Ecumenism and Vatican II (was re:Medjugordje a hoax?)
Joseph Geloso
subject line: "Medjugordje a hoax?" It is someone's reply to my post,
and unfortunately I do not recall who the person was, but hopefully he
will see this. In any case, what I am posting as new will follow the
excerpt.
>I am not accusing you of pride.
>Your statement:
>>It's He
>>Who says what is right and wrong. And it's by His standard, The
>>Magisterium of His Church (if not the institutional madness now
>>parading as Catholicism under the banner of the 'spirit of Vatican
>>II'), that we, too, can say what is right, what is wrong, and why
>>there is no salvation outside The Church, and why not just everyone in
>>the world is automatically _in_ The Church.
>is true, but the danger in making a statement like that is that it is
not clear whether
>or not you are faithful to Vatican II.
I'm faithful to what the fathers of Vatican II said concerning their
faith in the canons of Trent, The Vatican Council (which putatively
gave the cause for Vatican II, before it went 'pastoral'), and The
Magisterium prior to 1965 (which used to be a favorite date among
'professional educator' catechists, a few years ago).
>Vatican II was the Council that, in point of
>fact, opened up the Catholic Church
To heresy.
>for the whole world to now become Catholic.
It's not what Popes of the past meant. Catholic has to mean, Catholic
- not Protestant, not heretical, not indifferentist, and so on. You
can fool the whole world. But God won't be fooled, nor those who
remain even in this world and can still read the old encyclicals,
catechisms, council docs, writings of the Saints, and so on - on-line
(uh-oh).
The prophecys attributed to the Irish 'Malachy' talk about JP II,
perhaps, by the cryptic 'toil of the sun', even 'eclipse of the sun'.
Some have linked that with 'the sun shall grow dim and the moon not
give her light', but dismiss it because JP II is so 'orthodox' and
such a 'good guy'. But the latter does explain what's happening today,
if that's how one reads the prophecy, whoever it's by, if it's been
accurate to date, and remains so. The teachings of The Church, the
Light of Faith is deemed 'evil' and 'mean', the product of the 'dark
age' prior to Vatican II, and so on. You've heard the whole canard,
surely, from the libral 'reformers'.
>not automatic, and it does not happen through false ecumenism.
But what's 'true' ecumenism? Maybe this is all ecumenism was ever
supposed to mean - not missionary evangelism, but syncretism, not
standing up for the Faith, but capitulating to heretics. Sure, one
could read ecumenism, in past years, as meaning evangelism, and those
preaching 'ecumenism' were only betraying the true sense of the word.
But there is no one speaking or acting for a true sense of it, and
only for the 'false'. So maybe it's all that was ever meant by this
vague term. Orthodox, faithful Catholics didn't use the term. And the
entry in the CE on-line appears to be a fraud, as at least one person
has remarked that he never saw the entry for ecumenism in the old CE,
in the actual paper version. The whole ecumenical thing stinks, in
every way, in its every facet and exercise, right down to its vague
libral use suggesting one thing to the orthodox, and as a 'code word'
to the initiated - Catholicism, at least, to the former, betrayal and
heresy to the latter (always 'with the _best_ of intentions').
>conversion from sin, as well as conversion to Catholicism. True
ecumenism is
>practiced by true Catholics just like this: "I'm going to Mass now,
would you like to
>come?" THAT is the true spirit of Vatican II.
-----------------<end of the excerpt>--------------------
The poster here makes a few assertions which, when examined, do not
stand.
1) First, as to the statement of his, that the Second Vatican Council
opened up the Catholic Church to heresy, that is a very inflammatory way
of stating that he did not like the Council. It is impossible for a
Council, or a statement by a Pope, or anything in the whole world of
possible happenings, to so change the very nature of the Church as to
"open" her "to heresy". We can look at this from two opposite
perspectives.
One perspective says the Church is ALWAYS open to heresy. Seen in this
way, the condemnations of all heresies in the past are designed to point
out the errors of those promoting those errors, in order to correct them
and bring them back to the True Faith. Any heresy is simply a distortion
of revealed truth, and it always comes from within the Church. Vatican
II did not eliminate heresy from existence, nor did any other council.
From this perspective, the aim of Councils is usually to point out and
to refute such heresies, which inevitably keep cropping up.
The opposite of that perspective would be to say the Church is NEVER
open to heresy. Seen in this way, the condemnations of heresies are
intended to point out to the faithful, those opinions which would place
them outside of the True Faith. From this perspective, the aim of
Councils is usually to expound upon the True Faith, thus eliminating
heresy in that process.
Either perspective may be valid for the purposes of discussion -- they
are opposite in that they are complementary, not contradictory. The
point is that the possibility of false, heretical interpretations of
revealed truth is not something new that began with Vatican II. It is
something that has been troubling the Church from her infancy. No one
who possesses true faith believes that Vatican II began a new Church, or
that the documents of that Council stand on their own, apart from 2,000
years of tradition, or that that Council negated or refuted that
Tradition.
2) The poster states: "The teachings of The Church, the Light of Faith
is deemed 'evil' and 'mean', the product of the 'dark age' prior to
Vatican II, and so on. You've heard the whole canard, surely, from the
libral 'reformers'."
No matter who it is making statements like that, they are not obtaining
them from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. There are some
who have opportunistically used the Council as an excuse and as
justification for the furtherance of their own agendas. Liberals have
had a field day. But that is not the fault of the Council. Saint Paul
warns us against using liberty as a cloak for license. If anything,
Vatican II gave us a fresh new liberty, which we are STILL not to use as
a cloak for license.
3)The poster states: "The whole ecumenical thing stinks, in every way,
in its every facet and exercise, right down to its vague libral use
suggesting one thing to the orthodox, and as a 'code word' to the
initiated - Catholicism, at least, to the former, betrayal and heresy to
the latter (always 'with the _best_ of intentions')."
Has the poster even read the "Decree on Ecumenism"? Because I have. It
points out, among other things, "all who have been justified by faith in
Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called
Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of
the Catholic Church." Like it or not, any Protestant who is validly
baptized is in fact a member of the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism
is a true Sacrament, and there is only One Baptism. Therefore, the
desire for unity in One Church among all Christians is something that
ought to be deep within the heart of every Catholic.
The Decree points out very clearly that that unity already in fact
"subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose", and
also, "it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the
all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the
means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings
of the New Covenant to the Apostolic College alone, of which Peter is
the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which
all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of
God."
Far from being vague, the Decree on Ecumenism goes to great pains to lay
down sure and certain guidelines for exactly what is true Ecumenism and
what is not. It points out very specifically what Catholics are to do to
promote the unity of all Christians in the One Church, the Catholic
Church. It states clearly, "The way and method in which the Catholic
faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our
brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be
clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit
of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic
doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. At
the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and
precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can
also really understand."
--------------------------------------------------------
I have stated previously that the Second Vatican Council was the Council
that, in point of fact, opened up the Catholic Church for the whole
world to now become Catholic. It is true that the Council itself had no
precedent. Pope John XXIII convened it under the direct inspiration of
God the Holy Spirit, and the reasons for everything that came from the
Council are the reasons of God the Holy Spirit Himself. God in fact is
taking over the world, with Love. He is exercising His perogative, as
Almighty God, to do so. He is accomplishing His Will on Earth as it is
in Heaven, and that means, the whole world will be Catholic. Those who
do not like the idea had better examine themselves very carefully to
determine why they are so fundamentally lacking in charity, and correct
the defect in themselves, with God's help. Otherwise, they will find
fulfilled in themselves, the prophecy of Our Lord (Luke 13:28-30):
"There will be weeping, and the gnashing of teeth, when you shall see
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
but you yourselves cast forth outside. And they will come from the east
and from the west, from the north and from the south, and will feast in
the kingdom of God. And behold, there are those last who will be first,
and there are those first who will be last."
Mark Johnson
>The first part following is excerpted from a past posting with the
>subject line: "Medjugordje a hoax?" It is someone's reply to my post,
>and unfortunately I do not recall who the person was,
Twas me, I think.
>>is true, but the danger in making a statement like that is that it is
>>not clear whether or not you are faithful to Vatican II.
>I'm faithful to what the fathers of Vatican II said concerning their
>faith in the canons of Trent, The Vatican Council (which putatively
>gave the cause for Vatican II, before it went 'pastoral'), and The
>Magisterium prior to 1965 (which used to be a favorite date among
>'professional educator' catechists, a few years ago).
I could add that this was the theme, as well, of the 'fable' film -
Catholics, of some years back (found it on video - some while back).
The point, though, is lost on the author/screenwriter. In this
fictitious world, the Vatican has finally declared that belief in
transubstantiation, the Real Presence, is at best optional, at worst
'heresy'. And Martin Sheen is the guy sent to enforce this kind of
'ecumenical' nonsense on a remote Irish monastery. Of course,
liberation theology is deemed still in effect - and it really isn't
even today. And there's talk of a Vatican IV. But that's where it
misses the point, because the 'reformers' paid no mind to Vatican II.
They don't NEED a Vatican III or IV, and such would probably just get
in their way of interpreting vague sentiment and language to their own
whims.
>But what's 'true' ecumenism? Maybe this is all ecumenism was ever
>supposed to mean - not missionary evangelism, but syncretism, not
>standing up for the Faith, but capitulating to heretics. Sure, one
>could read ecumenism, in past years, as meaning evangelism, and those
>preaching 'ecumenism' were only betraying the true sense of the word.
>But there is no one speaking or acting for a true sense of it, and
>only for the 'false'. So maybe it's all that was ever meant by this
>vague term. Orthodox, faithful Catholics didn't use the term. And the
>entry in the CE on-line appears to be a fraud, as at least one person
>has remarked that he never saw the entry for ecumenism in the old CE,
>in the actual paper version.
Well, the Prots first organized an 'ecumenical' conference in 1910, as
I understand it. And the cite for the on-line CE is from a Volume 15,
I think, in 1912. Maybe it was some sort of addendum. But it could
also be simply a misrepresentation, and that article in the on-line CE
was rather drawn from a Catholic Dictionary of the 1960s, which seems
more likely. But since the owner of the site won't reply to me e-mails
. . . which is also why I'm suspicious.
>One perspective says the Church is ALWAYS open to heresy. Seen in this
>way, the condemnations of all heresies in the past are designed to point
>out the errors of those promoting those errors,
But the documents which bother the 'spirit of' crowd are PRECISELY
those documents from the past - 'dead magisteriums', they seem to
believe. They are preaching the same old heresies.
>in order to correct them
>and bring them back to the True Faith. Any heresy is simply a distortion
>of revealed truth, and it always comes from within the Church. Vatican
>II did not eliminate heresy from existence, nor did any other council.
>From this perspective, the aim of Councils is usually to point out and
>to refute such heresies, which inevitably keep cropping up.
That wasn't that sort of council. Remember, Vatican II was called
supposedly to complete the work of The Vatican Council, which had been
interrupted. But as Amerio points out in Iota Unum, at some point, the
very basis for the council changed to something called - pastoral -
and no matters of doctrine were proposed - contrary to the common
wisdom, today. Ecumenism is not a tenet of The Catholic Faith. Simple.
>The opposite of that perspective would be to say the Church is NEVER
>open to heresy. Seen in this way, the condemnations of heresies are
>intended to point out to the faithful, those opinions which would place
>them outside of the True Faith.
Right. And those documents are things the librals like to - forget, or
say can't possibly apply in these 'modern, enlightened', times. It's
the same old excuse.
>From this perspective, the aim of
>Councils is usually to expound upon the True Faith, thus eliminating
>heresy in that process.
>Either perspective may be valid for the purposes of discussion -- they
>are opposite in that they are complementary, not contradictory. The
>point is that the possibility of false, heretical interpretations of
>revealed truth is not something new that began with Vatican II. It is
>something that has been troubling the Church from her infancy.
Almost constantly.
>No one
>who possesses true faith believes that Vatican II began a new Church,
Ummm . . . . you need to talk to a few local pastors and bishops, I
think. I believe they consider it to be a new 'changing church', just
under the same Roman Catholic banner. Again, the movie Catholics -
bureacrats following orders, at best.
You realize the comparison that they tried to suggest there?
>that the documents of that Council stand on their own,
No exactly. They require a complete rewrite, to clearly remove the
vague language, the contradictory passages, the suggestions of heresy,
and so on.
>2) The poster states: "The teachings of The Church, the Light of Faith
>is deemed 'evil' and 'mean', the product of the 'dark age' prior to
>Vatican II, and so on. You've heard the whole canard, surely, from the
>libral 'reformers'."
>No matter who it is making statements like that, they are not obtaining
>them from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. There are some
>who have opportunistically used the Council as an excuse and as
>justification for the furtherance of their own agendas. Liberals have
>had a field day. But that is not the fault of the Council.
It sort of is. But had their been the least bit of adult
responsibility and oversight in implementing aspects of the council,
we wouldn't see what we see, today.
>Saint Paul
>warns us against using liberty as a cloak for license. If anything,
>Vatican II gave us a fresh new liberty, which we are STILL not to use as
>a cloak for license.
Fresh new liberty meaning - ecumenism?
It's a lie. That's why it will probably continue to catch on. It fits
in with relativism, multi-culturalism, the inability to assert that
Christendom was actually better than paganism - how DARE they suggest
. . . ! But you're not fooling God. And people need to speak out
against heresy, according to The Magisterium, in order to save souls.
It's not complicated.
>3)The poster states: "The whole ecumenical thing stinks, in every way,
>in its every facet and exercise, right down to its vague libral use
>suggesting one thing to the orthodox, and as a 'code word' to the
>initiated - Catholicism, at least, to the former, betrayal and heresy to
>the latter (always 'with the _best_ of intentions')."
>Has the poster even read the "Decree on Ecumenism"?
It's a pretty sad document, in my opinion.
>Because I have. It
>points out, among other things, "all who have been justified by faith in
>Baptism are members of Christ's body,
The elect, the saved. Cranmer was Baptized, was he not? Thomas
Cromwell? Martin Luther?
>and have a right to be called
>Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of
>the Catholic Church." Like it or not, any Protestant who is validly
>baptized is in fact a member of the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism
>is a true Sacrament, and there is only One Baptism.
Look, if Baptism guarantees membership in the Body of Christ when one
dies, then by your thinking - Lefebvre, Feeney, and various others
have the same claim as the Prot. Never mind that I think both might
one day be considered for Sainthood. I doubt you'd agree.
>Therefore, the
>desire for unity in One Church among all Christians is something that
>ought to be deep within the heart of every Catholic.
Umm . . . but previous Popes addressed just this canard. The Catholic
Church is unified. That's why they didn't attend that Prot
'ecumenizing' in 1910. But you continue:
>The Decree points out very clearly that that unity already in fact
>"subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose", and
>also, "it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the
>all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the
>means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings
>of the New Covenant to the Apostolic College alone, of which Peter is
>the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which
>all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of
>God."
>Far from being vague, the Decree on Ecumenism goes to great pains to lay
>down sure and certain guidelines for exactly what is true Ecumenism and
>what is not. It points out very specifically what Catholics are to do to
>promote the unity of all Christians
You lost it already, here. Look at the deeds, not the words. Assisi
was not about Protestanism, alone. I believe there, or somewhere else,
was a Buddha literally placed up on an altar (sitting right on top of
the tabernacle, was it?).
>in the One Church, the Catholic
>Church. It states clearly, "The way and method in which the Catholic
>faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our
>brethren.
Well, sure it should. If the Muslims won't accept Jesus as Lord, then
let them convert. We don't have to say - they're just fine as they
are. What we confess is too important to be indifferent about it.
>It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be
>clearly presented in its entirety.
Just look at 'new order'. Look a catechesis/RCIA/RENEW 2000, dumb
ditties, speeches by bishops, Cassidy's little missives, and so - and
so forth. Modern churchmen, the 'spirit of' gang, seem mostly
embarrassed by Catholicism, if they don't outright despise it. Not me.
>I have stated previously that the Second Vatican Council was the Council
>that, in point of fact, opened up the Catholic Church for the whole
>world to now become Catholic. It is true that the Council itself had no
>precedent. Pope John XXIII convened it under the direct inspiration of
>God the Holy Spirit, and the reasons for everything that came from the
>Council are the reasons of God the Holy Spirit Himself.
Maybe not. And there originally _was_ a basis for Vatican II, as I
said above - namely, Vatican I.
>God in fact is
>taking over the world, with Love.
Ecumenism isn't love. It's contempt for Catholicism. That's pretty
clear at this point.
>He is exercising His perogative, as
>Almighty God, to do so. He is accomplishing His Will on Earth as it is
>in Heaven, and that means, the whole world will be Catholic. Those who
>do not like the idea had better examine themselves very carefully to
>determine why they are so fundamentally lacking in charity, and correct
>the defect in themselves, with God's help. Otherwise, they will find
>fulfilled in themselves, the prophecy of Our Lord (Luke 13:28-30):
>"There will be weeping, and the gnashing of teeth, when you shall see
>Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
>but you yourselves cast forth outside. And they will come from the east
>and from the west, from the north and from the south, and will feast in
>the kingdom of God. And behold, there are those last who will be first,
>and there are those first who will be last."
And so you insist the wailing and gnashing is reserved for the Saints?
not for the infidel?
Remember - there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. And ecumenism is not a
tenet of The Faith.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Joseph Geloso
Before I begin my reply, I want to wish you and all those dear to you a
Most Happy and Blessed Christmas. It is a pleasure to converse with one who
has such a deep evident love for Catholicism.
Mark Johnson wrote:
The first Ecumencial Council was the Council of Nicaea!
> >One perspective says the Church is ALWAYS open to heresy. Seen in this
> >way, the condemnations of all heresies in the past are designed to point
> >out the errors of those promoting those errors,
>
> But the documents which bother the 'spirit of' crowd are PRECISELY
> those documents from the past - 'dead magisteriums', they seem to
> believe. They are preaching the same old heresies.
That is true, but it is they who are preaching heresies, not the Council.
They are not in the true "Spirit of Vatican II" if they are preaching
heresies, since the Spirit of Vatican II is the same Holy Spirit Who always
presides over all Church Councils (by Church I of course mean the Roman
Catholic Church).
> >in order to correct them
> >and bring them back to the True Faith. Any heresy is simply a distortion
> >of revealed truth, and it always comes from within the Church. Vatican
> >II did not eliminate heresy from existence, nor did any other council.
> >From this perspective, the aim of Councils is usually to point out and
> >to refute such heresies, which inevitably keep cropping up.
>
> That wasn't that sort of council. Remember, Vatican II was called
> supposedly to complete the work of The Vatican Council, which had been
> interrupted. But as Amerio points out in Iota Unum, at some point, the
> very basis for the council changed to something called - pastoral -
> and no matters of doctrine were proposed - contrary to the common
> wisdom, today. Ecumenism is not a tenet of The Catholic Faith. Simple.
The word "ecumenical" and the word "catholic" both have the meaning,
"universal". Also, in the words of the Nicene Creed, "we acknowledge One
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The Sacrament of Baptism, unlike the
Sacrament of Reconciliation, may be administered by anyone. In other words,
the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary to confer the Sacrament of
Baptism validly. What is required is the use of natural water and the words,
"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Any
Baptism done according to this formula, is a valid Sacramental Baptism. And
there is only One Baptism. And there is only One Church. Therefore, there is
no such thing as being baptized into the Protestant Church, since there is no
Protestant Church, there is only the Catholic Church. Those who adhere to the
belief system known as Protestantism, as long as they have been validly
baptized, are members of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church (surprise!)
They are not faithful Catholics. But should they desire to become faithful
Catholics, they would not be required to be rebaptized, since that is
impossible. At most, they are "provisionally baptized"; the ritual of the
Sacrament is carried out, and it is made clear that if the person has already
been validly baptized, they are not being baptized a second time, but if they
were not, they are being baptized for the first time. Baptism is the "gate of
entry" to the Church, and since there is only One Church, the Catholic
Church, all validly baptized Protestants are in fact separated brethren. They
are in the Catholic Church via the Gate, but they are not in full communion
with her.
>>The opposite of that perspective would be to say the Church is NEVER
>>open to heresy. Seen in this way, the condemnations of heresies are
> >intended to point out to the faithful, those opinions which would place
> >them outside of the True Faith.
>
> Right. And those documents are things the librals like to - forget, or
> say can't possibly apply in these 'modern, enlightened', times. It's
> the same old excuse.
>
> >From this perspective, the aim of
> >Councils is usually to expound upon the True Faith, thus eliminating
> >heresy in that process.
>
> >Either perspective may be valid for the purposes of discussion -- they
> >are opposite in that they are complementary, not contradictory. The
> >point is that the possibility of false, heretical interpretations of
> >revealed truth is not something new that began with Vatican II. It is
> >something that has been troubling the Church from her infancy.
>
> Almost constantly.
>
> >No one
> >who possesses true faith believes that Vatican II began a new Church,
>
> Ummm . . . . you need to talk to a few local pastors and bishops, I
> think. I believe they consider it to be a new 'changing church', just
> under the same Roman Catholic banner. Again, the movie Catholics -
> bureacrats following orders, at best.
>
> You realize the comparison that they tried to suggest there?
What you are referring to is in fact the Great Apostasy. Led by Catholic
bishops and priests in the United States of America, they sought to form what
is now known as the American Catholic Church. The American Catholic Church is
not God's Will. The Roman Catholic Church is.
> >that the documents of that Council stand on their own,
>
> No exactly. They require a complete rewrite, to clearly remove the
> vague language, the contradictory passages, the suggestions of heresy,
> and so on.
Now that would be some trick. A council to correct the errors of a previous
council! Kind of begs the question of Infallibility, don't you think? Like it
or not, we are stuck with Vatican II as it was written, or else we ourselves
become schismatic. The reality of what is happenning is that God in fact is
manifesting His Kingdom now on Earth as it is in Heaven. In that process, He
is bringing His entire world into His Catholic Church. The enemies of God are
enraged at this, both the human enemies and the demonic enemies. Thus, they
are fighting so much harder, because they are in fact losing. As stated
previously, God the Holy Spirit accomplished through the Second Vatican
Council His preparation of His Church to include all. I am not saying,
embrace all religions. I am saying, all persons will embrace the Catholic
Religion.
