a defender of the idea of uniform and consistent doctrine. It's that
which lies at the heart of the failure of 'new order'.
>Clement, Gregory,
Gregory the Great? He could be seen to defend this new religion?
>Augustine,
Hope you didn't miss it - Friday was Augie day, if not in 'new order'.
>and Francis.
St. Francis of Assissi, apparently the patron Saint of the new
religion; against what he truly stood for.
>What, did you forget that there was a church before 1300?
Somebody has. Remember . . _I_ don't defend 'new order'. You do.
Peace. (and try to read up on some of this - really)
Gerard F. Bugge
Legatus wrote in message ...
>Sad to say, you aren't going to make many friends in this newsgroup by
>praising Mother Angelica...and most of the flames (albeit "gentle flames")
>will come from people who have never even SEEN EWTN.
Dear Steve,
Not really looking to "make friends" on this newsgroup! But thanks for
the tip.....
I am used to the easy dismissal of Mother Angelica and other persons and
groups in the Church and, at times, I tend to think well of some of these
precisely because they all seem to have "the right enemies!"
Often enough, it seems to me anyway, the rejectors and dismissors and
critics of these are also dissenters from Catholic orthodoxy and the
magisterial Teaching Office of the Church....just an observation of many
years experience. Not always true, of course..but often enough to see a
"pattern" here.
Again, thanks for tip. But it won't stop me from speaking my mind and
even my *heart!*
Gerard Serafin
*Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:*
A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
*Baltimore's Beautiful "Powerhouse of Prayer":*
StAlphonsus: http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stalphonsus.htm
*The Redemptorists--With Christ is Plentiful Redemption:*
cyberMission: http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com/mission.htm
*A Russian Catholic cyberCenter:*
St Michael's: http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stmichael.htm
*God's Friend and Ours:*
Servant of God Father Francis X. Seelos: http://www.seelos.org
Legatus
<gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
> Legatus wrote in message ...
>
> >Sad to say, you aren't going to make many friends in this newsgroup by
> >praising Mother Angelica...and most of the flames (albeit "gentle flames")
> >will come from people who have never even SEEN EWTN.
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> Not really looking to "make friends" on this newsgroup! But thanks for
> the tip.....
Well, there is a tragic mistake...there are many people who frequent this
newsgroup that would make terrific friends...(and granted, not all of them
are Angelicaphiles...but I'm working on them!)
> I am used to the easy dismissal of Mother Angelica and other persons and
> groups in the Church and, at times, I tend to think well of some of these
> precisely because they all seem to have "the right enemies!"
This is an excellent point that many protestants (or whatever they call
themselves these days) should take to heart... When a person stands
against the Roman Catholic Church...they have some pretty disgusting
company.
> Often enough, it seems to me anyway, the rejectors and dismissors and
> critics of these are also dissenters from Catholic orthodoxy and the
> magisterial Teaching Office of the Church....just an observation of many
> years experience. Not always true, of course..but often enough to see a
> "pattern" here.
Deo gratias! Another one! Yippie...eventually, we'll outnumber "certain
elements" (you know who you are!(GRIN)).
> Again, thanks for tip. But it won't stop me from speaking my mind and
> even my *heart!*
I have a feeling we're gonna get along just fine. :) Watch out for the
lunacy that takes over the group...we've all got our clocks set to go nuts
on a regular basis...and then it gets pretty goofy around here.
EAMDM
<gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
> I agree with you: it would be good to strike a good balance in the Roman
>Rite: a significant use of English--especially for the readings and changing
>parts--and a good use of Latin as well--especially in the ordinary of the
>Mass..
Or, simply attend the traditional Mass, and use a Latin-English Missal.
Matt Moore
Sursum Corda
Habemus ad Dominum
Beda
>Deo gratias! Another one! Yippie...eventually, we'll outnumber "certain
>elements" (you know who you are!(GRIN)).
ROFL!!!!!!!
Steve!!!!
Plu-ese put the C&C warning on your posts before you say stuff like
this!!!!
Pax,
Beda
*********************************
"To reach satisfaction in all
desire its possession in nothing.
To come to possess all
desire the possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all
desire to be nothing.
+St. John of the Cross
********************************
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsouth.spamificator.net> wrote:
>Sad to say, you aren't going to make many friends in this newsgroup by
>praising Mother Angelica...and most of the flames (albeit "gentle flames")
>will come from people who have never even SEEN EWTN. One of the happier
>moments of my life was when I called into MA Live and made her laugh so
>hard she almost fell out of her seat.
I don't dislike Mother A. personally. She herself is a charming woman,
and I don't doubt for a second that you made her nearly fall out of her
chair, Steve. I DO have problems with things I've heard on her network
and especially read on the web page. For all that the page makes me climb
walls, it has the best document library I've seen.
>As far as I'm concerned, if 10% of the parishes in this country could pull
>of a Holy Mass as reverent as what is regularly broadcast from Our Lady of
>the Angels, we'd see a true "renewal" of the Faith...
Reverent, yes, but I wish the priests who say the masses at the convent
looked as if they had had their coffee that morning. I think they confuse
"reverence" with "plodding".
>Then again, I believe if only 10% of the parishes in this country
had a
>regular Indult Mass, we'd turn the world on its ear... So, there goes MY
>credibility. :)
Yech! Foo! Indult mass :P Nonetheless, it should be permitted everywhere
because it's perfectly legitimate and some people find it spiritually more
nourishing. I'm not one of them, and I hate to think what I'd do if the
Tridentine mass were brought back for everywhere.
Gully Foyle
"Blue Monday" was their best.
XXIII
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z after the @ in my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
IDIOT, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose
influence in human affairs has always been dominant
and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to
any special field of thought or action, but "pervades
and regulates the whole." He has the last word in
everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the
fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations
of speech and circumscribes conduct with a
dead-line.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Legatus
> I don't dislike Mother A. personally. She herself is a charming woman,
> and I don't doubt for a second that you made her nearly fall out of her
> chair, Steve. I DO have problems with things I've heard on her network
> and especially read on the web page. For all that the page makes me climb
> walls, it has the best document library I've seen.
I've been using Petersnet (www.petersnet.org) for documents lately. But
they're practically identical to www.ewtn.com in "philosophy and style".
> Reverent, yes, but I wish the priests who say the masses at the convent
> looked as if they had had their coffee that morning. I think they confuse
> "reverence" with "plodding".
I just can't see it...especially when the ancient Irish priest says
Mass...what a voice! I'm not really excited about the three resident
priests...but some of the Guest priests are phenomenal, especially when
they've got a bishop or cardinal visiting from another country.
> Yech! Foo! Indult mass :P Nonetheless, it should be permitted everywhere
> because it's perfectly legitimate and some people find it spiritually more
> nourishing. I'm not one of them, and I hate to think what I'd do if the
> Tridentine mass were brought back for everywhere.
Muhahahahaha!:)