> >2) The poster states: "The teachings of The Church, the Light of Faith
> >is deemed 'evil' and 'mean', the product of the 'dark age' prior to
> >Vatican II, and so on. You've heard the whole canard, surely, from the
> >libral 'reformers'."
>
> >No matter who it is making statements like that, they are not obtaining
> >them from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. There are some
> >who have opportunistically used the Council as an excuse and as
> >justification for the furtherance of their own agendas. Liberals have
> >had a field day. But that is not the fault of the Council.
>
> It sort of is. But had their been the least bit of adult
> responsibility and oversight in implementing aspects of the council,
> we wouldn't see what we see, today.
It not really is at all, no. It was the responsiblity of Catholic Bishops
worldwide, following the Council, to invite the whole world to become
Catholic. By and large, they failed to do so, seeking instead to advance
their own political agendas rather than seeking the Will of God The Holy
Spirit.
The "reforms" of Vatican II were explicitly designed to remove all obstacles
to the whole world becoming Catholic. Part of what the Second Vatican Council
called for was dialogue. In the very short span of time since the Council, we
have entered the Communications Age. Those who take the opportunity of such
increased dialogue and increased possibility for communications to form
political alliances instead of preaching the Gospel, are in fact pursuing
their own wills, not God's Will.
> >Saint Paul
> >warns us against using liberty as a cloak for license. If anything,
> >Vatican II gave us a fresh new liberty, which we are STILL not to use as
> >a cloak for license.
>
> Fresh new liberty meaning - ecumenism?
>
No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
fluently understand, Reconciliation face to face with a renewed emphasis on
God's Gift of Counsel, things like that.
>
> It's a lie. That's why it will probably continue to catch on. It fits
> in with relativism, multi-culturalism, the inability to assert that
> Christendom was actually better than paganism - how DARE they suggest
> . . . ! But you're not fooling God. And people need to speak out
> against heresy, according to The Magisterium, in order to save souls.
> It's not complicated.
>
Relativism is heresy. Multi-culturalism (I do not mean religious pluralism)
is charity. And the inability to assert that Christendom was actually better
than paganism is cowardice. Simple enough? I have no desire to try to fool
anybody, least of all God.
> >3)The poster states: "The whole ecumenical thing stinks, in every way,
> >in its every facet and exercise, right down to its vague libral use
> >suggesting one thing to the orthodox, and as a 'code word' to the
> >initiated - Catholicism, at least, to the former, betrayal and heresy to
> >the latter (always 'with the _best_ of intentions')."
>
> >Has the poster even read the "Decree on Ecumenism"?
>
> It's a pretty sad document, in my opinion.
It doesn't matter what "your opinion" is, in the least. You are very welcome
to overcome your own opinion and conform to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church, among which, Vatican II. The Pope does not require your
opinion.
> >Because I have. It
> >points out, among other things, "all who have been justified by faith in
> >Baptism are members of Christ's body,
>
> The elect, the saved. Cranmer was Baptized, was he not? Thomas
> Cromwell? Martin Luther?
>
I am unfamiliar with the first two names, as to Martin Luther, he was and is
a Catholic priest. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like the Sacrament of
Baptism, creates an indelible "character" in the soul. No one can ever become
un-baptized, and no one can ever cease to become un-ordained. I don't know
why you use the words, "the elect, the saved" -- the Catholic sense of those
words is, respectively, the predestinate, and the Blessed in Heaven. It is
not at all clear that Martin Luther is among them, but in point of fact, he
was justified by faith in Baptism, just as you were. If he later lost that
justification by sins of pride, and never regained it, that would make him
one of the reprobate, and his status as a priest would then increase his
torment.
>
> >and have a right to be called
> >Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of
> >the Catholic Church." Like it or not, any Protestant who is validly
> >baptized is in fact a member of the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism
> >is a true Sacrament, and there is only One Baptism.
>
> Look, if Baptism guarantees membership in the Body of Christ when one
> dies, then by your thinking - Lefebvre, Feeney, and various others
> have the same claim as the Prot. Never mind that I think both might
> one day be considered for Sainthood. I doubt you'd agree.
I never said all the baptized would be saved -- but if Baptism doesn't make
one a Member of the Body of Christ, then what does, in your opinion? Faith?
Morals? Going to Church? Conversion of Heart? I believe the constant teaching
of the Church is that Baptism confers membership in the Body of Christ, and I
think you also know this. I am not saying the practice of Protestantism can
possibly save anyone. In fact, it cannot. Only in the Catholic Church can one
find salvation. But if a Protestant baptizes a child, and that child then
dies before reaching the age of reason, that child would certainly be saved
in the Catholic Church, by that Baptism. Never mind that the person
administering the Baptism was a Protestant. If it was Baptism by water, and
in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then it was
a valid (i.e., Catholic) Baptism.
> >Therefore, the
> >desire for unity in One Church among all Christians is something that
> >ought to be deep within the heart of every Catholic.
>
> Umm . . . but previous Popes addressed just this canard. The Catholic
> Church is unified. That's why they didn't attend that Prot
> 'ecumenizing' in 1910. But you continue:
>
> >The Decree points out very clearly that that unity already in fact
> >"subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose", and
> >also, "it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the
> >all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the
> >means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings
> >of the New Covenant to the Apostolic College alone, of which Peter is
> >the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which
> >all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of
> >God."
>
> >Far from being vague, the Decree on Ecumenism goes to great pains to lay
> >down sure and certain guidelines for exactly what is true Ecumenism and
> >what is not. It points out very specifically what Catholics are to do to
> >promote the unity of all Christians
>
> You lost it already, here. Look at the deeds, not the words. Assisi
> was not about Protestanism, alone. I believe there, or somewhere else,
> was a Buddha literally placed up on an altar (sitting right on top of
> the tabernacle, was it?).
I don't know what was done there. I am familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi,
but I don't think you are referring to him. I cannot speak for others. I can
only say that I have lived my entire life in the post-Vatican II Church, and
my practice of Catholicism consist in Devotion to the Eucharist, the Mass,
and the Rosary; obedience to the Holy Father, and the practice of True
Devotion to Mary as expounded by Saint Louis deMontfort. I have found the
authentic Catholic Faith through reading the Saints and the Documents,
through personal prayer, and through association with individuals who have
led me closer to God (including Saints). I constantly invite my non-Catholic
friends to attend Mass with me. I know they cannot receive Holy Communion,
and I inform them of this condition. But I make it crystal clear that they
are always welcome to attend, even if they cannot receive.
> >in the One Church, the Catholic
> >Church. It states clearly, "The way and method in which the Catholic
> >faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our
> >brethren.
>
> Well, sure it should. If the Muslims won't accept Jesus as Lord, then
> let them convert. We don't have to say - they're just fine as they
> are. What we confess is too important to be indifferent about it.
>
You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church. If the
council tells us the way we present the faith should not become an obstacle
to dialogue, then you as a Catholic should find ways to express the faith
that do not present an obstacle. Perhaps this is because both God and the
Council realize the importance of simple respect for human beings with
God-given intelligence. They acknowledge that the opposite of dialogue is
monologue, and dialogue is almost always much more productive. Some people
have questions about the faith, and some people have misconceptions about
what the faith actually teaches. To come at one of these people with, "if you
are not Catholic, you will burn in hell," might possibly make the Catholic
Church sound arrogant in the extreme (when really she is supposed to be
humble in the extreme), which in turn might cause that person to say, "well
obviously they don't have the truth. Christ was NEVER arrogant!" and the end
result is that an opportunity for conversion was lost. You have to keep in
mind that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and of Love. A person who
is seeking the truth, is moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. Such a one may
come to a Catholic asking questions. He may have heard very many negative
things about the Church, but is honestly seeking the truth for himself. He is
not solidly grounded in the truth yet. The worst thing a Catholic could do in
this situation, assuming everything the Catholic says is true, would be to
present that truth in such a way as to turn that person off, to drive them
away. Not all truths are of the variety, "milk", some of them are "meat", and
will only choke an infant in Christ.
The teaching of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (No Salvation Outside the
Church) is in fact a Catholic teaching, intended for the instruction of
Catholics. It is intended to make clear to those within the Church, that they
cannot find salvation outside of her, and they must remain within her. It
probably does very little to convince those outside the Church that it is in
fact true, since it very definitely rests on a deep appreciation of the very
perfect totality and catholicity of the Catholic Faith. It is not something
that one who is unfamiliar with the faith has any basis for appreciating --
for him, it is merely the assertion made by a particular body claiming to
have the fullness of truth. It SOUNDS arrogant, and the only way it does not
sound arrogant is if it is true. And the only way it appears true is after
deeper investigation. So we want to encourage that investigation, and the
best way to do this is dialogue. In point of fact, I have very many friends
who are currently non-Catholic. I do not place obstacles to dialogue with
them, they are my friends. At the same time, they are all aware of my
fidelity to Roman Catholicism. When we discuss the faith (and we have done so
many times) I have always made it clear that the Catholic Church alone
possesses true faith. I do not water it down. But I try my best to present it
in such a way as to get them asking more questions. I say things like, "I am
not going to lie to you. The Catholic Church is the One Only Church founded
by Jesus Christ." My friends appreciate my candor, and that only builds their
respect for me, and by their respect for me, their respect for that Church
that made me what I am (at least, the good parts).
> >It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be
> >clearly presented in its entirety.
>
> Just look at 'new order'. Look a catechesis/RCIA/RENEW 2000, dumb
> ditties, speeches by bishops, Cassidy's little missives, and so - and
> so forth. Modern churchmen, the 'spirit of' gang, seem mostly
> embarrassed by Catholicism, if they don't outright despise it. Not me.
It is obvious that you love the Catholic Church. Anyone who is embarrassed by
it, Our Lord says He will be embarrassed by them before His Father. It is on
their own heads.
> >I have stated previously that the Second Vatican Council was the Council
> >that, in point of fact, opened up the Catholic Church for the whole
> >world to now become Catholic. It is true that the Council itself had no
> >precedent. Pope John XXIII convened it under the direct inspiration of
> >God the Holy Spirit, and the reasons for everything that came from the
> >Council are the reasons of God the Holy Spirit Himself.
>
> Maybe not. And there originally _was_ a basis for Vatican II, as I
> said above - namely, Vatican I.
>
> >God in fact is
> >taking over the world, with Love.
>
> Ecumenism isn't love. It's contempt for Catholicism. That's pretty
> clear at this point.
No, what you have been referring to is the spread of lies and the loss of the
true faith. Ecumenism is exactly what it is defined to be in the Decree on
Ecumenism, to wit:
The Restoration of unity among all Christians... Christ the Lord founded one
Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions ... differ in
mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such
division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and
damages the cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
> >He is exercising His perogative, as
> >Almighty God, to do so. He is accomplishing His Will on Earth as it is
> >in Heaven, and that means, the whole world will be Catholic. Those who
> >do not like the idea had better examine themselves very carefully to
> >determine why they are so fundamentally lacking in charity, and correct
> >the defect in themselves, with God's help. Otherwise, they will find
> >fulfilled in themselves, the prophecy of Our Lord (Luke 13:28-30):
> >"There will be weeping, and the gnashing of teeth, when you shall see
> >Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
> >but you yourselves cast forth outside. And they will come from the east
> >and from the west, from the north and from the south, and will feast in
> >the kingdom of God. And behold, there are those last who will be first,
> >and there are those first who will be last."
>
> And so you insist the wailing and gnashing is reserved for the Saints?
> not for the infidel?
No, I insist that the wailing and gnashing of teeth is reserved for those who
reject charity, no matter what their faith. Saints with a capital "S" refers
to canonized Catholic Saints. Of course I do not insist anything like what
you have said about them. You are confusing the term "traditionalist" with
the term "Saint". And by "traditionalist", I mena specifically, those who
reject Vatican II. I am not saying, close your eyes to the heresy. I am not
saying, water down the truth. I am saying, obey the Catholic Church, from the
Immaculate Conception all the way to the End of Time.
> Remember - there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. And ecumenism is not a
> tenet of The Faith.
No. But then neither are poverty, chastity, and obedience tenets of the
faith. They are just highly reccommended courses of action.
> Peace.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> * When one finds nothing more to say to God,
> * but just knows He is there --
> * that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
>
> [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Peace and Good,
Joseph.
Mark Johnson
>The first Ecumencial Council was the Council of Nicaea!
By which you meant to say that the term ecumenism has been clearly
understood since early in the Church's history? An ecumenical council
is not the same as the ecumenical movement. As I understand it, that
was founded by Protestants in this century, perhaps for all the best
intentions, and originally meant only to share resources and promote
the Prot 'good news'. It's clearly spread to include everyone from
'Tilackians' (forget exactly) to the Dalai Lama. And while earlier
Popes refused to be associated with this movement, clearly the
'conciliar' Popes have been of a different mind. The results are plain
to see - desacralization, the loss of faith even in Ireland,
indifferentism, RCIA/RENEW 2000 and assorted, dancing girls and bongo
drums, and whatever else you can find mentioned at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies -
Ecumenism (which is in the 'other' box). That is, the 'outreach' has
come while the institutional church was transformed away from God, and
toward the spirit of the world.
>That is true, but it is they who are preaching heresies, not the Council.
>They are not in the true "Spirit of Vatican II"
Who with real authority but a few - and only in recent years - have
spoken to the contrary? And the damage has been done, and those raised
Catholic have, many of them, 'moved on'. Ottaviani and Bacci were
right, as were the rest. But who listened to them?
>if they are preaching
>heresies, since the Spirit of Vatican II is the same Holy Spirit Who always
>presides over all Church Councils (by Church I of course mean the Roman
>Catholic Church).
The idea more specifically is that God, The Holy Spirit, protects
general, ecumenical doctrinal councils (which all such have been but
Vatican II, I believe) from error in de fide explicit rulings, by even
just the tacit acceptance by His Holiness. And as even you suggest
above, for all the flaws in the Vatican II documents, again, had the
'reformers' paid the slightest heed to even that, we wouldn't have
seen 'new order', itself, much less the iconoclasm, and the rest.
Ecumenism remains a particular trouble spot, in retrospect.
>Also, in the words of the Nicene Creed, "we acknowledge One
>Baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The Sacrament of Baptism, unlike the
>Sacrament of Reconciliation, may be administered by anyone. In other words,
>the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary to confer the Sacrament of
>Baptism validly. What is required is the use of natural water and the words,
>"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Any
>Baptism done according to this formula, is a valid Sacramental Baptism.
It depends, and on intention as well (the real problematic bit, of
course, with the consecration of the host, given the fraud for the
wine, in 'new order'). Conditional Baptism was literally part of the
rite for new converts, until those 'pre-Vat II dark ages' were put
behind us.
>there is only One Baptism. And there is only One Church. Therefore, there is
>no such thing as being baptized into the Protestant Church, since there is no
>Protestant Church, there is only the Catholic Church.
Doesn't work like that. A Protestant is not Catholic. In order for a
Protestant to be Catholic, he or she must convert to Catholicism - and
particularly NOT to the Reformed Catholicism now paraded around most
every neighborhood parish. That juxtaposition, alone, should be enough
to open anyone's eyes to the truth behind ecumenism.
>were not, they are being baptized for the first time. Baptism is the "gate of
>entry" to the Church, and since there is only One Church, the Catholic
>Church, all validly baptized Protestants are in fact separated brethren.
All people are obv 'separated brethren'. Why leave out the Dalai Lama?
Wasn't he also at Assisi?
>> Ummm . . . . you need to talk to a few local pastors and bishops, I
>> think. I believe they consider it to be a new 'changing church', just
>> under the same Roman Catholic banner. Again, the movie Catholics -
>> bureacrats following orders, at best.
>> You realize the comparison that they tried to suggest there?
>What you are referring to is in fact the Great Apostasy. Led by Catholic
>bishops and priests in the United States of America, they sought to form what
>is now known as the American Catholic Church. The American Catholic Church is
>not God's Will. The Roman Catholic Church is.
The AmChurch is just the part of the rot of the 'spirit of Vatican
II'.
>Now that would be some trick. A council to correct the errors of a previous
>council! Kind of begs the question of Infallibility, don't you think?
Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
infallible.
>or not, we are stuck with Vatican II as it was written, or else we ourselves
>become schismatic.
We become heretics if we side with heresy. Catholics don't obey
illegal orders. I don't mean to spoil that old film, if you wanted
also to get the vid, but the script had it that obedience to 'Vatican
IV' and the denial of The Eucharist was through an abbott who had
entirely lost his faith. If the bishop says - get out and drive your
car into a crowd of people at the shopping mall - do you? So if that's
an order you will not obey, could there be others, suggesting
something not at all physically violent, but even more spiritually
violent?
>The reality of what is happenning is that God in fact is
>manifesting His Kingdom now on Earth as it is in Heaven.
That's not what's happening. What's happening is that the
institutional church, through intrigues and threats, secret deals and
meetings, long term designs, and so on, guided not by coordinated
conferences in secret dungeons, but by unseen coordinated and
malevolent evil, is now on track with those pursuing similar things in
the political world. Welcome to the NWO. We fight not against flesh
and blood. It was never more true than in the age of the 'spirit of
Vatican II'. Catholics, remember, are now the enemy of the
institutional churchmen, in so many cases, in so many ways. It's
nothing new. Churchmen have never been universally Saintly. But
something changed when they got their hands on The Mass itself.
Something fundamental changed. I think they think they've won the war.
But it's a war they just can't win.
>In that process, He
>is bringing His entire world into His Catholic Church. The enemies of God are
>enraged at this,
No, again - they think the game's over. They've won. The few remaining
Catholics will be dealt with, as it were, at some point. Remember that
indifferentism and Buddha sitting on the altar is NOT . . Catholicism.
How successful the traditionalist movement will be in turning things
around, by the help of God's grace, is yet to be seen. But it's from
that direction that the virus will be cured.
>Council His preparation of His Church to include all. I am not saying,
>embrace all religions. I am saying, all persons will embrace the Catholic
>Religion.
But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
Christmas, after all.
>The "reforms" of Vatican II were explicitly designed to remove all obstacles
>to the whole world becoming Catholic.
There had been no obstacles to remove. Don't you see?
>Part of what the Second Vatican Council
>called for was dialogue.
What did St. Patrick "call for"? Why did Our Lord not establish the
ecumenical movement with the Samaritans, with the Jews themselves
whose priesthood literally connived to have Him unjustly slain? You
can read Scripture for yourself for the answer to that. That
'ecumenism' is even taken seriously is more a matter that many are
called, but few are chosen.
>In the very short span of time since the Council, we
>have entered the Communications Age. Those who take the opportunity of such
>increased dialogue and increased possibility for communications to form
>political alliances instead of preaching the Gospel, are in fact pursuing
>their own wills, not God's Will.
God's Will is that there is no salvation outside The Church. And not
just anybody is a member of The Church. To claim otherwise, is fraud,
and heresy. Catholicism is important. It's the truth. It's worth
defending, when called upon to do so.
>> Fresh new liberty meaning - ecumenism?
>No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
>fluently understand,
The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
extensive collection of old missals, myself.
>Reconciliation face to face
By itself, it seems a matter of mere discipline, though it does
concern the Sacrament. But in the context, and particularly the
Catholic Reformed distaste for Penance, itself, it stinks.
>Relativism is heresy. Multi-culturalism (I do not mean religious pluralism)
>is charity.
Multi-culturalism is pretty much a libral/socialist invention, meant
to rob the west of the remnants, even, of Christendom - among other
things (follow the money, right?).
>It doesn't matter what "your opinion" is, in the least. You are very welcome
>to overcome your own opinion and conform to the teachings of the Roman
>Catholic Church, among which, Vatican II.
Well now, wait a minute. Vatican II, again, was not a doctrinal
council, by their own confession - it merely started out to be.
Doctrine remains that which THEY formally confessed. Remember? What
THEY said of Trent, and Vatican I, and so on. That the 'reformers'
could have cared less about Catholic teaching should not confuse you
into thinking that that is now what passing for Catholic doctrine.
>The Pope does not require your opinion.
There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
some, it seems.
>> The elect, the saved. Cranmer was Baptized, was he not? Thomas
>> Cromwell? Martin Luther?
>I am unfamiliar with the first two names,
Thomas Cranmer. Catholic Archbishop in England under King Henry. If
you'd like to learn more, as the commercial goes, read Belloc's bio
titled, simply - Cranmer. I can quote if you'd like. Let me know.
>as to Martin Luther, he was and is a Catholic priest.
>The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like the Sacrament of
>Baptism, creates an indelible "character" in the soul. No one can ever become
>un-baptized, and no one can ever cease to become un-ordained. I don't know
>why you use the words, "the elect, the saved" -- the Catholic sense of those
>words is, respectively, the predestinate, and the Blessed in Heaven.
Those are the same. You don't think someone slipped in unexpectedly,
do you?
>not at all clear that Martin Luther is among them,
Let's just say, he's not.
>but in point of fact, he
>was justified by faith in Baptism, just as you were. If he later lost that
>justification by sins of pride, and never regained it, that would make him
>one of the reprobate, and his status as a priest would then increase his
>torment.
Umm . . . you were trying to make the point, though, that somehow the
Prot is saved by Baptism, were you not? and need never consider
conversion to The Church?
>> Look, if Baptism guarantees membership in the Body of Christ when one
>> dies, then by your thinking - Lefebvre, Feeney, and various others
>> have the same claim as the Prot. Never mind that I think both might
>> one day be considered for Sainthood. I doubt you'd agree.
>I never said all the baptized would be saved -- but if Baptism doesn't make
>one a Member of the Body of Christ, then what does, in your opinion?
"My" opinion? How about Church teaching, here? Do you have
Denzinger's, or Ott, for ex. The Roman Catechism is on-line in various
places. And as dicey as the on-line CE appears to be (I _still_
haven't gotten an answer on that ecumenism entry), what does it say
there?
>think you also know this. I am not saying the practice of Protestantism can
>possibly save anyone.
The Church allows that it's possible to be saved without conversion.
And the distinction was always drawn between the formal and material
heretic. But that's a far cry from ecumenism.
>In fact, it cannot. Only in the Catholic Church can one
>find salvation. But if a Protestant baptizes a child, and that child then
>dies before reaching the age of reason, that child would certainly be saved
>in the Catholic Church, by that Baptism.
So all Prot Baptisms are necessarily valid? Why conditional Baptism,
at all, then? What were they thinking? As for the place where
innocents go, I don't know that it's required we believe, but surely
if they have not willfully sinned against God, even if they are
removed to hell, in some way, it would not be that which is reserved
for those meant to suffer terrible and unimaginable abandonment and
torture.
>> You lost it already, here. Look at the deeds, not the words. Assisi
>> was not about Protestanism, alone. I believe there, or somewhere else,
>> was a Buddha literally placed up on an altar (sitting right on top of
>> the tabernacle, was it?).
>I don't know what was done there. I am familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi,
>but I don't think you are referring to him.
I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
ecumenism. I have some links at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
>and the Rosary; obedience to the Holy Father, and the practice of True
>Devotion to Mary as expounded by Saint Louis deMontfort. I have found the
>authentic Catholic Faith through reading the Saints and the Documents,
Umm . . the documents of Vatican II? the latter additions? and so on.
It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
the very least.
>> Well, sure it should. If the Muslims won't accept Jesus as Lord, then
>> let them convert. We don't have to say - they're just fine as they
>> are. What we confess is too important to be indifferent about it.
>You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean. Ecumenism is not part
of the Catholic Faith, not as the term is applied. Evangelism is. Go
and teach - not go and make nice-nice. If your religion is not
something you want others to share, others are going to think it's not
something they should. I think _you'd_ agree with that.
>that do not present an obstacle. Perhaps this is because both God and the
>Council realize the importance of simple respect for human beings with
>God-given intelligence.
What about people who are impaired? Our basic dignity is that God was
made Man, that we are made in the Image of God. Doesn't matter if we
lie unconscious in a hospital bed, with some 'angel of death' ready to
'mercy' murder us.
>They acknowledge that the opposite of dialogue is
>monologue, and dialogue is almost always much more productive.
Productive of what? Heresy? Certainly the missionaries who followed
the Evangelists learned the ways of the people they wished to convert.
The history is full of their example, in every part of the world.
Never mind the self-serving and fictitious PC cant of the present day.
But 'dialogue' does not mean desacralization and then - hey, let's
extend the hand of friendship (cause maybe they won't be so mad, now).
It's a betrayal of what so many great Saints . . . died for.
>Some people
>have questions about the faith, and some people have misconceptions about
>what the faith actually teaches. To come at one of these people with, "if you
>are not Catholic, you will burn in hell," might possibly make the Catholic
>Church sound arrogant in the extreme
Well, I can only imagine, then, that you figure Christ kind of
unnecessarily brought it on . . Himself . . . when he often chastized
the Pharisees? If only he'd been less 'pre-Vatican II'?
Oh wait, He was pre-Vatican II (and you knew I'd say that).
>obviously they don't have the truth. Christ was NEVER arrogant!"
But what sort of 'dialogue' was that with the Pharisees? How about His
Prophet, The Baptist? Acted much the same toward the holy men.
>result is that an opportunity for conversion was lost.
Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
>things about the Church, but is honestly seeking the truth for himself. He is
>not solidly grounded in the truth yet. The worst thing a Catholic could do in
>this situation, assuming everything the Catholic says is true, would be to
>present that truth in such a way as to turn that person off,
Hardly. How do you think _I_ would up a Catholic, again. I was raised
Catholic, but fell away in college. It's kind of what 'the system' is
set up just to do. I returned gradually through evangelical
Protestantism. But it seemed goofier and goofier, and Catholicism was
seeming more and more sure - after reading Chesterton, even Lewis, and
how I got into the sermons of Francis de Sales, I can't recall. So I
decided to finally head back to church and encountered - that's right
- RCIA! But I'm Catholic, today, despite my treatment there, and the
things I began to notice, increasingly in the parishes. You have to
give people some credit, as well, you do.
>The teaching of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (No Salvation Outside the
>Church) is in fact a Catholic teaching, intended for the instruction of
>Catholics. It is intended to make clear to those within the Church, that they
>cannot find salvation outside of her, and they must remain within her. It
>probably does very little to convince those outside the Church that it is in
>fact true, since it very definitely rests on a deep appreciation of the very
>perfect totality and catholicity of the Catholic Faith.
And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
we say because otherwise we'll drive them away. It's just not how it
works. And ecumenism - doesn't work. A 'new world religion' isn't
Catholic. Catholics will still be hated. We just might find it a tad
easier to be martyred, if we don't happen to live in Africa or Asia.
Ecumenism encourages the attack upon The Church, which has always been
the design of the devil.
>> Just look at 'new order'. Look a catechesis/RCIA/RENEW 2000, dumb
>> ditties, speeches by bishops, Cassidy's little missives, and so - and
>> so forth. Modern churchmen, the 'spirit of' gang, seem mostly
>> embarrassed by Catholicism, if they don't outright despise it. Not me.
>It is obvious that you love the Catholic Church. Anyone who is embarrassed by
>it, Our Lord says He will be embarrassed by them before His Father. It is on
>their own heads.
And it's on ours if we stand silently by and say nothing, if given the
opportunity (however slight - this being UseNet, and all). I am
talking evangelization, here. That's why I'm not talking ecumenism.
>> Ecumenism isn't love. It's contempt for Catholicism. That's pretty
>> clear at this point.
>No, what you have been referring to is the spread of lies and the loss of the
>true faith. Ecumenism is exactly what it is defined to be in the Decree on
>Ecumenism, to wit:
>The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
>Christ the Lord founded one
>Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions ... differ in
>mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such
>division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and
>damages the cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
Umm . yeah - right. That's why - conversion to The Church. The Church
is One, it is unified. Prots . . . are not Catholic. Neither is the
Dalai Lama.
>> And so you insist the wailing and gnashing is reserved for the Saints?
>> not for the infidel?
>No, I insist that the wailing and gnashing of teeth is reserved for those who
>reject charity, no matter what their faith.
Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
>Saints with a capital "S" refers
>to canonized Catholic Saints.
No, any Saint. We just don't called someone St. so and so if they have
not been officially declared as such - and apparently a certain
Philomena met with some 'spirit of' re-evalution?
>Of course I do not insist anything like what
>you have said about them. You are confusing the term "traditionalist" with
>the term "Saint". And by "traditionalist", I mena specifically, those who
>reject Vatican II.
What's to reject? It was a pastoral council. Doctrine is what it
always was, with the addition of Paul VI's memo on Mary (compared with
the voluminous 'social issues' . . well - anyhow). And it's the
doctrine that so bugs the 'reformers'. It's how you make 'em mad -
suggest Catholics actually believe in that 'religious stuff'. Hey - I
got a parish to run, here, you know?
Like I said, bad pastors, wicked bishops. Nothing new. But they just
never got to The Mass, before. Things have changed, fundamentally,
because of Paul VI's unholy promulgation of the 'new order'. Simple.
If you want to say I reject _that_ - please go right ahead.
>I am not saying, close your eyes to the heresy. I am not
>saying, water down the truth.
Actually . . .
>I am saying, obey the Catholic Church,
But there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. We know - what Catholics
believe. And if we know the order is illegal, we don't say - I was
just following orders. But, it's just as I wrote:
>> Remember - there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. And ecumenism is not a
>> tenet of The Faith.
>No. But then neither are poverty, chastity, and obedience tenets of the
>faith. They are just highly reccommended courses of action.
Obedience to what, though? It begs the question.
Merry Christmas!
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 ]
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The first Ecumencial Council was the Council of Nicaea!
>
> By which you meant to say that the term ecumenism has been clearly
> understood since early in the Church's history? An ecumenical council
> is not the same as the ecumenical movement. As I understand it, that
> was founded by Protestants in this century, perhaps for all the best
> intentions, and originally meant only to share resources and promote
> the Prot 'good news'. It's clearly spread to include everyone from
> 'Tilackians' (forget exactly) to the Dalai Lama. And while earlier
> Popes refused to be associated with this movement, clearly the
> 'conciliar' Popes have been of a different mind. The results are plain
> to see - desacralization, the loss of faith even in Ireland,
> indifferentism, RCIA/RENEW 2000 and assorted, dancing girls and bongo
> drums, and whatever else you can find mentioned at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies -
> Ecumenism (which is in the 'other' box). That is, the 'outreach' has
> come while the institutional church was transformed away from God, and
> toward the spirit of the world.
*I* have not been transformed (I can't resist saying, assimiliated) toward the
spirit of the world. I don't know how much more clear I can make this to you: I
firmly believe Salvation comes only and exclusively through the One, Holy,
Catholic, Apostolic Chruch, by which, in order to further distinguish it from
others who use that in their creeds, I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the one
with the succesor to Saint Peter at its head, Pope John Paul II. I just want you
to be clear on this before we go any further. There is an unresolvable issue about
the validity of the Novus Ordo, and I will assume you mean the issue of "for many"
vs. "for all". We disagree on this point, and I will address that later in my
post. But let us be clear from this point on that I love the Catholic Church, and
I give testimony at every opportunity of the Catholic Faith, not watered down at
all. I will reiterate this at every place below where your words can be construed
as an implication or accusation by you that I water down the faith.
>
>
> >That is true, but it is they who are preaching heresies, not the Council.
> >They are not in the true "Spirit of Vatican II"
>
> Who with real authority but a few - and only in recent years - have
> spoken to the contrary? And the damage has been done, and those raised
> Catholic have, many of them, 'moved on'. Ottaviani and Bacci were
> right, as were the rest. But who listened to them?
Anyone who leaves the Catholic Faith does so at their own peril. *You* came back,
and so did I.
> >if they are preaching
> >heresies, since the Spirit of Vatican II is the same Holy Spirit Who always
> >presides over all Church Councils (by Church I of course mean the Roman
> >Catholic Church).
>
> The idea more specifically is that God, The Holy Spirit, protects
> general, ecumenical doctrinal councils (which all such have been but
> Vatican II, I believe) from error in de fide explicit rulings, by even
> just the tacit acceptance by His Holiness. And as even you suggest
> above, for all the flaws in the Vatican II documents, again, had the
> 'reformers' paid the slightest heed to even that, we wouldn't have
> seen 'new order', itself, much less the iconoclasm, and the rest.
> Ecumenism remains a particular trouble spot, in retrospect.
>
> >Also, in the words of the Nicene Creed, "we acknowledge One
> >Baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The Sacrament of Baptism, unlike the
> >Sacrament of Reconciliation, may be administered by anyone. In other words,
> >the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary to confer the Sacrament of
> >Baptism validly. What is required is the use of natural water and the words,
> >"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Any
> >Baptism done according to this formula, is a valid Sacramental Baptism.
>
> It depends, and on intention as well (the real problematic bit, of
> course, with the consecration of the host, given the fraud for the
> wine, in 'new order'). Conditional Baptism was literally part of the
> rite for new converts, until those 'pre-Vat II dark ages' were put
> behind us.
Conditional Baptism is *still* part of the rite, and it is used whenever the
validity of the original Baptism can be legitimately questioned. For example, some
sects baptize their members, "In the Name of Jesus Christ". The would be a defect
of form.
> >there is only One Baptism. And there is only One Church. Therefore, there is
> >no such thing as being baptized into the Protestant Church, since there is no
> >Protestant Church, there is only the Catholic Church.
>
> Doesn't work like that. A Protestant is not Catholic. In order for a
> Protestant to be Catholic, he or she must convert to Catholicism - and
> particularly NOT to the Reformed Catholicism now paraded around most
> every neighborhood parish. That juxtaposition, alone, should be enough
> to open anyone's eyes to the truth behind ecumenism.
Are you saying there is a such thing as the Protestant Church? Protestantism is
not a second Church, as if there could be more than one. It is a heresy that
became propagated successfully largely due to Martin Luther's knowledge of the
recently invented printing press. They are people who believe only certain
selected elements of the one only Catholic Faith, therefore, they are not
Catholics, as far as their mindset goes. My point is, that one of the elements
they have selected is water Baptism according to the Trinitarian Formula. There is
no defect of form in such baptisms, therefore they must be valid. There is only
one Body of Christ, and all those validly baptized are members of that one Body.
To think otherwise is to think the Sacrament needs more than it needs to effect
God's Will.
> >were not, they are being baptized for the first time. Baptism is the "gate of
> >entry" to the Church, and since there is only One Church, the Catholic
> >Church, all validly baptized Protestants are in fact separated brethren.
>
>
> All people are obv 'separated brethren'. Why leave out the Dalai Lama?
> Wasn't he also at Assisi?
In point of fact there is a very real difference between your average Methodist
and your average Buddhist. The very real difference is, as I am sure you can
predict I will say, Baptism. I believe that all men are brothers, in that all are
descended from Adam (and Noah), and I believe that all are the objects of God's
Love and of His desire to save them. That is why He created His Church.
Protestants, provided they have been validly baptized, have the distinction of
being already incorporated into the Body of Christ, therefore it is more proper to
speak of them as separated brethren because they, in contrast to the Dalai Lama,
are already "born again of water and the Holy Spirit." They are already
regenerated, and already adopted sons of God the Father.
> >> Ummm . . . . you need to talk to a few local pastors and bishops, I
> >> think. I believe they consider it to be a new 'changing church', just
> >> under the same Roman Catholic banner. Again, the movie Catholics -
> >> bureacrats following orders, at best.
>
> >> You realize the comparison that they tried to suggest there?
>
> >What you are referring to is in fact the Great Apostasy. Led by Catholic
> >bishops and priests in the United States of America, they sought to form what
> >is now known as the American Catholic Church. The American Catholic Church is
> >not God's Will. The Roman Catholic Church is.
>
> The AmChurch is just the part of the rot of the 'spirit of Vatican
> II'.
There you go again with the 'spirit of Vatican II', in quotes. You are referring
to the distortion of Catholic teaching promulgated by those who have used Vatican
II as an excuse and self-justification for their sins of pride. You place it in
quotes because those wolves in sheep's clothing use those words, 'the spirit of
Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II. I have used the term
"the American Catholic Church" because it is clear what I mean by that. And just
in case it is not crystal clear, the American Catholic Church is NOT the Roman
Catholic Church in America, it is those Roman Catholics who have broken away from
the Roman Catholic Church by hidden schism. It is called hidden not because they
are getting away with it, but because they have not openly declared it. At least,
Luther made a formal break with Rome. He didn't try to pretend he was still being
faithful to Catholicism, but the insidious thing about the Americanists is that
they do pretend to be faithful. Mixed with Americanism (a heresy condemned by
Saint Pius X) in the American Catholic Church is Modernism (another heresy
condemned by the same Saint Pius X). If what you are referring to as the 'spirit
of Vatican II' is in fact the spirit of the American Catholic Church, I wish you
would say so. It is confusing to me when you keep using that term, because the
Second Vatican Council was a council of the Roman Catholic Church, and I am
faithful to it. "American Catholic Church" is a recognizable name referring to a
very specific group. Far from being "just part of the rot of, etc..." -- they are
the whole rot. That is what I mean by American Catholic Church. I mean the
entireity of those bishops, priests and laity in schism from the Roman Catholic
Church, in that particular body of schistmatics that seek the Americanization of
the Church worldwide. Their schism was, as I have said, hidden. It is now no
longer hidden, because that cannot remain hidden which comes to light. And that
body of schismatics is now definitely identified as the American Catholic Church.
I am not making this up.
> >Now that would be some trick. A council to correct the errors of a previous
> >council! Kind of begs the question of Infallibility, don't you think?
>
> Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
> dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
> infallible.
Actually, it is not "suddenly" infallible -- the day to day teaching of the Holy
Father and those bishops in union with him comes under the heading of
Infallibility. The extraordinary use of Infallibility in the pronouncement of
Catholic Dogma is reserved for only one, the Pope. Historically, this
extraordinary Magisterium is seldom exercised. But the ordinary Magisterium is
still infallible. A "pastoral" council would be an example of the exercise of the
ordinary Magisterium.
> >or not, we are stuck with Vatican II as it was written, or else we ourselves
> >become schismatic.
>
> We become heretics if we side with heresy. Catholics don't obey
> illegal orders. I don't mean to spoil that old film, if you wanted
> also to get the vid, but the script had it that obedience to 'Vatican
> IV' and the denial of The Eucharist was through an abbott who had
> entirely lost his faith. If the bishop says - get out and drive your
> car into a crowd of people at the shopping mall - do you? So if that's
> an order you will not obey, could there be others, suggesting
> something not at all physically violent, but even more spiritually
> violent?
But to state an obvious fact, no bishop has ever ordered me to drive my car into
the crowd. You are speaking hypothetically. In point of fact, NO Council of the
Roman Catholic Church will EVER declare the dogma of transubstantiation optional.
"But what if they do?", you say? Ridiculous, I say! What if green suddenly became
red? What if gravity doesn't work tomorrow (or after Y2K)? Silly as those
situations sound, my faith tells me that both of them are far more likely to occur
than the Roman Catholic Church ever teaching error as truth. It may be conceivable
that almost anything could happen, except that.
> >The reality of what is happenning is that God in fact is
> >manifesting His Kingdom now on Earth as it is in Heaven.
>
> That's not what's happening. What's happening is that the
> institutional church, through intrigues and threats, secret deals and
> meetings, long term designs, and so on, guided not by coordinated
> conferences in secret dungeons, but by unseen coordinated and
> malevolent evil, is now on track with those pursuing similar things in
> the political world. Welcome to the NWO. We fight not against flesh
> and blood. It was never more true than in the age of the 'spirit of
> Vatican II'. Catholics, remember, are now the enemy of the
> institutional churchmen, in so many cases, in so many ways. It's
> nothing new. Churchmen have never been universally Saintly. But
> something changed when they got their hands on The Mass itself.
> Something fundamental changed. I think they think they've won the war.
> But it's a war they just can't win.
Agreed, it is a war they will never win. But you seem to be giving them the upper
hand. By "institutional church", you cannot possibly be referring to the entireity
of bishops worldwide. I am capable of believing even that the majority of bishops
do as you are stating, but not the entireity. One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy. God the
Holy Spirit will not allow it. Even if a person who was a heretic somehow got
elected to the Papacy, if he is truly elevated to the Papacy, God will not allow
him to teach his heresy! There is so much peace in realizing this, that I will go
to any length to try to convince you of its truth. The first place to look is
right in the Gospel. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means, just
exactly that. Fidelity to the Papacy is the 100% guarantee of orthodoxy.
In fact, again, what you refer to under the blanket of "the institutional church"
is a subset of not only the hierarchy but also the laity, namely the American
Catholic Church. I am trying very hard to get us all on the same page here,
because that enemy is real enough. But it thankfully does not include ALL bishops
worldwide, so your use of the term "the institutional church" is misleading. The
Roman Catholic Church IS an institution.
> >In that process, He
> >is bringing His entire world into His Catholic Church. The enemies of God are
> >enraged at this,
>
> No, again - they think the game's over. They've won. The few remaining
> Catholics will be dealt with, as it were, at some point. Remember that
> indifferentism and Buddha sitting on the altar is NOT . . Catholicism.
> How successful the traditionalist movement will be in turning things
> around, by the help of God's grace, is yet to be seen. But it's from
> that direction that the virus will be cured.
Ancient Greek philosophy was "baptized" (Plato by Saint Augustine and Aristotle by
Saint Thomas Aquinas). The Catholic Church's approach to the diversity of human
culture has historically been always to incorporate into her own theology, all
that she finds worthy of the name, "truth". Since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
were not afraid to use the Greeks as even the foundation for their expositions of
revealed truth, why should Pope John Paul II be afraid to place a statue of Buddha
on the altar? Perhaps the gesture was meant to symbolize the "baptizing" of the
truths taught by Gautama. I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of the Buddha,
and it is my opinion that many of them do not fundamentally contradict
Catholicism. All truth is truth, and there may one day be a Catholic theological
discouse that treats the teachings of Gautama in just the same way as Saint Thomas
treated Aristotle. In any case, it did not desecrate the altar nor did it
invalidate the Mass.
> >Council His preparation of His Church to include all. I am not saying,
> >embrace all religions. I am saying, all persons will embrace the Catholic
> >Religion.
>
> But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
> turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
> words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
> all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
> embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
> Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
> doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
> Christmas, after all.
You are mistaken because God has not yet revealed to you what He is actually
doing. The one world religion you refer to is the aim of Masonry and of
ecclesiastical Masonry, the black beast of Revelation and the beast with two horns
like a lamb but which spoke as a dragon, respectively. Their aims are diabolic,
and if God allowed them to succeed, it would turn out very much as you say. But
God in fact did not allow them to succeed. They are already defeated, and their
defeat will simply expand, as God Himself expands His Reign of Peace. All of this
may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
of Peace, can be found at
http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
.
Please go there, read them, and then please make an act of obedience to the Papacy
by asking the Pope if these writings are authentic.
> >The "reforms" of Vatican II were explicitly designed to remove all obstacles
> >to the whole world becoming Catholic.
>
> There had been no obstacles to remove. Don't you see?
The Mass always in Latin might very well have been an obstacle for ME returning to
the Catholic Church, and I was raised Catholic. I don't know whether it would have
been an insurmountable obstacle, and in my reality, whatif?s do not really exist.
But I am certainly glad I did not have to deal with the question. The aim of the
Second Vatican Council was to present Catholicism to all peoples in a fresh, new
light. NOT to change anything of doctrine, but to make that very ancient doctrine
as accessible as possible to all. Plainly, there was room for improvement on these
grounds, and the Council addressed those issues, and implemented the improvements.
> >Part of what the Second Vatican Council
> >called for was dialogue.
>
> What did St. Patrick "call for"? Why did Our Lord not establish the
> ecumenical movement with the Samaritans, with the Jews themselves
> whose priesthood literally connived to have Him unjustly slain? You
> can read Scripture for yourself for the answer to that. That
> 'ecumenism' is even taken seriously is more a matter that many are
> called, but few are chosen.
Now are you trying to insinuate that I am not one of the chosen because I choose
to take ecumenism very seriously?
> >In the very short span of time since the Council, we
> >have entered the Communications Age. Those who take the opportunity of such
> >increased dialogue and increased possibility for communications to form
> >political alliances instead of preaching the Gospel, are in fact pursuing
> >their own wills, not God's Will.
>
> God's Will is that there is no salvation outside The Church. And not
> just anybody is a member of The Church. To claim otherwise, is fraud,
> and heresy. Catholicism is important. It's the truth. It's worth
> defending, when called upon to do so.
True. That is what I am trying to do here.
> >> Fresh new liberty meaning - ecumenism?
>
> >No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
> >fluently understand,
>
> The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
> was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
> extensive collection of old missals, myself.
That was a good idea, then, I didn't know that.
> >Reconciliation face to face
>
> By itself, it seems a matter of mere discipline, though it does
> concern the Sacrament. But in the context, and particularly the
> Catholic Reformed distaste for Penance, itself, it stinks.
No way. Face to face means I do not enjoy the cover of anonymity provided by the
Confessional booth. I have to muster up the courage to tell all my worst faults
directly to the face of God's priest. And God ALWAYS provides that courage. The
Holy Spirit's Gift of Counsel is always given in connection with His Sacrament of
Holy Orders. It is an important part of what happens in Reconciliation. It is an
invaluable aid in overcoming my own sins, and that is what it is all about anyway.
And a distaste for penance equals a distaste for Catholicism in general.
> >Relativism is heresy. Multi-culturalism (I do not mean religious pluralism)
> >is charity.
>
> Multi-culturalism is pretty much a libral/socialist invention, meant
> to rob the west of the remnants, even, of Christendom - among other
> things (follow the money, right?).
I am now not certain to what you are referring as multi-culturalism. I had thought
you meant celebrating the diversity of human culture as something good and to be
celebrated. but you apparently have another connotation to the term, an insidious
political one. I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom. One of the
things that word means to me is the full extent (i.e., geographically) of the
realm of Catholicism. It could also mean the historical facts of oaths of fealty
by kings to Popes during the Middle Ages, as well as the Holy Roman Emperors, and
the like. These happenings in history are part of the history of what we call
Western Civilization, and as such, they not only got us to where we are now, but
they include the multitude of cultural traditions of the Poles, the French, the
Slavs, the Italians, the Irish, and so on. I am not so ethnically prideful as to
be unable to see the value in the Mexica culture, the Indian culture, the Japanese
culture, the various African cultures, etc. And I think history speaks very well
of the rich cultural diversity present to this day in the Catholic Church. That is
one of her gifts from almighty God. So I think I must be misconstruing your use of
the term, multi-culturalism. But I will point out that the use of a term as a
"buzz-word", so to speak, with a meaning that cannot easily be discerned from the
etymology of the word itself, is not really fair to me. I am not well-versed in
"buzz-words". I would much rather have a productive discussion of Catholic
theology.
> >It doesn't matter what "your opinion" is, in the least. You are very welcome
> >to overcome your own opinion and conform to the teachings of the Roman
> >Catholic Church, among which, Vatican II.
>
> Well now, wait a minute. Vatican II, again, was not a doctrinal
> council, by their own confession - it merely started out to be.
> Doctrine remains that which THEY formally confessed. Remember? What
> THEY said of Trent, and Vatican I, and so on. That the 'reformers'
> could have cared less about Catholic teaching should not confuse you
> into thinking that that is now what passing for Catholic doctrine.
Vatican II was still a Council and did in fact produce documents for anyone to
read. I am not saying, once again, that you should be faithful to what you have
been terming the "spirit of Vatican II" -- heretical misinterpretations of the
Council's directives -- but to the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth. A
pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council is just that: keep following
the old doctrines (of previous councils), but implement these new directives. A
pastoral anything can only mean a way of guiding the flock. And a pastoral Council
of the Catholic Church would have to mean God the Holy Spirit laying down
guidelines for that guiding. Just because, as you say, a pastoral council is an
unprecedented event, does not mean it is not a valid expression of the Will of God
the Holy Spirit.
> >The Pope does not require your opinion.
>
> There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
> Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
> even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
> some, it seems.
The living Pope embodies the Magisterium, all the way back to Saint Peter.
> >> The elect, the saved. Cranmer was Baptized, was he not? Thomas
> >> Cromwell? Martin Luther?
>
> >I am unfamiliar with the first two names,
>
> Thomas Cranmer. Catholic Archbishop in England under King Henry. If
> you'd like to learn more, as the commercial goes, read Belloc's bio
> titled, simply - Cranmer. I can quote if you'd like. Let me know.
was he Catholic? did he (let me guess) renounce the Papacy to follow the king? The
answer, God's answer, to Bishop Cranmer is, Saint Thomas More.
> >as to Martin Luther, he was and is a Catholic priest.
> >The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like the Sacrament of
> >Baptism, creates an indelible "character" in the soul. No one can ever become
> >un-baptized, and no one can ever
<(cease to) <syntax error on my part, please delete>>
>>become un-ordained. I don't know
>>why you use the words, "the elect, the saved" -- the Catholic sense of those
> >words is, respectively, the predestinate, and the Blessed in Heaven.
>
> Those are the same. You don't think someone slipped in unexpectedly,
> do you?
No, but in fact those words are not the same at all. All the saved are members of
the elect, but not all the elect are members of the saved, since some of them are
still in Church Militant. See? God knows all the elect will be saved, and He also
knows of the predestination or reprobation of humans who have yet to be conceived.
But I, in Church Militant, have the blessed hope of salvation; I am not yet
"saved", but I hope I am among the elect.
> >not at all clear that Martin Luther is among them,
>
> Let's just say, he's not.
It would appear that you are correct, but God does not judge by appearances, and
God alone is Martin Luther's judge. The most I will say, unless God reveals more,
is that the results of his massive sins of pride have torn the seamless garment of
the One Church, and any attempt to repair that scandalous damage would of course
have to fall under the heading of ecumenism. But can you still see no difference
between a Protestant and a Buddhist? Because everything I know about Catholic
theology tells me that God does. And the Ecumenism outlined in the Decree on
Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
> >but in point of fact, he
> >was justified by faith in Baptism, just as you were. If he later lost that
> >justification by sins of pride, and never regained it, that would make him
> >one of the reprobate, and his status as a priest would then increase his
> >torment.
>
> Umm . . . you were trying to make the point, though, that somehow the
> Prot is saved by Baptism, were you not? and need never consider
> conversion to The Church?
Here is the most glaring example of your misinterpretation of my motives! Now is
it finally becoming clear? The answer to that question is, NO! I would never try
to make a point like that, because that is simply not true! The Protestant is NOT
saved by baptism. He is JUSTIFIED by baptism. He can lose this justification by
commiting one mortal sin after he is baptized, and if he dies in the state of
mortal sin, he cannot be saved. He would be saved, just as a Catholic would be
saved, only by final perseverance in virtue. That spells out the urgent necessity
of conversion to the Church, because without the Church, the Protestant does not
have access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. As you know,
Reconciliation is necessary for the forgiveness of mortal sins committed after
baptism, and reception of the Eucharist wipes away venial sins.
> >> Look, if Baptism guarantees membership in the Body of Christ when one
> >> dies, then by your thinking - Lefebvre, Feeney, and various others
> >> have the same claim as the Prot. Never mind that I think both might
> >> one day be considered for Sainthood. I doubt you'd agree.
>
> >I never said all the baptized would be saved -- but if Baptism doesn't make
> >one a Member of the Body of Christ, then what does, in your opinion?
>
> "My" opinion? How about Church teaching, here? Do you have
> Denzinger's, or Ott, for ex. The Roman Catechism is on-line in various
> places. And as dicey as the on-line CE appears to be (I _still_
> haven't gotten an answer on that ecumenism entry), what does it say
> there?
Church teaching is exactly as I have described it, that Baptism incorporates one
into the Body of Christ.
> >think you also know this. I am not saying the practice of Protestantism can
> >possibly save anyone.
>
> The Church allows that it's possible to be saved without conversion.
> And the distinction was always drawn between the formal and material
> heretic. But that's a far cry from ecumenism.
>
> >In fact, it cannot. Only in the Catholic Church can one
> >find salvation. But if a Protestant baptizes a child, and that child then
> >dies before reaching the age of reason, that child would certainly be saved
> >in the Catholic Church, by that Baptism.
>
> So all Prot Baptisms are necessarily valid?
No, only those done with natural water, and "In the Name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All other forms, for example, "In the Name of Jesus
Christ", are invalid.
> Why conditional Baptism,
> at all, then? What were they thinking?
They were thinking maybe one of the invalid forms was used, in which case there
was no baptism. And if there is a question as to just which form was used,
conditional baptism covers either eventuality.
>As for the place where
> innocents go, I don't know that it's required we believe, but surely
> if they have not willfully sinned against God, even if they are
> removed to hell, in some way, it would not be that which is reserved
> for those meant to suffer terrible and unimaginable abandonment and
> torture.
A validly baptized infant who then dies, goes straight to Heaven. They are in no
part of hell at all. You are confusing what I said. The doctrines of what happens
to unbaptized infants is not what we are discussing here. I said a baptized infant
who dies is saved, reagrdless of who it was that performed the baptismal ceremony.
> >> You lost it already, here. Look at the deeds, not the words. Assisi
> >> was not about Protestanism, alone. I believe there, or somewhere else,
> >> was a Buddha literally placed up on an altar (sitting right on top of
> >> the tabernacle, was it?).
>
> >I don't know what was done there. I am familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi,
> >but I don't think you are referring to him.
>
> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
> ecumenism. I have some links at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
I will visit your site again to investigate further.
> >and the Rosary; obedience to the Holy Father, and the practice of True
> >Devotion to Mary as expounded by Saint Louis deMontfort. I have found the
> >authentic Catholic Faith through reading the Saints and the Documents,
>
> Umm . . the documents of Vatican II? the latter additions? and so on.
Actually, I meant the documents of all the councils I have read thus far, and also
the encyclicals of Popes. I meant to include, but not limited to, Vatican II.
> It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
> the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
> the very least.
If there is necessity for clarification, it comes with discernment. If there is a
necessity for clarification on behalf of the whole Church, it either has come or
will come from the Papacy. For my own part, no, I will not second-guess the
Council.
> >> Well, sure it should. If the Muslims won't accept Jesus as Lord, then
> >> let them convert. We don't have to say - they're just fine as they
> >> are. What we confess is too important to be indifferent about it.
>
> >You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
>
> The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean.
yes.
> Ecumenism is not part
> of the Catholic Faith, not as the term is applied. Evangelism is. Go
> and teach - not go and make nice-nice. If your religion is not
> something you want others to share, others are going to think it's not
> something they should. I think _you'd_ agree with that.
I do agree with that.
> >that do not present an obstacle. Perhaps this is because both God and the
> >Council realize the importance of simple respect for human beings with
> >God-given intelligence.
>
> What about people who are impaired?
ALL human beings have God-given intelligence.
> Our basic dignity is that God was
> made Man, that we are made in the Image of God. Doesn't matter if we
> lie unconscious in a hospital bed, with some 'angel of death' ready to
> 'mercy' murder us.
Euthanasia is specifically condemned.
> >They acknowledge that the opposite of dialogue is
> >monologue, and dialogue is almost always much more productive.
>
> Productive of what? Heresy?
No, productive of meaningful interchange and eventually, of conversions to Roman
Catholicism. Monologue shuts the door to everyone except the one who was just on
the verge of converting anyway. No one wants to listen to a person who refuses to
listen back. My faith is not so weak that it will be injured by listening to what
others have to say. It DOES put me in a crisis from time to time, but my Trust in
Jesus is so strong that I welcome such crises. God has always brought me through
them and rewarded my struggle with yet more faith.
> Certainly the missionaries who followed
> the Evangelists learned the ways of the people they wished to convert.
> The history is full of their example, in every part of the world.
> Never mind the self-serving and fictitious PC cant of the present day.
> But 'dialogue' does not mean desacralization and then - hey, let's
> extend the hand of friendship (cause maybe they won't be so mad, now).
> It's a betrayal of what so many great Saints . . . died for.
>
> >Some people
> >have questions about the faith, and some people have misconceptions about
> >what the faith actually teaches. To come at one of these people with, "if you
> >are not Catholic, you will burn in hell," might possibly make the Catholic
> >Church sound arrogant in the extreme
>
> Well, I can only imagine, then, that you figure Christ kind of
> unnecessarily brought it on . . Himself . . . when he often chastized
> the Pharisees? If only he'd been less 'pre-Vatican II'?
>
> Oh wait, He was pre-Vatican II (and you knew I'd say that).
Our Lord engaged in dialogue with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. He revealed the most
intimate secrets of the kingdom to a Pharisee named Paul. As to His condemnation
of those other Pharisees, He was publicly revealing them and indicting them for
their sins against the Holy Spirit. He was not trying to convert that particular
bunch, because they had already rejected Him with finality. He was simply
pronouncing their condemnation.
> >obviously they don't have the truth. Christ was NEVER arrogant!"
>
> But what sort of 'dialogue' was that with the Pharisees? How about His
> Prophet, The Baptist? Acted much the same toward the holy men.
>
> >result is that an opportunity for conversion was lost.
>
> Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
> reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
> good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
> exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
>
> >things about the Church, but is honestly seeking the truth for himself. He is
> >not solidly grounded in the truth yet. The worst thing a Catholic could do in
> >this situation, assuming everything the Catholic says is true, would be to
> >present that truth in such a way as to turn that person off,
>
> Hardly. How do you think _I_ would up a Catholic, again. I was raised
> Catholic, but fell away in college. It's kind of what 'the system' is
> set up just to do. I returned gradually through evangelical
> Protestantism. But it seemed goofier and goofier, and Catholicism was
> seeming more and more sure - after reading Chesterton, even Lewis, and
> how I got into the sermons of Francis de Sales, I can't recall. So I
> decided to finally head back to church and encountered - that's right
> - RCIA! But I'm Catholic, today, despite my treatment there, and the
> things I began to notice, increasingly in the parishes. You have to
> give people some credit, as well, you do.
So you are saying that you found your way back to the Catholic faith through
reading very good books and associating with very good people. My point exactly. I
do not know what the motivation was for sending you to RCIA; according to
everything I know about the Church, you should not have been sent there. A
fallen-away Catholic need only approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In my
opinion, they were wrong to send you to RCIA. My own story of my journey of faith
is ismilar, and I also read C.S. Lewis, and I read the Confessions of Saint
Augustine. But I never joined a Protestant sect, I just believed in Jesus. But if
the teaching of No salvation without the Church was responsible for your
conversion, that is a good thing. But it was not the conversion of one unfamiliar
with Catholicism, but rather a returning to the true faith of one who had
abandoned it. And it is precisely to those who abandon the One Church that that
canon is directed.
> >The teaching of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (No Salvation Outside the
> >Church) is in fact a Catholic teaching, intended for the instruction of
> >Catholics. It is intended to make clear to those within the Church, that they
> >cannot find salvation outside of her, and they must remain within her. It
> >probably does very little to convince those outside the Church that it is in
> >fact true, since it very definitely rests on a deep appreciation of the very
> >perfect totality and catholicity of the Catholic Faith.
>
> And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
> we say because otherwise we'll drive them away.
NO! And there you go again, I don't know how many times you have now accused me of
this, but I NEVER water down the faith, and if through human respect and weakness
I do, it is through human respect (my own sin) and through weakness. AND I go to
Confession about that afterwards.
> It's just not how it
> works. And ecumenism - doesn't work. A 'new world religion' isn't
> Catholic. Catholics will still be hated. We just might find it a tad
> easier to be martyred, if we don't happen to live in Africa or Asia.
> Ecumenism encourages the attack upon The Church, which has always been
> the design of the devil.
>
> >> Just look at 'new order'. Look a catechesis/RCIA/RENEW 2000, dumb
> >> ditties, speeches by bishops, Cassidy's little missives, and so - and
> >> so forth. Modern churchmen, the 'spirit of' gang, seem mostly
> >> embarrassed by Catholicism, if they don't outright despise it. Not me.
>
> >It is obvious that you love the Catholic Church. Anyone who is embarrassed by
> >it, Our Lord says He will be embarrassed by them before His Father. It is on
> >their own heads.
>
> And it's on ours if we stand silently by and say nothing, if given the
> opportunity (however slight - this being UseNet, and all). I am
> talking evangelization, here. That's why I'm not talking ecumenism.
>
> >> Ecumenism isn't love. It's contempt for Catholicism. That's pretty
> >> clear at this point.
>
> >No, what you have been referring to is the spread of lies and the loss of the
> >true faith. Ecumenism is exactly what it is defined to be in the Decree on
> >Ecumenism, to wit:
>
> >The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
>
> But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
> previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
But not all Chistians acknowledge the Papacy, which is precisely the reason for
the necessity of ecumenism.
> >Christ the Lord founded one
> >Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions ... differ in
> >mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such
> >division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and
> >damages the cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
>
> Umm . yeah - right. That's why - conversion to The Church. The Church
> is One, it is unified. Prots . . . are not Catholic. Neither is the
> Dalai Lama.
>
> >> And so you insist the wailing and gnashing is reserved for the Saints?
> >> not for the infidel?
>
> >No, I insist that the wailing and gnashing of teeth is reserved for those who
> >reject charity, no matter what their faith.
>
> Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
You are including me in your accusation of lack of charity, and you are including
every single Catholic who adheres to the Second Vatican Council and its teaching,
part of which is the Decree on Ecumenism; that inclusion includes every single
faithful Catholic.
> >Saints with a capital "S" refers
> >to canonized Catholic Saints.
>
> No, any Saint. We just don't called someone St. so and so if they have
> not been officially declared as such - and apparently a certain
> Philomena met with some 'spirit of' re-evalution?
Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
this point is entirely non-essential.
> >Of course I do not insist anything like what
> >you have said about them. You are confusing the term "traditionalist" with
> >the term "Saint". And by "traditionalist", I mena specifically, those who
> >reject Vatican II.
>
> What's to reject? It was a pastoral council. Doctrine is what it
> always was, with the addition of Paul VI's memo on Mary (compared with
> the voluminous 'social issues' . . well - anyhow). And it's the
> doctrine that so bugs the 'reformers'. It's how you make 'em mad -
> suggest Catholics actually believe in that 'religious stuff'. Hey - I
> got a parish to run, here, you know?
>
> Like I said, bad pastors, wicked bishops. Nothing new. But they just
> never got to The Mass, before. Things have changed, fundamentally,
> because of Paul VI's unholy promulgation of the 'new order'. Simple.
> If you want to say I reject _that_ - please go right ahead.
Here is where you get yourself into deep trouble. I will assume the crux of the
matter is in the change of wording from "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for
many" to "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all." There are three things I
have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated. Second, even if
the words of consecration were changed, the Church has the authority to do this,
just as she has the authority to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. And
third, I am not caught up in a love affair with a piece of bread! I know Jesus in
the Eucharist, and I have only once in my life attended a Tridentine Mass. I later
found out, to my dismay, that that particlar bunch were schismatics, in league
with your buddy LeFebvre. Bishop LeFebvre is a validly ordained bishop, so that
priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
schism, because I never would have attended Mass there had I known. The were
calling themselves a Roman Catholic Church -- go figure!
> >I am not saying, close your eyes to the heresy. I am not
> >saying, water down the truth.
>
> Actually . . .
>
> >I am saying, obey the Catholic Church,
>
> But there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. We know - what Catholics
> believe. And if we know the order is illegal, we don't say - I was
> just following orders. But, it's just as I wrote:
>
> >> Remember - there are no 'dead Magisteriums'. And ecumenism is not a
> >> tenet of The Faith.
>
> >No. But then neither are poverty, chastity, and obedience tenets of the
> >faith. They are just highly reccommended courses of action.
>
> Obedience to what, though? It begs the question.
By now you know I mean obedience to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and her
living Magisterium, right on back to Saint Peter, who we know is alive in Heaven.
I have stated my case based on 2,000 years of Church Tradition, not 1,965 years.
Peace and Good
> Merry Christmas!
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>*I* have not been transformed (I can't resist saying, assimiliated) toward the
>spirit of the world. I don't know how much more clear I can make this to you: I
>firmly believe Salvation comes only and exclusively through the One, Holy,
>Catholic, Apostolic Chruch, by which, in order to further distinguish it from
>others who use that in their creeds, I mean the Roman Catholic Church,
But that's also just what the Popes have meant, and explicitly stated,
and even JP II, if he'd just be clear about it, and repeatedly so
everyone IS clear this hasn't changed. But again, check out some of
those articles linked at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink ,
under Controversies, Ecumenism (in the 'other' box).
>to be clear on this before we go any further. There is an unresolvable issue about
>the validity of the Novus Ordo, and I will assume you mean the issue of "for many"
>vs. "for all".
Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
think you'll miss the point - but . . .
>We disagree on this point, and I will address that later in my
>post.
But check out the URL.
>Anyone who leaves the Catholic Faith does so at their own peril. *You* came back,
>and so did I.
Really? Anyway, I came back almost because I was pulled, I think.
Seems that way. And what I found was like someone coming home to their
town after the enemy had bombarded it for 10 days straight - and
what's more, the remaining defenders insisting that the post office
still closes at five, but at two on the weekends (not stopping to
realize - there is no longer any post office - just an address).
>> All people are obv 'separated brethren'. Why leave out the Dalai Lama?
>> Wasn't he also at Assisi?
>In point of fact there is a very real difference between your average Methodist
>and your average Buddhist.
I'm saying, ecumenism, begun by the Prot was about shining over the
differences with other Prots, in order to get out their twisted
version of what The Church actually teaches, and should teach. But the
term was always vague. And it clearly now includes all heathen -
including the Dalai Lama, and Desmond Tutu (putative Prot), and
whoever else.
>Protestants, provided they have been validly baptized, have the distinction of
>being already incorporated into the Body of Christ, therefore it is more proper to
>speak of them as separated brethren because they, in contrast to the Dalai Lama,
>are already "born again of water and the Holy Spirit." They are already
>regenerated, and already adopted sons of God the Father.
Again, your argument isn't so much with me as with Assisi, and other
official events attended by JP II.
>There you go again with the 'spirit of Vatican II', in quotes. You are referring
>to the distortion of Catholic teaching promulgated by those who have used Vatican
>II as an excuse and self-justification for their sins of pride. You place it in
>quotes because those wolves in sheep's clothing use those words, 'the spirit of
>Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II.
Of course. And that's just what von Hildebrand meant, and Anne
Muggeridge, and all the rest who speak of the unholy 'spirit of
Vatican II'. The 'reformers' took the name of the council and . . .
that's about it. Again, the problem with the film I mentioned, from
years ago, was supposing that the librals _needed_ a Vatican III or IV
to get to a denial of The Eucharist. Further councils would only have
gotten in their way, if the scriptwriter had understood actual
matters.
>would say so. It is confusing to me when you keep using that term, because the
>Second Vatican Council was a council of the Roman Catholic Church, and I am
>faithful to it.
But the 'spirit of' IS officially approved by the institutional
church, as well. Vatican II never called for anything remotely
approaching 'new order', or an Ordo Simplex, or an Ordo Duplex, or
whatever else they come up with in their unbelief and boredom. But it
IS all officially stamped and approved. Paul VI himself promulgated
'new order'.
>"American Catholic Church" is a recognizable name referring to a
>very specific group. Far from being "just part of the rot of, etc..." -- they are
>the whole rot.
Hardly. It wasn't AmChurch that opened the foreign seminars which
helped shaped the current version of AmChurch (and perhaps part of the
earlier heresies were the reaction to the dominant Prot. distaste with
Catholicism trotted out in questioning Catholic patriotism - long
history there).
>That is what I mean by American Catholic Church. I mean the
>entireity of those bishops, priests and laity in schism from the Roman Catholic
>Church, in that particular body of schistmatics that seek the Americanization of
>the Church worldwide.
It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
itself (however it got there).
>Their schism was, as I have said, hidden. It is now no
>longer hidden, because that cannot remain hidden which comes to light. And that
>body of schismatics is now definitely identified as the American Catholic Church.
>I am not making this up.
If you're referring to some splinter sect called itself AmChurch, I
hope you know that's not what's generally meant by the term. AmChurch
has not formally declared schism. It holds that over the Pope's head.
>> Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
>> dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
>> infallible.
>Actually, it is not "suddenly" infallible -- the day to day teaching of the Holy
>Father and those bishops in union with him comes under the heading of
>Infallibility. The extraordinary use of Infallibility in the pronouncement of
>Catholic Dogma is reserved for only one, the Pope. Historically, this
>extraordinary Magisterium is seldom exercised. But the ordinary Magisterium is
>still infallible. A "pastoral" council would be an example of the exercise of the
>ordinary Magisterium.
Well, A) following the Apostolic Age, what would be an example of
doctrine explicitly declared via the ordinary Magisterium? And B) if
an attempt to explicitly declare doctrine contradicts explicitly
declared doctrine of previous Popes and councils - are we to imagine
they were wrong, or those who followed were wrong. And this is where
we disagree, surely. There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Once in effect,
always in effect. If there's a conflict, it is not to be 'resolved' by
simply shoving the offending previous dogma under the rug.
>In point of fact, NO Council of the
>Roman Catholic Church will EVER declare the dogma of transubstantiation optional.
But this is the argument of the sede. They say no council would have
declared some of the things seen in the Vatican II docs. That one did
is sufficient to say, it's not a legitimate council - which is what
lies behind your words.
I'm saying, if we all agree in theory on this possibility, or fact as
some see it, then at least consider the arguments against the 'spirit
of' as imposed by trendy bishops and decide on the second question -
is it ever then an excuse to say, I was just following orders? Is this
the Catholic way?
>One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
>CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy.
Formally, or even in his private opinion?
No trick question here.
>Since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
>were not afraid to use the Greeks as even the foundation for their expositions of
>revealed truth, why should Pope John Paul II be afraid to place a statue of Buddha
>on the altar?
You might rather ask why Pope Pius V would never have done so, or
Gregory the Great, or St. Peter, for that matter.
>Perhaps the gesture was meant to symbolize the "baptizing" of the
>truths taught by Gautama. I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of the Buddha,
>and it is my opinion that many of them do not fundamentally contradict
>Catholicism. All truth is truth, and there may one day be a Catholic theological
>discouse that treats the teachings of Gautama in just the same way as Saint Thomas
>treated Aristotle. In any case, it did not desecrate the altar nor did it
>invalidate the Mass.
Clearly it desecrated the altar. You say not so because . . . there is
Catholic truth in Buddhism? Seems something so simple and profound
would hardly have been lost on the Apostles.
>> But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
>> turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
>> words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
>> all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
>> embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
>> Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
>> doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
>> Christmas, after all.
>You are mistaken because God has not yet revealed to you what He is actually
>doing. The one world religion you refer to is the aim of Masonry and of
>ecclesiastical Masonry,
Which is somehow entirely divorced from the 'spirit of' crowd?
>may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
>manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
>of Peace, can be found at
>http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
I see.
From the self-proclaimed 'God's Child of Peace', "I am George of
George and John Mark". And he/she/? writes: "For the record I
am sending you a copy of a letter from me to a Father Paul Sullivan.
His reaction to that letter was his publicly removing me from leading
the rosary after daily Mass. His public removal of me was his slander
and calumny against me. In the course of the next year and a half I
presented a copy of it to 750 priests in the Archdiocese of Boston .
."
and so forth.
Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
>The Mass always in Latin might very well have been an obstacle for ME returning to
>the Catholic Church, and I was raised Catholic.
Then what you returned to was not Catholic if what kept you away -
was. Think about it.
>> >No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
>> >fluently understand,
>> The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
>> was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
>> extensive collection of old missals, myself.
>That was a good idea, then, I didn't know that.
?
>I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom.
The Middle Ages, for a start. Christendom. The much maligned 'dark
age' (remember, the history professors speak of the 'dark ages'
running from probably 400 AD (they'd say CE) to 1500 or such).
>Vatican II was still a Council and did in fact produce documents for anyone to
>read. I am not saying, once again, that you should be faithful to what you have
>been terming the "spirit of Vatican II" -- heretical misinterpretations of the
>Council's directives -- but to the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth. A
>pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council is just that: keep following
>the old doctrines (of previous councils), but implement these new directives. A
>pastoral anything can only mean a way of guiding the flock. And a pastoral Council
>of the Catholic Church would have to mean God the Holy Spirit laying down
>guidelines for that guiding. Just because, as you say, a pastoral council is an
>unprecedented event, does not mean it is not a valid expression of the Will of God
>the Holy Spirit.
Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
>> There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
>> Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
>> even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
>> some, it seems.
>The living Pope embodies the Magisterium, all the way back to Saint Peter.
There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Wish we could agree on something so
basic.
>> >I am unfamiliar with the first two names,
>> Thomas Cranmer. Catholic Archbishop in England under King Henry. If
>> you'd like to learn more, as the commercial goes, read Belloc's bio
>> titled, simply - Cranmer. I can quote if you'd like. Let me know.
>was he Catholic? did he (let me guess) renounce the Papacy to follow the king?
Because he wished to do so, because he hated The Church. Others chose
differently.
>God's answer, to Bishop Cranmer is, Saint Thomas More.
Among others.
>And the Ecumenism outlined in the Decree on
>Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
>Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
>are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
>Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
>conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
>that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
This is also pretty much the sede arg., too.
>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
>> ecumenism. I have some links at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
>I will visit your site again to investigate further.
Just to see what you're defending, if nothing else. Many people, from
various perspectives, some not even overtly Catholic, have had things
to write on these issues.
>> It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
>> the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
>> the very least.
>If there is necessity for clarification, it comes with discernment. If there is a
>necessity for clarification on behalf of the whole Church, it either has come or
>will come from the Papacy. For my own part, no, I will not second-guess the
>Council.
At least confess the inadequacy of the conciliar documents, if nothing
else.
>> >You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
>> The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean.
>yes.
Don't lose your own train of thought, here. What doctrine?
>> Ecumenism is not part
>> of the Catholic Faith, not as the term is applied. Evangelism is. Go
>> and teach - not go and make nice-nice. If your religion is not
>> something you want others to share, others are going to think it's not
>> something they should. I think _you'd_ agree with that.
>I do agree with that.
It's uncontroversial, I think.
>> >that do not present an obstacle. Perhaps this is because both God and the
>> >Council realize the importance of simple respect for human beings with
>> >God-given intelligence.
>> What about people who are impaired?
>> Our basic dignity is that God was
>> made Man, that we are made in the Image of God. Doesn't matter if we
>> lie unconscious in a hospital bed, with some 'angel of death' ready to
>> 'mercy' murder us.
>Euthanasia is specifically condemned.
Just making mention. Intelligence, by itself, doesn't mean so much as
being human, itself, does.
>Monologue shuts the door to everyone except the one who was just on
>the verge of converting anyway.
To which I sort of reply:
>> Certainly the missionaries who followed
>> the Evangelists learned the ways of the people they wished to convert.
>> The history is full of their example, in every part of the world.
>> Never mind the self-serving and fictitious PC cant of the present day.
>> But 'dialogue' does not mean desacralization and then - hey, let's
>> extend the hand of friendship (cause maybe they won't be so mad, now).
>> It's a betrayal of what so many great Saints . . . died for.
>> Well, I can only imagine, then, that you figure Christ kind of
>> unnecessarily brought it on . . Himself . . . when he often chastized
>> the Pharisees? If only he'd been less 'pre-Vatican II'?
>> Oh wait, He was pre-Vatican II (and you knew I'd say that).
>Our Lord engaged in dialogue with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. He revealed the most
>intimate secrets of the kingdom to a Pharisee named Paul. As to His condemnation
>of those other Pharisees, He was publicly revealing them and indicting them for
>their sins against the Holy Spirit. He was not trying to convert that particular
>bunch, because they had already rejected Him with finality. He was simply
>pronouncing their condemnation.
So in your mind, if one of the Evangelists had said something against
the local religion as he found it, it was only to condemn the
religionists, themselves, for their religion? not offer them rather
the true way and salvation through God's Church? Perhaps you could
elaborate? As I wrote:
>> Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
>> reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
>> good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
>> exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
>> >things about the Church, but is honestly seeking the truth for himself. He is
>> >not solidly grounded in the truth yet. The worst thing a Catholic could do in
>> >this situation, assuming everything the Catholic says is true, would be to
>> >present that truth in such a way as to turn that person off,
>> Hardly. How do you think _I_ would up a Catholic, again. I was raised
>> Catholic, but fell away in college. It's kind of what 'the system' is
>> set up just to do. I returned gradually through evangelical
>> Protestantism. But it seemed goofier and goofier, and Catholicism was
>> seeming more and more sure - after reading Chesterton, even Lewis, and
>> how I got into the sermons of Francis de Sales, I can't recall. So I
>> decided to finally head back to church and encountered - that's right
>> - RCIA! But I'm Catholic, today, despite my treatment there, and the
>> things I began to notice, increasingly in the parishes. You have to
>> give people some credit, as well, you do.
>So you are saying that you found your way back to the Catholic faith through
>reading very good books and associating with very good people.
No, by reading good books, praying, and running into some very
confused and vicious people who wanted me to become Catholic Reformed,
or get the heck out! I got the heck out.
>> And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
>> we say because otherwise we'll drive them away.
>NO! And there you go again,
I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
I just wish you'd clarify that, is all.
>> >The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
>> But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
>> previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
>But not all Chistians acknowledge the Papacy, which is precisely the reason for
>the necessity of ecumenism.
They don't confess Catholicism because - ta-da - they aren't Catholic.
We ought to do what we can to follow the example of the Evangelists
and all who followed them. But ecumenism is a betrayal of the blood so
many shed.
>> Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
>You are including me in your accusation of lack of charity,
Personally, I don't know. As to the generalization - what charity is
there in ecumenism?:
>every single Catholic who adheres to the Second Vatican Council and its teaching,
>part of which is the Decree on Ecumenism; that inclusion includes every single
>faithful Catholic.
Again - what dogma? Ecumenism is not part of the Catholic Faith.
Evangelism is. If the librals win for awhile, who will remember the
latter? If things bottom out soon and the traditionalists start to
repair the damage done the body, then who will imagine the former
could ever have been believed?
>Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
>usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
>this point is entirely non-essential.
Now - I was saying - _what_ St. Philomena? That was the point.
>Here is where you get yourself into deep trouble. I will assume the crux of the
>matter is in the change of wording from "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for
>many" to "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all." There are three things I
>have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
>my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
>argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
>consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated.
Can't be.
>Second, even if
>the words of consecration were changed, the Church has the authority to do this,
>just as she has the authority to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Not the same thing. It is more akin to the institutional church
declaring the Sabbath optional. See
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I used to say to
people - if you dare. But that's when they identified themselves
openly as Prots, or something else.
>third, I am not caught up in a love affair with a piece of bread! I know Jesus in
>the Eucharist, and I have only once in my life attended a Tridentine Mass. I later
>found out, to my dismay, that that particlar bunch were schismatics, in league
>with your buddy LeFebvre.
You might be interested in an article by Michael Davies on the subject
of the 'schismatic' Lefebvre, linked from
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink, under Controversies, under
Traditionalists, I think. If you dare (there ya go).
>Bishop LeFebvre is a validly ordained bishop,
I assume so, as well. Apparently others suggest not. But I believe
these are sede suspicions. And one has to wonder.
>so that
>priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
>Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
>schism,
Funny, didn't seem that way in Hawaii.
>because I never would have attended Mass there had I known. The were
>calling themselves a Roman Catholic Church -- go figure!
If in necessity there _is_ no other Mass around, it might warrant a
trip to the SSPX. I myself have never been. But it remains an option
should every other avenue be closed, thus bringing in that necessity
clause, as it were. There will always be the underground. It's the
very reason for Ecclesia Dei.
>By now you know I mean obedience to
I'm really far less sure, at this point, where you are 'coming from',
to be honest.
Perhaps, if you are still interested, you could help clear some of
that up - if you'd like.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
>Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
> think you'll miss the point - but . . .
Correct me if I am wrong here: the point is, the words of consecration in the Mass
refer not specifically to the once for all sacrifice of Calvary, but specifically to
the Eucharist itself, Whose merits are only applied to the faithful who partake in it.
Is that essentially the point?
> >We disagree on this point, and I will address that later in my
> >post.
>
> But check out the URL.
>
did, thanks.
>I'm saying, ecumenism, begun by the Prot was about shining over the
> differences with other Prots, in order to get out their twisted
> version of what The Church actually teaches, and should teach. But the
> term was always vague. And it clearly now includes all heathen -
> including the Dalai Lama, and Desmond Tutu (putative Prot), and
> whoever else.
And I am contending that as of the promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the Decree on
Ecumenism, the term is no longer vague, but means precisely what that document says it
means. And it clearly now does not include the Dalai Lama, since he is Buddhist. The
difference between Evangelism and Ecumenism lies precisely in this: Evangelism means
preaching the Gospel, and our Protestant brethren already believe the Gospel. They
believe in the same Jesus Christ that we do. They simply fail to adhere to the fullness
of His Gospel and fail to follow all of His commands. We are not introducing them to
the Gospel for the first time, and we are not about to rebaptize them. We are simply
trying to get them to practice the fullness of that religion which their Lord and ours
established. This process is clearly and unequivocally defined, in the Decree on
Ecumenism, as Ecumenism.
> >Protestants, provided they have been validly baptized, have the distinction of
> >being already incorporated into the Body of Christ, therefore it is more proper to
> >speak of them as separated brethren because they, in contrast to the Dalai Lama,
> >are already "born again of water and the Holy Spirit." They are already
> >regenerated, and already adopted sons of God the Father.
>
> Again, your argument isn't so much with me as with Assisi, and other
> official events attended by JP II.
>
No, I have no argument with the Holy Father. If I have no argument on this from you,
then we are in agreement. And the Holy Father teaches the same exactly, no matter what
he did or did not do in Assisi. I am obedient to him.
> >There you go again with the 'spirit of Vatican II', in quotes. You are referring
> >to the distortion of Catholic teaching promulgated by those who have used Vatican
> >II as an excuse and self-justification for their sins of pride. You place it in
> >quotes because those wolves in sheep's clothing use those words, 'the spirit of
> >Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II.
>
> Of course. And that's just what von Hildebrand meant, and Anne
> Muggeridge, and all the rest who speak of the unholy 'spirit of
> Vatican II'. The 'reformers' took the name of the council and . . .
> that's about it. Again, the problem with the film I mentioned, from
> years ago, was supposing that the librals _needed_ a Vatican III or IV
> to get to a denial of The Eucharist. Further councils would only have
> gotten in their way, if the scriptwriter had understood actual
> matters.
The story to which you refer is fiction. Fact is different. And it is fact that no
document in Church history, Vatican II documents included, lends support to heresy.
Liberalism is a heresy. You yourself stated that the liberals took the name only of
Vatican II. I agree completely.
>Paul VI himself promulgated
> 'new order'.
Then Novus Ordo is valid. Or else join the crowd who is calling Paul VI an antipope.
The logic is inescapable, you choose one or the other.
>>That is what I mean by American Catholic Church. I mean the
> >entireity of those bishops, priests and laity in schism from the Roman Catholic
> >Church, in that particular body of schistmatics that seek the Americanization of
> >the Church worldwide.
>
> It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
> itself (however it got there).
>
It got there, believe it or not, from America. You may be unaware of just exactly who
it is leading the Great Apostasy, but your unawareness does not change things. It is
being led by priests and bishops in the United States of America.
>
> >Their schism was, as I have said, hidden. It is now no
> >longer hidden, because that cannot remain hidden which comes to light. And that
> >body of schismatics is now definitely identified as the American Catholic Church.
> >I am not making this up.
>
> If you're referring to some splinter sect called itself AmChurch, I
> hope you know that's not what's generally meant by the term. AmChurch
> has not formally declared schism. It holds that over the Pope's head.
You know very well to whom I am referring. I mean exactly what is generally meant by
the term. THEY call themselves Roman Catholics, yet, they are in schism. They have not
formally declared schism, which is why I referred to their schism as "hidden". But let
us call a spade, a spade. I am not the first to refer to this group of schismatics as
the American Catholic Church, but in identifying them as such is found the way to
distinguish them from the Roman Catholic Church. Undeclared formal schism does not
cease to be schism for being undeclared. They are schismatic because they lack
obedience to the Pope.
> >> Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
> >> dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
> >> infallible.
>
> >Actually, it is not "suddenly" infallible -- the day to day teaching of the Holy
> >Father and those bishops in union with him comes under the heading of
> >Infallibility. The extraordinary use of Infallibility in the pronouncement of
> >Catholic Dogma is reserved for only one, the Pope. Historically, this
> >extraordinary Magisterium is seldom exercised. But the ordinary Magisterium is
> >still infallible. A "pastoral" council would be an example of the exercise of the
> >ordinary Magisterium.
>
> Well, A) following the Apostolic Age, what would be an example of
> doctrine explicitly declared via the ordinary Magisterium?
ALL OF THEM!!! Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is explicitly declared as such at
some time or another by the ordinary Magisterium. Something like the Immaculate
Conception, for example, was declared over and over and over again down through the
centuries by the ordinary Magisterium, and then once, in 1854, by the extraordinary
Magisterium, and then over and over and over again after that, by the ordinary
Magisterium. See how that works?
> And B) if
> an attempt to explicitly declare doctrine contradicts explicitly
> declared doctrine of previous Popes and councils - are we to imagine
> they were wrong, or those who followed were wrong.
You are saying, like, if an apple is really an orange, is it really an apple or really
an orange? There is NO SUCH THING as a Pope contradicting a previous Pope, or a Council
contradicting a previous council, or a Pope contradcting a Council, or a Council
contradicting a Pope. You may imagine, anything you wish, in regard to these
hypotheticals, since they will always and forever remain only in your imagination.
> And this is where
> we disagree, surely. There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Once in effect,
> always in effect. If there's a conflict, it is not to be 'resolved' by
> simply shoving the offending previous dogma under the rug.
My point exactly. Where we disagree is precisely in your assertion that there can be a
conflict, and oh no, we had better be on guard -- that is the faith of the learned and
the clever. I seek the faith of little children.
> >In point of fact, NO Council of the
> >Roman Catholic Church will EVER declare the dogma of transubstantiation optional.
>
> But this is the argument of the sede. They say no council would have
> declared some of the things seen in the Vatican II docs. That one did
> is sufficient to say, it's not a legitimate council - which is what
> lies behind your words.
>
The very large difference is, they are expressing personal opinions about Vatican II
that do not match up with reality. Quote for me the heretical teaching of Vatican II,
if you insist one exists.
> I'm saying, if we all agree in theory on this possibility,
obviously we do not...
> or fact as
> some see it, then at least consider the arguments against the 'spirit
> of' as imposed by trendy bishops and decide on the second question -
> is it ever then an excuse to say, I was just following orders? Is this
> the Catholic way?
No of course not. A command by even a lawful superior that violates charity is not to
be obeyed. Our first obedience is always to Love.
> >One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
> >CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy.
>
> Formally, or even in his private opinion?
>
> No trick question here.
If his opinion remains private, he does not teach it. Our faith does not teach us that
no Pope can fall into personal heresy, only that such a Pope would never be able to
teach his personal heresy to the Church. If one ever tried, God would intervene by any
number of the infinite ways available to Him, and stop him.
> >Since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
> >were not afraid to use the Greeks as even the foundation for their expositions of
> >revealed truth, why should Pope John Paul II be afraid to place a statue of Buddha
> >on the altar?
>
> You might rather ask why Pope Pius V would never have done so, or
> Gregory the Great, or St. Peter, for that matter.
>
> >Perhaps the gesture was meant to symbolize the "baptizing" of the
> >truths taught by Gautama. I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of the Buddha,
> >and it is my opinion that many of them do not fundamentally contradict
> >Catholicism. All truth is truth, and there may one day be a Catholic theological
> >discouse that treats the teachings of Gautama in just the same way as Saint Thomas
> >treated Aristotle. In any case, it did not desecrate the altar nor did it
> >invalidate the Mass.
>
> Clearly it desecrated the altar. You say not so because . . . there is
> Catholic truth in Buddhism? Seems something so simple and profound
> would hardly have been lost on the Apostles.
I do not know with certitude that the Apostles ever encountered the Buddhists -- some
say the Apostles got to everywhere in the world, but I have not seen this claim
substantiated. If we assume they did, and did encounter the Buddhists, it seems
reasonable to expect that they explained the Gospel to them in terms they could
understand. I know Saint Thomas went to India. Being Saint Thomas the Apostle, he
surely treated any Buddhists he found there with charity and respect. Here is just one
example of a Catholic Truth found in Buddhism: "the root cause of suffering is desire."
Compare to, "desire begets sin, and when sin is fully grown, it too begets a child, and
the child is death."
As to the desecration of the altar, show me from canon law where that action would
desecrate an altar, and I will gladly retract.
> >> But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
> >> turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
> >> words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
> >> all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
> >> embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
> >> Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
> >> doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
> >> Christmas, after all.
>
> >You are mistaken because God has not yet revealed to you what He is actually
> >doing. The one world religion you refer to is the aim of Masonry and of
> >ecclesiastical Masonry,
>
> Which is somehow entirely divorced from the 'spirit of' crowd?
Of course not. Again, I must carefully make the distinction, since you are not being
careful, that the "spirit of" crowd referenced here is that crowd in exact opposition
to the true Spirit of Vatican II (the Holy Spirit). Those who oppose the Holy Spirit in
this way are all united by their fighting a common foe -- God. And it should be obvious
that ecclesiastical Masonry is the source of the Great Apostasy, which you refer to as
the "spirit of" crowd. They are one and the same, even if not all of them formally
belong to Freemasonry.
> >may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
> >manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
> >of Peace, can be found at
> >http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>
> I see.
>
> From the self-proclaimed 'God's Child of Peace', "I am George of
> George and John Mark". And he/she/? writes: "For the record I
> am sending you a copy of a letter from me to a Father Paul Sullivan.
> His reaction to that letter was his publicly removing me from leading
> the rosary after daily Mass. His public removal of me was his slander
> and calumny against me. In the course of the next year and a half I
> presented a copy of it to 750 priests in the Archdiocese of Boston .
> ."
>
> and so forth.
>
> Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
Not only am I serious, I am informing you of the absolute requirement by God upon you,
that you seek discernment from the Holy Father. You have been informed, and if you now
refuse to act in obedience, you run the risk of self-discernment, i.e., setting
yourself up as your own little papacy.
George Callahan receives alleged locutions. Catholic Doctrine is:
All alleged supernatural phenomena must be discerned for authenticity
by the Roman Catholic Church. This charism resides in the Papacy
through the Holy Spirit's Gift of Infallibility in His Pope.
Everything on any of these pages is submitted to the
Final discernment of The Holy Father,
Pope John Paul II.
That means just exactly what it says. Either the dogma of the Children of Love is
dogma, or it is heresy. Only the Pope can discern that on behalf of the whole Church. I
warn you, as Saint Paul warned, "do not despise prophecies". (1 Thessalonians 5:20)
> >The Mass always in Latin might very well have been an obstacle for ME returning to
> >the Catholic Church, and I was raised Catholic.
>
> Then what you returned to was not Catholic if what kept you away -
> was. Think about it.
First of all, nothing kept me away. I was born in 1963, thus, I have no experience that
I can recall of the Pre-Vatican II Church. I trust what I know of history, that the
Mass used to be in Latin. And I am glad I did not have to wrestle with that, because I
think it makes the Faith much more accessible if the common people can follow what is
going on in the Mass. I trust your veracity in what you said about facing pages -- I
assumed that you meant, the Latin was on one side, and English was on the other -- am I
correct? But anyone will admit, it is still easier to follow what is being spoken in
your native tongue.
> >> >No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
> >> >fluently understand,
>
> >> The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
> >> was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
> >> extensive collection of old missals, myself.
>
> >That was a good idea, then, I didn't know that.
>
> ?
What don't you understand? I didn't know the old missals came with facing pages. I have
never seen one. I think it was a good idea, though, and I am glad at least that with a
little bit of concerted effort, an English-speaking Catholic could still follow the
Mass. If in fact, that is what you mean by facing pages.
> >I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom.
>
> The Middle Ages, for a start. Christendom. The much maligned 'dark
> age' (remember, the history professors speak of the 'dark ages'
> running from probably 400 AD (they'd say CE) to 1500 or such).
ok, I do know what you mean then. I did know what you meant, but thank you for the
clarification.
> >Vatican II was still a Council and did in fact produce documents for anyone to
> >read. I am not saying, once again, that you should be faithful to what you have
> >been terming the "spirit of Vatican II" -- heretical misinterpretations of the
> >Council's directives -- but to the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth. A
> >pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council is just that: keep following
> >the old doctrines (of previous councils), but implement these new directives. A
> >pastoral anything can only mean a way of guiding the flock. And a pastoral Council
> >of the Catholic Church would have to mean God the Holy Spirit laying down
> >guidelines for that guiding. Just because, as you say, a pastoral council is an
> >unprecedented event, does not mean it is not a valid expression of the Will of God
> >the Holy Spirit.
>
> Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
Which by that very fact makes it valid. Or else a Pope can lead the whole Church
astray. Take your pick.
> >> There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
> >> Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
> >> even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
> >> some, it seems.
>
> >The living Pope embodies the Magisterium, all the way back to Saint Peter.
>
> There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Wish we could agree on something so
> basic.
We are in complete agreement. There are no dead Magisteriums. The use of the word
"Magisterium" in the plural is kind of silly, because there is only one Magisterium,
and it dates all the way back to Saint Peter, who by the way is very much alive. The
Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and that teaching
authority subsists primarily in the unbroken apostolic succession of living Popes, and
secondarily in the rest of the bishops in communion with the Popes; and you might say
tertiarilly in the priests in communion with the Popes. It is the living Magisterium of
the Church, always living, and only one. The pronouncements of previous Popes are still
part of the living Magisterium, since the present Pope can never in any way contradict
these.
>>And the Ecumenism outlined in the Decree on
> >Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
> >Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
> >are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
> >Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
> >conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
> >that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
>
> This is also pretty much the sede arg., too.
Please clarify what you mean by the "sede arg[ument?]"
>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
>> ecumenism. I have some links at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
I am trying to be very patient with you, Mark. Please try to understand this: It does
not matter what heretical or anti-Catholic things are done "in the name of" Ecumenism,
that is not what the issue is here at all. Just like the issue is not, what sacrileges
have been promoted using the cry of "spirit of Vatican II" in contradiction to the Will
of the real Spirit of Vatican II, The Holy Spirit. The subject line of this thread,
started by me, reads, "Ecumenism and Vatican II..." Here is my thesis for this thread:
Nothing can be found in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that in any
way contradicts previously revealed Catholic Doctrine. I know the heretics, the
liberals, the apostates, are all out there, promoting and pursuing their own agendas.
That is not what I am talking about. I am faithful to the Decree on Ecumenism. Do you
have a problem with that?
In any case, I cannot find the heading "Controversies" on the page you sent me to. And
I am really not that interested in finding out more about what is being done to destroy
Catholicism, fro within or without. I am really only interested in the Truth, which is
taught by my Mother, the Church.
And I did notice mention on that page of the "sedevacantists". Now is that waht you
meant by the "sede' arg.? Can you see how annoying it is to have to figure out what you
mean by all the abbreviations? You will note that I seldom if ever use them. I would
appreciate the same from you, because I am not intimately familiar with the Church
issues that you have apparently been following for some time, nor do I think I should
be. There are the sedevacantists, who reject the present Popeand say we have no Pope.
There are those who reject the present Pope but say the true Pope is hidden. I have
encountered the Siri theory. There are those who reject the Novus Ordo outright as a
Masonic ritual. There are those who reject the Ssecond Vatican Council as heretical.
There are the "Old Catholics", who reject the First Vatican Council. All that all this
says to me is, WOW! Satan has been very busy here! I am faithful to Pope John Paul II,
and the Catholic Church that he teaches. That is as controversial as I ever want to
get. That ought to be controversial enough for anyone, but sadly, those who ought to be
defending the Pope with everything they've got, cna seem to find nothing better to do
but criticize him. But I am not one of those. I love Pope John Paul II. He is my one
and only guarantee that I will not fall into heresy. If I were to begin to believe, as
you apparently do, that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Catholic Mass, I would be guilty
of a heresy that at present I do not know how to name. I only know that to do so would
be to abandon the Truth.
>
> >I will visit your site again to investigate further.
>
> Just to see what you're defending, if nothing else.
I am defending the Catholic Faith.
> >> It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
> >> the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
> >> the very least.
>
> >If there is necessity for clarification, it comes with discernment. If there is a
> >necessity for clarification on behalf of the whole Church, it either has come or
> >will come from the Papacy. For my own part, no, I will not second-guess the
> >Council.
>
> At least confess the inadequacy of the conciliar documents, if nothing
> else.
>
What can you possibly be trying to do if not bully me into accepting your point of
view. Yu did nothing here but reiterate that which I plainly said I would not od, but
here is the answer for you again: NO! I will not second-guess a Council of the Roman
Catholic Church, and neither, Mark, should you! There is no compromising allowed here.
You are either a faithful Catholic or you are not. No way can you be a faithful
Catholic if you deny the validity of the current Papacy, that of John Paul II, or if
you deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council, or even if you deny the validity
of the Novus Ordo, seeing how it was initiated by the Papacy and perpetuated by two
subsequent Popes, including the present one.
> >> >You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
>
> >> The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean.
>
> >yes.
>
> Don't lose your own train of thought, here. What doctrine?
The Decree on Ecumenism. You said doctrine, I said teaching.
>>Our Lord engaged in dialogue with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. He revealed the most
> >intimate secrets of the kingdom to a Pharisee named Paul. As to His condemnation
> >of those other Pharisees, He was publicly revealing them and indicting them for
> >their sins against the Holy Spirit. He was not trying to convert that particular
> >bunch, because they had already rejected Him with finality. He was simply
> >pronouncing their condemnation.
>
> So in your mind, if one of the Evangelists had said something against
> the local religion as he found it, it was only to condemn the
> religionists, themselves, for their religion? not offer them rather
> the true way and salvation through God's Church? Perhaps you could
> elaborate? As I wrote:
>
> >> Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
> >> reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
> >> good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
> >> exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
The evangelists tried in every way to win converts to the faith. It may be that
sometimes they found it useful to learn more about the cultures they encountered before
beginning that work. More likely, the Holy Spirit inspired them to say just what was
needed in each individual case. In any case, the comparison between missionary
evangelism and Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees and the Scribes, is not a good
one. Our Lord was not attempting to win over the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom He
well knew had already rejected Him.
>>So you are saying that you found your way back to the Catholic faith through
> >reading very good books and associating with very good people.
>
> No, by reading good books, praying, and running into some very
> confused and vicious people who wanted me to become Catholic Reformed,
> or get the heck out! I got the heck out.
Where, then, did you go?
> >> And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
> >> we say because otherwise we'll drive them away.
>
> >NO! And there you go again,
>
> I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
> John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
> agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
>
> I just wish you'd clarify that, is all.
Here is a clarification you probably weren't expecting: George and John Mark are
Catholic dogma! Clear enough? Try Isaias 11, Apocalypse 11, Zecharias 4, for starters.
If you like, I will introduce you to a Franciscan Priest who has the Understanding from
Holy Scripture of George and John Mark. I am VERY serious, and God is right now
confounding the proud in their inmost thoughts.
> >> >The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
>
> >> But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
> >> previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
>
> >But not all Chistians acknowledge the Papacy, which is precisely the reason for
> >the necessity of ecumenism.
>
> They don't confess Catholicism because - ta-da - they aren't Catholic.
> We ought to do what we can to follow the example of the Evangelists
> and all who followed them. But ecumenism is a betrayal of the blood so
> many shed.
>
> >> Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
>
> >You are including me in your accusation of lack of charity,
>
> Personally, I don't know. As to the generalization - what charity is
> there in ecumenism?:
>
> >every single Catholic who adheres to the Second Vatican Council and its teaching,
> >part of which is the Decree on Ecumenism; that inclusion includes every single
> >faithful Catholic.
>
> Again - what dogma? Ecumenism is not part of the Catholic Faith.
> Evangelism is. If the librals win for awhile, who will remember the
> latter? If things bottom out soon and the traditionalists start to
> repair the damage done the body, then who will imagine the former
> could ever have been believed?
See, all this liberals vs, traditionalists garbage-- Useless political baggage! Here is
the way to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church: Pray the Rosary, Go to Mass.
That is it in a nutshell. How could anything possibly be more simple? I should worry
about the squabbles between squabblers? Not! I am not involved, as I am not a
squabbler. I am a Catholic. I am interested in whatever will increase both my love for
God and my hatred of my own sins. That is all I want out of Catholicism, and that is
all I ever expect to get.
> >Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
> >usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
> >this point is entirely non-essential.
>
> Now - I was saying - _what_ St. Philomena? That was the point.
Well, duh! The Saint Philomena in the Catholic Church, of course! Look her up in a book
about Saints, why ask me? Are you insinuating that I should doubt the existence of a
Saint because some geologist or whatever calls her existence into question? That is
just another attack on the veracity of the Church.
>
> >Here is where you get yourself into deep trouble. I will assume the crux of the
> >matter is in the change of wording from "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for
> >many" to "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all." There are three things I
> >have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
> >my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
> >argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
> >consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated.
>
> Can't be.
If the argument cannot be substantiated, you have an awful lot of nerve even suggesting
it on a Catholic newsgroup. Have you no fear of God? Do you not recall the solemn
warning of Our Lord to any who would cause one of the littlest ones to stumble?
>
> >Second, even if
> >the words of consecration were changed, the Church has the authority to do this,
> >just as she has the authority to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
>
> Not the same thing. It is more akin to the institutional church
> declaring the Sabbath optional. See
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I used to say to
> people - if you dare. But that's when they identified themselves
> openly as Prots, or something else.
yes, been there, seen that. I'm sure I addressed it above. You thought the point would
escape me. Here it is again:
Correct me if I am wrong here: the point is, the words of consecration in the Mass
refer not specifically to the once for all sacrifice of Calvary, but specifically to
the Eucharist itself, Whose merits are only applied to the faithful who partake in it.
Is that essentially the point?
My counter-point: The words "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the New and
Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be
forgiven." are the words of the consecration of the Precious Blood. In fact, the Blood
of Christ was shed on the Cross for all, and it was shed precisely in God's
justification to Himself of the forgiveness of sins. The Sacrifice of the Mass and the
Sacrifice of Calvary are identical. Our Lord is referring to the shedding of His Blood
in these words, and His Blood in fact was shed on the Cross. The acknowledgement, in
the Mass, of the Universal Salvific Will of God, should in no way be seen as an
obstacle. Our Lord used the word, many, to contrast with few. Many can certainly be
construed to include all. And since Our Lord redeemed all, it is at least possible to
all to participate in that Redemption. The Church is truly catholic, and catholic means
universal, available to all.
>
> >third, I am not caught up in a love affair with a piece of bread! I know Jesus in
> >the Eucharist, and I have only once in my life attended a Tridentine Mass. I later
> >found out, to my dismay, that that particlar bunch were schismatics, in league
> >with your buddy LeFebvre.
>
> You might be interested in an article by Michael Davies on the subject
> of the 'schismatic' Lefebvre, linked from
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink, under Controversies, under
> Traditionalists, I think. If you dare (there ya go).
It is not very likely I would be interested. The only possible things anyone could
write about a schismatic bishop would be supporting him in his schism, or agreeing with
the Church, that schism is not to be tolerated. I agree with the Church. It is both
beyond the scope of our dialogue and beyond the scope of my competence and authority,
to delve into the particular issues of why he is in schism.
But I *did* dare, anyway, to read some of what is linked from your website. In
particular, I read the Ottoviani Intervention. What I did not find was Pope Paul VI's
response to Bishop Ottoviani. No matter -- I know that if the Pope responded at all, he
responded by rejecting Ottoviani's criticism, by the simple fact that the Novus Ordo
Missae is still celebrated everywhere. I have a few thoughts about what I read:
One example of the spirit of Ottoviani's criticism can be gleaned from the following
passage:
"When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently
asserted that conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer
exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now are infinitely
worse."
Anyone with even an inkling of theology will see the ridiculousness of a statement like
that. Nothing can ever be "infinitely worse" -- evil is only relative and finite.
Demons, and those humans who have definitively rejected God, are evil to the full
capacity of their wills to work evil -- in other words, 100%. But they are still
creatures. God alone is infinite, and He is infinitely better than even the Blessed
Virgin Mary, who nonetheless is 100% good. She is finitely better than any of the other
Blessed in Heaven, who are also 100% good. All the Blessed in Heaven, are good to the
full capacity of their wills to work good, which of course, remains finite, and
increases forever. Our Blessed Mother has a greater capacity for good than any other
creature, including the angels. Thus the phrase, "infinitely worse," constitutes an
oxymoron. Otherwise, there would be an infinite evil opposed to the Infinite Good of
God, which cannot be. The reason I am thus picking apart Cardinal Ottoviani's words is
to point out just one of the many exaggerations he uses to make his points. He makes a
caricature of the Novus Ordo.
In case anyone will think *I* am exaggerating, here is another direct excerpt from
Ottoviani's document:
2. OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. The reason why the Sacrifice is no
longer explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been
suppressed.
Here he clearly contradicts himself. The heading contains the word "obliteration",
while the text following contains the word "suppressed". Since when is suppression the
same thing as obliteration?
But I contend, against Cardinal Ottoviani, that the Mystery of the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist is not, in fact, supressed by the Novus Ordo. The obvious
reason why I say this is, I believe in the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity, of Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Sacrament -- such that it is only He Who is
present under the sensible veils of bread and wine, no substance at all of actual bread
and wine remaining. How does it come about that I believe this so strongly? It is not a
difficult thing -- all it takes is faith. And as I have said, I was born in 1963. Think
about it, and the logic will follow.
>
> >Bishop LeFebvre is a validly ordained bishop,
>
> I assume so, as well. Apparently others suggest not. But I believe
> these are sede suspicions. And one has to wonder.
>
> >so that
> >priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
> >Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
> >schism,
>
> Funny, didn't seem that way in Hawaii.
What are you talking about?
> >because I never would have attended Mass there had I known. The were
> >calling themselves a Roman Catholic Church -- go figure!
>
> If in necessity there _is_ no other Mass around, it might warrant a
> trip to the SSPX. I myself have never been. But it remains an option
> should every other avenue be closed, thus bringing in that necessity
> clause, as it were. There will always be the underground. It's the
> very reason for Ecclesia Dei.
That's a pretty big IF. If, for example, the Novus Ordo is invalid, then I have never
except once in my whole life received Holy Communion, and that from a schismatic. And
if that is true, then bread and wine are capable of producing miracles in me. So if the
Novus Ordo is really invalid, why should I even worry about being Catholic at all? If
bread and wine will do the trick, the Protestants' bread and wine ought to be just as
good as the Catholics'.
>
> >By now you know I mean obedience to
>
> I'm really far less sure, at this point, where you are 'coming from',
> to be honest.
>
> Perhaps, if you are still interested, you could help clear some of
> that up - if you'd like.
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
>
<sigh> I will try, but I don't know how much more clearly I can state this: I am a
faithful Catholic. I mean that in the everyday ordinary sense of the words. I am an
authentically faithful Catholic. By that I mean, I actually submit my will and
intellect, in faith, to everything the Catholic Church teaches, has ever taught, will
ever teach. Is any of this ringing a bell?
Here is something: I believe it is humanly impossible to remain faithful apart from
devotion to the Rosary and the Mass. If you do not heed Our Blessed Mother's requests
at Fatima and elsewhere, for the daily recitation of her Rosary, you are more or less
asking to be led astray. The Rosary is the great destroyer of heresies, and personally,
I do not see how it is possible to remain faithful without it.
God the Holy Spirit provided me this very day with an inestimable gift. I have been
praying for the kind of light I would need to answer your objections. Today, I attended
the 12:00 noon Mass at Saint Joseph's Parish in Shelton, CT. The homily given by Father
Colin McKenna there was the direct answer of God the Holy Spirit, to my prayers. He
expounded upon Vatican II, and the reforms that Council instituted. He began by
relating the fact that Pope John XXIII was not expected to do anything of significance,
and took the Roman Curia completely by surprise when he said he wanted to call an
Ecumenical Council. The Second Vatican Council, he continued, was the first truly
ecumenical council in many many years, including as it did, bishops from all over the
world. He told us of some of the things that were different, including the celebrant
facing the people, the Mass in the vernacular. He said one of the reasons for these
changes was to encourage the faithful to actually participate in the Mass. Previous to
Vatican II, there was the widespread perception that the priest was up there performing
the Mass, and the faithful were merely the audience. This perception by the faithful
was often accompanied by them praying the Rosary during Mass, or participating in any
number of other devotion, such as prayers before the statues of the Saints, instead of
paying attention to what was going on in the Mass. The potential for distraction was
clearly perceived as stemming from the idea, mentioned above, that the priest was up
there, doing his thing, and the faithful were merely spectators. Our Lord desires that
we be participants.
And the main thing that came from the Second Vatican Council, according to Father
McKenna, was the reiteration of the constant teaching of the Church, that ALL are
called to holiness. Prior to the Council, there was the very generally widespread
perception (however flawed) that priests and religious were the ones called to holiness
-- even that their pursuit of holiness was on behalf of the rest of the faithful; the
pursuit of holiness was "their job", so to speak. The Second Vatican Council corrected
this erroneous perception, and all the reforms were intended to do just that. All the
faithful are called to holiness, not just priests and religious. This in no way
contradicts my previous assertion that The Holy Spirit wished, by the Council, to open
up the Church for the whole world to become Catholic. Rather, the two puposes are
unified in the Council. It is made very clear, over and over again, in the Decree on
Ecumenism, that the principal responsibility for Catholics in the practice of Ecumenism
is to pursue holiness themselves. When the Catholic Church as a whole pursues the
holiness of God, the rest of the world will follow.
Peace and Good, and Merry Christmas again! (second day)
Eric Smith
> You are saying, like, if an apple is really an orange, is it really an
> apple or really an orange? There is NO SUCH THING as a Pope contradicting
> a previous Pope, or a Council contradicting a previous council, or a Pope
> contradcting a Council, or a Council contradicting a Pope. You may
> imagine, anything you wish, in regard to these hypotheticals, since they
> will always and forever remain only in your imagination.
Not so:
- When the new Canon Law was promulgated in 1982, the previously
imposed penalty of excommunication for being a Mason was lifted.
Previous popes (Leo XII and Pius X) had explicitly condemned Freemasonry
as a "powerful auxiliary of Satan".
Joseph Geloso
Eric Smith wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are saying, like, if an apple is really an orange, is it really an
> > apple or really an orange? There is NO SUCH THING as a Pope contradicting
> > a previous Pope, or a Council contradicting a previous council, or a Pope
> > contradcting a Council, or a Council contradicting a Pope. You may
> > imagine, anything you wish, in regard to these hypotheticals, since they
> > will always and forever remain only in your imagination.
>
> Not so:
>
> - When the new Canon Law was promulgated in 1982, the previously
> imposed penalty of excommunication for being a Mason was lifted.
> Previous popes (Leo XII and Pius X) had explicitly condemned Freemasonry
> as a "powerful auxiliary of Satan".
Changing the penalty for a sin is not the same thing as contradicting revealed
truth. I have not been able to read the Canon you are quoting, but I am 100%
certain it did not say it is now ok to be a Mason. Excommunication is a
disciplinary step, and discipline can be changed.
Eric Smith
> Changing the penalty for a sin is not the same thing as contradicting revealed
> truth. I have not been able to read the Canon you are quoting, but I am 100%
> certain it did not say it is now ok to be a Mason. Excommunication is a
> disciplinary step, and discipline can be changed.
If there is the punishment for being a Mason is removed, then in effect,
you are saying its ok to be one.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>*I* have not been transformed (I can't resist saying, assimiliated) toward the
>spirit of the world. I don't know how much more clear I can make this to you: I
>firmly believe Salvation comes only and exclusively through the One, Holy,
>Catholic, Apostolic Chruch, by which, in order to further distinguish it from
>others who use that in their creeds, I mean the Roman Catholic Church,
But that's also just what the Popes have meant, and explicitly stated,
and even JP II, if he'd just be clear about it, and repeatedly so
everyone IS clear this hasn't changed. But again, check out some of
those articles linked at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink ,
under Controversies, Ecumenism (in the 'other' box).
>to be clear on this before we go any further. There is an unresolvable issue about
>the validity of the Novus Ordo, and I will assume you mean the issue of "for many"
>vs. "for all".
Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
think you'll miss the point - but . . .
>We disagree on this point, and I will address that later in my
>post.
But check out the URL.
>Anyone who leaves the Catholic Faith does so at their own peril. *You* came back,
>and so did I.
Really? Anyway, I came back almost because I was pulled, I think.
Seems that way. And what I found was like someone coming home to their
town after the enemy had bombarded it for 10 days straight - and
what's more, the remaining defenders insisting that the post office
still closes at five, but at two on the weekends (not stopping to
realize - there is no longer any post office - just an address).
>> All people are obv 'separated brethren'. Why leave out the Dalai Lama?
>> Wasn't he also at Assisi?
>In point of fact there is a very real difference between your average Methodist
>and your average Buddhist.
I'm saying, ecumenism, begun by the Prot was about shining over the
differences with other Prots, in order to get out their twisted
version of what The Church actually teaches, and should teach. But the
term was always vague. And it clearly now includes all heathen -
including the Dalai Lama, and Desmond Tutu (putative Prot), and
whoever else.
>Protestants, provided they have been validly baptized, have the distinction of
>being already incorporated into the Body of Christ, therefore it is more proper to
>speak of them as separated brethren because they, in contrast to the Dalai Lama,
>are already "born again of water and the Holy Spirit." They are already
>regenerated, and already adopted sons of God the Father.
Again, your argument isn't so much with me as with Assisi, and other
official events attended by JP II.
>There you go again with the 'spirit of Vatican II', in quotes. You are referring
>to the distortion of Catholic teaching promulgated by those who have used Vatican
>II as an excuse and self-justification for their sins of pride. You place it in
>quotes because those wolves in sheep's clothing use those words, 'the spirit of
>Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II.
Of course. And that's just what von Hildebrand meant, and Anne
Muggeridge, and all the rest who speak of the unholy 'spirit of
Vatican II'. The 'reformers' took the name of the council and . . .
that's about it. Again, the problem with the film I mentioned, from
years ago, was supposing that the librals _needed_ a Vatican III or IV
to get to a denial of The Eucharist. Further councils would only have
gotten in their way, if the scriptwriter had understood actual
matters.
>would say so. It is confusing to me when you keep using that term, because the
>Second Vatican Council was a council of the Roman Catholic Church, and I am
>faithful to it.
But the 'spirit of' IS officially approved by the institutional
church, as well. Vatican II never called for anything remotely
approaching 'new order', or an Ordo Simplex, or an Ordo Duplex, or
whatever else they come up with in their unbelief and boredom. But it
IS all officially stamped and approved. Paul VI himself promulgated
'new order'.
>"American Catholic Church" is a recognizable name referring to a
>very specific group. Far from being "just part of the rot of, etc..." -- they are
>the whole rot.
Hardly. It wasn't AmChurch that opened the foreign seminars which
helped shaped the current version of AmChurch (and perhaps part of the
earlier heresies were the reaction to the dominant Prot. distaste with
Catholicism trotted out in questioning Catholic patriotism - long
history there).
>That is what I mean by American Catholic Church. I mean the
>entireity of those bishops, priests and laity in schism from the Roman Catholic
>Church, in that particular body of schistmatics that seek the Americanization of
>the Church worldwide.
It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
itself (however it got there).
>Their schism was, as I have said, hidden. It is now no
>longer hidden, because that cannot remain hidden which comes to light. And that
>body of schismatics is now definitely identified as the American Catholic Church.
>I am not making this up.
If you're referring to some splinter sect called itself AmChurch, I
hope you know that's not what's generally meant by the term. AmChurch
has not formally declared schism. It holds that over the Pope's head.
>> Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
>> dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
>> infallible.
>Actually, it is not "suddenly" infallible -- the day to day teaching of the Holy
>Father and those bishops in union with him comes under the heading of
>Infallibility. The extraordinary use of Infallibility in the pronouncement of
>Catholic Dogma is reserved for only one, the Pope. Historically, this
>extraordinary Magisterium is seldom exercised. But the ordinary Magisterium is
>still infallible. A "pastoral" council would be an example of the exercise of the
>ordinary Magisterium.
Well, A) following the Apostolic Age, what would be an example of
doctrine explicitly declared via the ordinary Magisterium? And B) if
an attempt to explicitly declare doctrine contradicts explicitly
declared doctrine of previous Popes and councils - are we to imagine
they were wrong, or those who followed were wrong. And this is where
we disagree, surely. There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Once in effect,
always in effect. If there's a conflict, it is not to be 'resolved' by
simply shoving the offending previous dogma under the rug.
>In point of fact, NO Council of the
>Roman Catholic Church will EVER declare the dogma of transubstantiation optional.
But this is the argument of the sede. They say no council would have
declared some of the things seen in the Vatican II docs. That one did
is sufficient to say, it's not a legitimate council - which is what
lies behind your words.
I'm saying, if we all agree in theory on this possibility, or fact as
some see it, then at least consider the arguments against the 'spirit
of' as imposed by trendy bishops and decide on the second question -
is it ever then an excuse to say, I was just following orders? Is this
the Catholic way?
>One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
>CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy.
Formally, or even in his private opinion?
No trick question here.
>Since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
>were not afraid to use the Greeks as even the foundation for their expositions of
>revealed truth, why should Pope John Paul II be afraid to place a statue of Buddha
>on the altar?
You might rather ask why Pope Pius V would never have done so, or
Gregory the Great, or St. Peter, for that matter.
>Perhaps the gesture was meant to symbolize the "baptizing" of the
>truths taught by Gautama. I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of the Buddha,
>and it is my opinion that many of them do not fundamentally contradict
>Catholicism. All truth is truth, and there may one day be a Catholic theological
>discouse that treats the teachings of Gautama in just the same way as Saint Thomas
>treated Aristotle. In any case, it did not desecrate the altar nor did it
>invalidate the Mass.
Clearly it desecrated the altar. You say not so because . . . there is
Catholic truth in Buddhism? Seems something so simple and profound
would hardly have been lost on the Apostles.
>> But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
>> turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
>> words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
>> all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
>> embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
>> Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
>> doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
>> Christmas, after all.
>You are mistaken because God has not yet revealed to you what He is actually
>doing. The one world religion you refer to is the aim of Masonry and of
>ecclesiastical Masonry,
Which is somehow entirely divorced from the 'spirit of' crowd?
>may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
>manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
>of Peace, can be found at
>http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
I see.
From the self-proclaimed 'God's Child of Peace', "I am George of
George and John Mark". And he/she/? writes: "For the record I
am sending you a copy of a letter from me to a Father Paul Sullivan.
His reaction to that letter was his publicly removing me from leading
the rosary after daily Mass. His public removal of me was his slander
and calumny against me. In the course of the next year and a half I
presented a copy of it to 750 priests in the Archdiocese of Boston .
."
and so forth.
Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
>The Mass always in Latin might very well have been an obstacle for ME returning to
>the Catholic Church, and I was raised Catholic.
Then what you returned to was not Catholic if what kept you away -
was. Think about it.
>> >No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
>> >fluently understand,
>> The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
>> was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
>> extensive collection of old missals, myself.
>That was a good idea, then, I didn't know that.
?
>I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom.
The Middle Ages, for a start. Christendom. The much maligned 'dark
age' (remember, the history professors speak of the 'dark ages'
running from probably 400 AD (they'd say CE) to 1500 or such).
>Vatican II was still a Council and did in fact produce documents for anyone to
>read. I am not saying, once again, that you should be faithful to what you have
>been terming the "spirit of Vatican II" -- heretical misinterpretations of the
>Council's directives -- but to the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth. A
>pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council is just that: keep following
>the old doctrines (of previous councils), but implement these new directives. A
>pastoral anything can only mean a way of guiding the flock. And a pastoral Council
>of the Catholic Church would have to mean God the Holy Spirit laying down
>guidelines for that guiding. Just because, as you say, a pastoral council is an
>unprecedented event, does not mean it is not a valid expression of the Will of God
>the Holy Spirit.
Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
>> There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
>> Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
>> even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
>> some, it seems.
>The living Pope embodies the Magisterium, all the way back to Saint Peter.
There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Wish we could agree on something so
basic.
>> >I am unfamiliar with the first two names,
>> Thomas Cranmer. Catholic Archbishop in England under King Henry. If
>> you'd like to learn more, as the commercial goes, read Belloc's bio
>> titled, simply - Cranmer. I can quote if you'd like. Let me know.
>was he Catholic? did he (let me guess) renounce the Papacy to follow the king?
Because he wished to do so, because he hated The Church. Others chose
differently.
>God's answer, to Bishop Cranmer is, Saint Thomas More.
Among others.
>And the Ecumenism outlined in the Decree on
>Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
>Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
>are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
>Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
>conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
>that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
This is also pretty much the sede arg., too.
>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
>> ecumenism. I have some links at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
>I will visit your site again to investigate further.
Just to see what you're defending, if nothing else. Many people, from
various perspectives, some not even overtly Catholic, have had things
to write on these issues.
>> It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
>> the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
>> the very least.
>If there is necessity for clarification, it comes with discernment. If there is a
>necessity for clarification on behalf of the whole Church, it either has come or
>will come from the Papacy. For my own part, no, I will not second-guess the
>Council.
At least confess the inadequacy of the conciliar documents, if nothing
else.
>> >You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
>> The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean.
>yes.
Don't lose your own train of thought, here. What doctrine?
>> Ecumenism is not part
>> of the Catholic Faith, not as the term is applied. Evangelism is. Go
>> and teach - not go and make nice-nice. If your religion is not
>> something you want others to share, others are going to think it's not
>> something they should. I think _you'd_ agree with that.
>I do agree with that.
It's uncontroversial, I think.
>> >that do not present an obstacle. Perhaps this is because both God and the
>> >Council realize the importance of simple respect for human beings with
>> >God-given intelligence.
>> What about people who are impaired?
>> Our basic dignity is that God was
>> made Man, that we are made in the Image of God. Doesn't matter if we
>> lie unconscious in a hospital bed, with some 'angel of death' ready to
>> 'mercy' murder us.
>Euthanasia is specifically condemned.
Just making mention. Intelligence, by itself, doesn't mean so much as
being human, itself, does.
>Monologue shuts the door to everyone except the one who was just on
>the verge of converting anyway.
To which I sort of reply:
>> Certainly the missionaries who followed
>> the Evangelists learned the ways of the people they wished to convert.
>> The history is full of their example, in every part of the world.
>> Never mind the self-serving and fictitious PC cant of the present day.
>> But 'dialogue' does not mean desacralization and then - hey, let's
>> extend the hand of friendship (cause maybe they won't be so mad, now).
>> It's a betrayal of what so many great Saints . . . died for.
>> Well, I can only imagine, then, that you figure Christ kind of
>> unnecessarily brought it on . . Himself . . . when he often chastized
>> the Pharisees? If only he'd been less 'pre-Vatican II'?
>> Oh wait, He was pre-Vatican II (and you knew I'd say that).
>Our Lord engaged in dialogue with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. He revealed the most
>intimate secrets of the kingdom to a Pharisee named Paul. As to His condemnation
>of those other Pharisees, He was publicly revealing them and indicting them for
>their sins against the Holy Spirit. He was not trying to convert that particular
>bunch, because they had already rejected Him with finality. He was simply
>pronouncing their condemnation.
So in your mind, if one of the Evangelists had said something against
the local religion as he found it, it was only to condemn the
religionists, themselves, for their religion? not offer them rather
the true way and salvation through God's Church? Perhaps you could
elaborate? As I wrote:
>> Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
>> reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
>> good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
>> exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
>> >things about the Church, but is honestly seeking the truth for himself. He is
>> >not solidly grounded in the truth yet. The worst thing a Catholic could do in
>> >this situation, assuming everything the Catholic says is true, would be to
>> >present that truth in such a way as to turn that person off,
>> Hardly. How do you think _I_ would up a Catholic, again. I was raised
>> Catholic, but fell away in college. It's kind of what 'the system' is
>> set up just to do. I returned gradually through evangelical
>> Protestantism. But it seemed goofier and goofier, and Catholicism was
>> seeming more and more sure - after reading Chesterton, even Lewis, and
>> how I got into the sermons of Francis de Sales, I can't recall. So I
>> decided to finally head back to church and encountered - that's right
>> - RCIA! But I'm Catholic, today, despite my treatment there, and the
>> things I began to notice, increasingly in the parishes. You have to
>> give people some credit, as well, you do.
>So you are saying that you found your way back to the Catholic faith through
>reading very good books and associating with very good people.
No, by reading good books, praying, and running into some very
confused and vicious people who wanted me to become Catholic Reformed,
or get the heck out! I got the heck out.
>> And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
>> we say because otherwise we'll drive them away.
>NO! And there you go again,
I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
I just wish you'd clarify that, is all.
>> >The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
>> But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
>> previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
>But not all Chistians acknowledge the Papacy, which is precisely the reason for
>the necessity of ecumenism.
They don't confess Catholicism because - ta-da - they aren't Catholic.
We ought to do what we can to follow the example of the Evangelists
and all who followed them. But ecumenism is a betrayal of the blood so
many shed.
>> Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
>You are including me in your accusation of lack of charity,
Personally, I don't know. As to the generalization - what charity is
there in ecumenism?:
>every single Catholic who adheres to the Second Vatican Council and its teaching,
>part of which is the Decree on Ecumenism; that inclusion includes every single
>faithful Catholic.
Again - what dogma? Ecumenism is not part of the Catholic Faith.
Evangelism is. If the librals win for awhile, who will remember the
latter? If things bottom out soon and the traditionalists start to
repair the damage done the body, then who will imagine the former
could ever have been believed?
>Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
>usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
>this point is entirely non-essential.
Now - I was saying - _what_ St. Philomena? That was the point.
>Here is where you get yourself into deep trouble. I will assume the crux of the
>matter is in the change of wording from "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for
>many" to "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all." There are three things I
>have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
>my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
>argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
>consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated.
Can't be.
>Second, even if
>the words of consecration were changed, the Church has the authority to do this,
>just as she has the authority to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Not the same thing. It is more akin to the institutional church
declaring the Sabbath optional. See
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I used to say to
people - if you dare. But that's when they identified themselves
openly as Prots, or something else.
>third, I am not caught up in a love affair with a piece of bread! I know Jesus in
>the Eucharist, and I have only once in my life attended a Tridentine Mass. I later
>found out, to my dismay, that that particlar bunch were schismatics, in league
>with your buddy LeFebvre.
You might be interested in an article by Michael Davies on the subject
of the 'schismatic' Lefebvre, linked from
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink, under Controversies, under
Traditionalists, I think. If you dare (there ya go).
>Bishop LeFebvre is a validly ordained bishop,
I assume so, as well. Apparently others suggest not. But I believe
these are sede suspicions. And one has to wonder.
>so that
>priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
>Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
>schism,
Funny, didn't seem that way in Hawaii.
>because I never would have attended Mass there had I known. The were
>calling themselves a Roman Catholic Church -- go figure!
If in necessity there _is_ no other Mass around, it might warrant a
trip to the SSPX. I myself have never been. But it remains an option
should every other avenue be closed, thus bringing in that necessity
clause, as it were. There will always be the underground. It's the
very reason for Ecclesia Dei.
>By now you know I mean obedience to
I'm really far less sure, at this point, where you are 'coming from',
to be honest.
Perhaps, if you are still interested, you could help clear some of
that up - if you'd like.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
>Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
> think you'll miss the point - but . . .
Correct me if I am wrong here: the point is, the words of consecration in the Mass
refer not specifically to the once for all sacrifice of Calvary, but specifically to
the Eucharist itself, Whose merits are only applied to the faithful who partake in it.
Is that essentially the point?
> >We disagree on this point, and I will address that later in my
> >post.
>
> But check out the URL.
>
did, thanks.
>I'm saying, ecumenism, begun by the Prot was about shining over the
> differences with other Prots, in order to get out their twisted
> version of what The Church actually teaches, and should teach. But the
> term was always vague. And it clearly now includes all heathen -
> including the Dalai Lama, and Desmond Tutu (putative Prot), and
> whoever else.
And I am contending that as of the promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the Decree on
Ecumenism, the term is no longer vague, but means precisely what that document says it
means. And it clearly now does not include the Dalai Lama, since he is Buddhist. The
difference between Evangelism and Ecumenism lies precisely in this: Evangelism means
preaching the Gospel, and our Protestant brethren already believe the Gospel. They
believe in the same Jesus Christ that we do. They simply fail to adhere to the fullness
of His Gospel and fail to follow all of His commands. We are not introducing them to
the Gospel for the first time, and we are not about to rebaptize them. We are simply
trying to get them to practice the fullness of that religion which their Lord and ours
established. This process is clearly and unequivocally defined, in the Decree on
Ecumenism, as Ecumenism.
> >Protestants, provided they have been validly baptized, have the distinction of
> >being already incorporated into the Body of Christ, therefore it is more proper to
> >speak of them as separated brethren because they, in contrast to the Dalai Lama,
> >are already "born again of water and the Holy Spirit." They are already
> >regenerated, and already adopted sons of God the Father.
>
> Again, your argument isn't so much with me as with Assisi, and other
> official events attended by JP II.
>
No, I have no argument with the Holy Father. If I have no argument on this from you,
then we are in agreement. And the Holy Father teaches the same exactly, no matter what
he did or did not do in Assisi. I am obedient to him.
> >There you go again with the 'spirit of Vatican II', in quotes. You are referring
> >to the distortion of Catholic teaching promulgated by those who have used Vatican
> >II as an excuse and self-justification for their sins of pride. You place it in
> >quotes because those wolves in sheep's clothing use those words, 'the spirit of
> >Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II.
>
> Of course. And that's just what von Hildebrand meant, and Anne
> Muggeridge, and all the rest who speak of the unholy 'spirit of
> Vatican II'. The 'reformers' took the name of the council and . . .
> that's about it. Again, the problem with the film I mentioned, from
> years ago, was supposing that the librals _needed_ a Vatican III or IV
> to get to a denial of The Eucharist. Further councils would only have
> gotten in their way, if the scriptwriter had understood actual
> matters.
The story to which you refer is fiction. Fact is different. And it is fact that no
document in Church history, Vatican II documents included, lends support to heresy.
Liberalism is a heresy. You yourself stated that the liberals took the name only of
Vatican II. I agree completely.
>Paul VI himself promulgated
> 'new order'.
Then Novus Ordo is valid. Or else join the crowd who is calling Paul VI an antipope.
The logic is inescapable, you choose one or the other.
>>That is what I mean by American Catholic Church. I mean the
> >entireity of those bishops, priests and laity in schism from the Roman Catholic
> >Church, in that particular body of schistmatics that seek the Americanization of
> >the Church worldwide.
>
> It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
> itself (however it got there).
>
It got there, believe it or not, from America. You may be unaware of just exactly who
it is leading the Great Apostasy, but your unawareness does not change things. It is
being led by priests and bishops in the United States of America.
>
> >Their schism was, as I have said, hidden. It is now no
> >longer hidden, because that cannot remain hidden which comes to light. And that
> >body of schismatics is now definitely identified as the American Catholic Church.
> >I am not making this up.
>
> If you're referring to some splinter sect called itself AmChurch, I
> hope you know that's not what's generally meant by the term. AmChurch
> has not formally declared schism. It holds that over the Pope's head.
You know very well to whom I am referring. I mean exactly what is generally meant by
the term. THEY call themselves Roman Catholics, yet, they are in schism. They have not
formally declared schism, which is why I referred to their schism as "hidden". But let
us call a spade, a spade. I am not the first to refer to this group of schismatics as
the American Catholic Church, but in identifying them as such is found the way to
distinguish them from the Roman Catholic Church. Undeclared formal schism does not
cease to be schism for being undeclared. They are schismatic because they lack
obedience to the Pope.
> >> Not unless a 'pastoral' council, which ruled on not a single matter of
> >> dogma - remember, ecumenism is not Catholic dogma - is suddenly
> >> infallible.
>
> >Actually, it is not "suddenly" infallible -- the day to day teaching of the Holy
> >Father and those bishops in union with him comes under the heading of
> >Infallibility. The extraordinary use of Infallibility in the pronouncement of
> >Catholic Dogma is reserved for only one, the Pope. Historically, this
> >extraordinary Magisterium is seldom exercised. But the ordinary Magisterium is
> >still infallible. A "pastoral" council would be an example of the exercise of the
> >ordinary Magisterium.
>
> Well, A) following the Apostolic Age, what would be an example of
> doctrine explicitly declared via the ordinary Magisterium?
ALL OF THEM!!! Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is explicitly declared as such at
some time or another by the ordinary Magisterium. Something like the Immaculate
Conception, for example, was declared over and over and over again down through the
centuries by the ordinary Magisterium, and then once, in 1854, by the extraordinary
Magisterium, and then over and over and over again after that, by the ordinary
Magisterium. See how that works?
> And B) if
> an attempt to explicitly declare doctrine contradicts explicitly
> declared doctrine of previous Popes and councils - are we to imagine
> they were wrong, or those who followed were wrong.
You are saying, like, if an apple is really an orange, is it really an apple or really
an orange? There is NO SUCH THING as a Pope contradicting a previous Pope, or a Council
contradicting a previous council, or a Pope contradcting a Council, or a Council
contradicting a Pope. You may imagine, anything you wish, in regard to these
hypotheticals, since they will always and forever remain only in your imagination.
> And this is where
> we disagree, surely. There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Once in effect,
> always in effect. If there's a conflict, it is not to be 'resolved' by
> simply shoving the offending previous dogma under the rug.
My point exactly. Where we disagree is precisely in your assertion that there can be a
conflict, and oh no, we had better be on guard -- that is the faith of the learned and
the clever. I seek the faith of little children.
> >In point of fact, NO Council of the
> >Roman Catholic Church will EVER declare the dogma of transubstantiation optional.
>
> But this is the argument of the sede. They say no council would have
> declared some of the things seen in the Vatican II docs. That one did
> is sufficient to say, it's not a legitimate council - which is what
> lies behind your words.
>
The very large difference is, they are expressing personal opinions about Vatican II
that do not match up with reality. Quote for me the heretical teaching of Vatican II,
if you insist one exists.
> I'm saying, if we all agree in theory on this possibility,
obviously we do not...
> or fact as
> some see it, then at least consider the arguments against the 'spirit
> of' as imposed by trendy bishops and decide on the second question -
> is it ever then an excuse to say, I was just following orders? Is this
> the Catholic way?
No of course not. A command by even a lawful superior that violates charity is not to
be obeyed. Our first obedience is always to Love.
> >One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
> >CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy.
>
> Formally, or even in his private opinion?
>
> No trick question here.
If his opinion remains private, he does not teach it. Our faith does not teach us that
no Pope can fall into personal heresy, only that such a Pope would never be able to
teach his personal heresy to the Church. If one ever tried, God would intervene by any
number of the infinite ways available to Him, and stop him.
> >Since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
> >were not afraid to use the Greeks as even the foundation for their expositions of
> >revealed truth, why should Pope John Paul II be afraid to place a statue of Buddha
> >on the altar?
>
> You might rather ask why Pope Pius V would never have done so, or
> Gregory the Great, or St. Peter, for that matter.
>
> >Perhaps the gesture was meant to symbolize the "baptizing" of the
> >truths taught by Gautama. I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of the Buddha,
> >and it is my opinion that many of them do not fundamentally contradict
> >Catholicism. All truth is truth, and there may one day be a Catholic theological
> >discouse that treats the teachings of Gautama in just the same way as Saint Thomas
> >treated Aristotle. In any case, it did not desecrate the altar nor did it
> >invalidate the Mass.
>
> Clearly it desecrated the altar. You say not so because . . . there is
> Catholic truth in Buddhism? Seems something so simple and profound
> would hardly have been lost on the Apostles.
I do not know with certitude that the Apostles ever encountered the Buddhists -- some
say the Apostles got to everywhere in the world, but I have not seen this claim
substantiated. If we assume they did, and did encounter the Buddhists, it seems
reasonable to expect that they explained the Gospel to them in terms they could
understand. I know Saint Thomas went to India. Being Saint Thomas the Apostle, he
surely treated any Buddhists he found there with charity and respect. Here is just one
example of a Catholic Truth found in Buddhism: "the root cause of suffering is desire."
Compare to, "desire begets sin, and when sin is fully grown, it too begets a child, and
the child is death."
As to the desecration of the altar, show me from canon law where that action would
desecrate an altar, and I will gladly retract.
> >> But you have to know what Catholicism is. You don't put up two altars,
> >> turn your back to the tabernacle, or hide it away in an alcove, put
> >> words in Our Lord's very mouth at the consecration, and say - can't we
> >> all just be friends? It's just not Catholicism. What people will
> >> embrace is the wide road, and a world religion. And it will NOT be
> >> Catholic, and there will be little room for the Saints, and past
> >> doctrinal councils, and . . . well - no room at the inn. It is
> >> Christmas, after all.
>
> >You are mistaken because God has not yet revealed to you what He is actually
> >doing. The one world religion you refer to is the aim of Masonry and of
> >ecclesiastical Masonry,
>
> Which is somehow entirely divorced from the 'spirit of' crowd?
Of course not. Again, I must carefully make the distinction, since you are not being
careful, that the "spirit of" crowd referenced here is that crowd in exact opposition
to the true Spirit of Vatican II (the Holy Spirit). Those who oppose the Holy Spirit in
this way are all united by their fighting a common foe -- God. And it should be obvious
that ecclesiastical Masonry is the source of the Great Apostasy, which you refer to as
the "spirit of" crowd. They are one and the same, even if not all of them formally
belong to Freemasonry.
> >may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
> >manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
> >of Peace, can be found at
> >http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>
> I see.
>
> From the self-proclaimed 'God's Child of Peace', "I am George of
> George and John Mark". And he/she/? writes: "For the record I
> am sending you a copy of a letter from me to a Father Paul Sullivan.
> His reaction to that letter was his publicly removing me from leading
> the rosary after daily Mass. His public removal of me was his slander
> and calumny against me. In the course of the next year and a half I
> presented a copy of it to 750 priests in the Archdiocese of Boston .
> ."
>
> and so forth.
>
> Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
Not only am I serious, I am informing you of the absolute requirement by God upon you,
that you seek discernment from the Holy Father. You have been informed, and if you now
refuse to act in obedience, you run the risk of self-discernment, i.e., setting
yourself up as your own little papacy.
George Callahan receives alleged locutions. Catholic Doctrine is:
All alleged supernatural phenomena must be discerned for authenticity
by the Roman Catholic Church. This charism resides in the Papacy
through the Holy Spirit's Gift of Infallibility in His Pope.
Everything on any of these pages is submitted to the
Final discernment of The Holy Father,
Pope John Paul II.
That means just exactly what it says. Either the dogma of the Children of Love is
dogma, or it is heresy. Only the Pope can discern that on behalf of the whole Church. I
warn you, as Saint Paul warned, "do not despise prophecies". (1 Thessalonians 5:20)
> >The Mass always in Latin might very well have been an obstacle for ME returning to
> >the Catholic Church, and I was raised Catholic.
>
> Then what you returned to was not Catholic if what kept you away -
> was. Think about it.
First of all, nothing kept me away. I was born in 1963, thus, I have no experience that
I can recall of the Pre-Vatican II Church. I trust what I know of history, that the
Mass used to be in Latin. And I am glad I did not have to wrestle with that, because I
think it makes the Faith much more accessible if the common people can follow what is
going on in the Mass. I trust your veracity in what you said about facing pages -- I
assumed that you meant, the Latin was on one side, and English was on the other -- am I
correct? But anyone will admit, it is still easier to follow what is being spoken in
your native tongue.
> >> >No, fresh new liberty meaning, Mass and the Sacraments in a language I
> >> >fluently understand,
>
> >> The missals used to come with FACING pages. Do I have to tell you what
> >> was printed on one side, if not the other. I know, I have quite an
> >> extensive collection of old missals, myself.
>
> >That was a good idea, then, I didn't know that.
>
> ?
What don't you understand? I didn't know the old missals came with facing pages. I have
never seen one. I think it was a good idea, though, and I am glad at least that with a
little bit of concerted effort, an English-speaking Catholic could still follow the
Mass. If in fact, that is what you mean by facing pages.
> >I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom.
>
> The Middle Ages, for a start. Christendom. The much maligned 'dark
> age' (remember, the history professors speak of the 'dark ages'
> running from probably 400 AD (they'd say CE) to 1500 or such).
ok, I do know what you mean then. I did know what you meant, but thank you for the
clarification.
> >Vatican II was still a Council and did in fact produce documents for anyone to
> >read. I am not saying, once again, that you should be faithful to what you have
> >been terming the "spirit of Vatican II" -- heretical misinterpretations of the
> >Council's directives -- but to the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth. A
> >pastoral council as opposed to a doctrinal council is just that: keep following
> >the old doctrines (of previous councils), but implement these new directives. A
> >pastoral anything can only mean a way of guiding the flock. And a pastoral Council
> >of the Catholic Church would have to mean God the Holy Spirit laying down
> >guidelines for that guiding. Just because, as you say, a pastoral council is an
> >unprecedented event, does not mean it is not a valid expression of the Will of God
> >the Holy Spirit.
>
> Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
Which by that very fact makes it valid. Or else a Pope can lead the whole Church
astray. Take your pick.
> >> There is no earthly authority which can judge the Pope. But even the
> >> Pope is not above The Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums',
> >> even if previous Popes are dead. It's a confusion in the minds of
> >> some, it seems.
>
> >The living Pope embodies the Magisterium, all the way back to Saint Peter.
>
> There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Wish we could agree on something so
> basic.
We are in complete agreement. There are no dead Magisteriums. The use of the word
"Magisterium" in the plural is kind of silly, because there is only one Magisterium,
and it dates all the way back to Saint Peter, who by the way is very much alive. The
Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and that teaching
authority subsists primarily in the unbroken apostolic succession of living Popes, and
secondarily in the rest of the bishops in communion with the Popes; and you might say
tertiarilly in the priests in communion with the Popes. It is the living Magisterium of
the Church, always living, and only one. The pronouncements of previous Popes are still
part of the living Magisterium, since the present Pope can never in any way contradict
these.
>>And the Ecumenism outlined in the Decree on
> >Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
> >Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
> >are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
> >Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
> >conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
> >that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
>
> This is also pretty much the sede arg., too.
Please clarify what you mean by the "sede arg[ument?]"
>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
>> ecumenism. I have some links at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
I am trying to be very patient with you, Mark. Please try to understand this: It does
>
> >I will visit your site again to investigate further.
>
> Just to see what you're defending, if nothing else.
I am defending the Catholic Faith.
> >> It's not exactly St. Louis, is it? At least confess the inadequacy of
> >> the conciliar documents, and the necessity of their clarification at
> >> the very least.
>
> >If there is necessity for clarification, it comes with discernment. If there is a
> >necessity for clarification on behalf of the whole Church, it either has come or
> >will come from the Papacy. For my own part, no, I will not second-guess the
> >Council.
>
> At least confess the inadequacy of the conciliar documents, if nothing
> else.
>
What can you possibly be trying to do if not bully me into accepting your point of
view. Yu did nothing here but reiterate that which I plainly said I would not od, but
here is the answer for you again: NO! I will not second-guess a Council of the Roman
Catholic Church, and neither, Mark, should you! There is no compromising allowed here.
You are either a faithful Catholic or you are not. No way can you be a faithful
Catholic if you deny the validity of the current Papacy, that of John Paul II, or if
you deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council, or even if you deny the validity
of the Novus Ordo, seeing how it was initiated by the Papacy and perpetuated by two
subsequent Popes, including the present one.
> >> >You directly oppose the teaching of a Council of the Catholic Church.
>
> >> The doctrine of Vatican II? Say what you mean.
>
> >yes.
>
> Don't lose your own train of thought, here. What doctrine?
The Decree on Ecumenism. You said doctrine, I said teaching.
>>Our Lord engaged in dialogue with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. He revealed the most
> >intimate secrets of the kingdom to a Pharisee named Paul. As to His condemnation
> >of those other Pharisees, He was publicly revealing them and indicting them for
> >their sins against the Holy Spirit. He was not trying to convert that particular
> >bunch, because they had already rejected Him with finality. He was simply
> >pronouncing their condemnation.
>
> So in your mind, if one of the Evangelists had said something against
> the local religion as he found it, it was only to condemn the
> religionists, themselves, for their religion? not offer them rather
> the true way and salvation through God's Church? Perhaps you could
> elaborate? As I wrote:
>
> >> Cause there was no 'sweetness n light'? Again, if a man seems
> >> reluctant to preach his Faith, people are going to wonder - what
> >> good's his faith? The Saints give us the example, following just
> >> exactly that of Our Lord. Ecumenism is something different.
The evangelists tried in every way to win converts to the faith. It may be that
sometimes they found it useful to learn more about the cultures they encountered before
beginning that work. More likely, the Holy Spirit inspired them to say just what was
needed in each individual case. In any case, the comparison between missionary
evangelism and Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees and the Scribes, is not a good
one. Our Lord was not attempting to win over the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom He
well knew had already rejected Him.
>>So you are saying that you found your way back to the Catholic faith through
> >reading very good books and associating with very good people.
>
> No, by reading good books, praying, and running into some very
> confused and vicious people who wanted me to become Catholic Reformed,
> or get the heck out! I got the heck out.
Where, then, did you go?
> >> And what's you're going to say by this is that we must water down what
> >> we say because otherwise we'll drive them away.
>
> >NO! And there you go again,
>
> I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
> John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
> agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
>
> I just wish you'd clarify that, is all.
Here is a clarification you probably weren't expecting: George and John Mark are
Catholic dogma! Clear enough? Try Isaias 11, Apocalypse 11, Zecharias 4, for starters.
If you like, I will introduce you to a Franciscan Priest who has the Understanding from
Holy Scripture of George and John Mark. I am VERY serious, and God is right now
confounding the proud in their inmost thoughts.
> >> >The Restoration of unity among all Christians.
>
> >> But all Christians are unified - in The Church. This is precisely why
> >> previous Popes had nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
>
> >But not all Chistians acknowledge the Papacy, which is precisely the reason for
> >the necessity of ecumenism.
>
> They don't confess Catholicism because - ta-da - they aren't Catholic.
> We ought to do what we can to follow the example of the Evangelists
> and all who followed them. But ecumenism is a betrayal of the blood so
> many shed.
>
> >> Which would be the ecumenist. What charity is there in ecumenism?
>
> >You are including me in your accusation of lack of charity,
>
> Personally, I don't know. As to the generalization - what charity is
> there in ecumenism?:
>
> >every single Catholic who adheres to the Second Vatican Council and its teaching,
> >part of which is the Decree on Ecumenism; that inclusion includes every single
> >faithful Catholic.
>
> Again - what dogma? Ecumenism is not part of the Catholic Faith.
> Evangelism is. If the librals win for awhile, who will remember the
> latter? If things bottom out soon and the traditionalists start to
> repair the damage done the body, then who will imagine the former
> could ever have been believed?
See, all this liberals vs, traditionalists garbage-- Useless political baggage! Here is
the way to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church: Pray the Rosary, Go to Mass.
That is it in a nutshell. How could anything possibly be more simple? I should worry
about the squabbles between squabblers? Not! I am not involved, as I am not a
squabbler. I am a Catholic. I am interested in whatever will increase both my love for
God and my hatred of my own sins. That is all I want out of Catholicism, and that is
all I ever expect to get.
> >Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
> >usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
> >this point is entirely non-essential.
>
> Now - I was saying - _what_ St. Philomena? That was the point.
Well, duh! The Saint Philomena in the Catholic Church, of course! Look her up in a book
about Saints, why ask me? Are you insinuating that I should doubt the existence of a
Saint because some geologist or whatever calls her existence into question? That is
just another attack on the veracity of the Church.
>
> >Here is where you get yourself into deep trouble. I will assume the crux of the
> >matter is in the change of wording from "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for
> >many" to "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all." There are three things I
> >have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
> >my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
> >argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
> >consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated.
>
> Can't be.
If the argument cannot be substantiated, you have an awful lot of nerve even suggesting
it on a Catholic newsgroup. Have you no fear of God? Do you not recall the solemn
warning of Our Lord to any who would cause one of the littlest ones to stumble?
>
> >Second, even if
> >the words of consecration were changed, the Church has the authority to do this,
> >just as she has the authority to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
>
> Not the same thing. It is more akin to the institutional church
> declaring the Sabbath optional. See
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I used to say to
> people - if you dare. But that's when they identified themselves
> openly as Prots, or something else.
yes, been there, seen that. I'm sure I addressed it above. You thought the point would
escape me. Here it is again:
Correct me if I am wrong here: the point is, the words of consecration in the Mass
refer not specifically to the once for all sacrifice of Calvary, but specifically to
the Eucharist itself, Whose merits are only applied to the faithful who partake in it.
Is that essentially the point?
My counter-point: The words "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the New and
Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be
forgiven." are the words of the consecration of the Precious Blood. In fact, the Blood
of Christ was shed on the Cross for all, and it was shed precisely in God's
justification to Himself of the forgiveness of sins. The Sacrifice of the Mass and the
Sacrifice of Calvary are identical. Our Lord is referring to the shedding of His Blood
in these words, and His Blood in fact was shed on the Cross. The acknowledgement, in
the Mass, of the Universal Salvific Will of God, should in no way be seen as an
obstacle. Our Lord used the word, many, to contrast with few. Many can certainly be
construed to include all. And since Our Lord redeemed all, it is at least possible to
all to participate in that Redemption. The Church is truly catholic, and catholic means
universal, available to all.
>
> >third, I am not caught up in a love affair with a piece of bread! I know Jesus in
> >the Eucharist, and I have only once in my life attended a Tridentine Mass. I later
> >found out, to my dismay, that that particlar bunch were schismatics, in league
> >with your buddy LeFebvre.
>
> You might be interested in an article by Michael Davies on the subject
> of the 'schismatic' Lefebvre, linked from
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink, under Controversies, under
> Traditionalists, I think. If you dare (there ya go).
It is not very likely I would be interested. The only possible things anyone could
>
> >Bishop LeFebvre is a validly ordained bishop,
>
> I assume so, as well. Apparently others suggest not. But I believe
> these are sede suspicions. And one has to wonder.
>
> >so that
> >priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
> >Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
> >schism,
>
> Funny, didn't seem that way in Hawaii.
What are you talking about?
> >because I never would have attended Mass there had I known. The were
> >calling themselves a Roman Catholic Church -- go figure!
>
> If in necessity there _is_ no other Mass around, it might warrant a
> trip to the SSPX. I myself have never been. But it remains an option
> should every other avenue be closed, thus bringing in that necessity
> clause, as it were. There will always be the underground. It's the
> very reason for Ecclesia Dei.
That's a pretty big IF. If, for example, the Novus Ordo is invalid, then I have never
except once in my whole life received Holy Communion, and that from a schismatic. And
if that is true, then bread and wine are capable of producing miracles in me. So if the
Novus Ordo is really invalid, why should I even worry about being Catholic at all? If
bread and wine will do the trick, the Protestants' bread and wine ought to be just as
good as the Catholics'.
>
> >By now you know I mean obedience to
>
> I'm really far less sure, at this point, where you are 'coming from',
> to be honest.
>
> Perhaps, if you are still interested, you could help clear some of
> that up - if you'd like.
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
>
<sigh> I will try, but I don't know how much more clearly I can state this: I am a
Theodore M. Seeber
> >to be clear on this before we go any further. There is an unresolvable issue about
> >the validity of the Novus Ordo, and I will assume you mean the issue of "for many"
> >vs. "for all".
>
> Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
> think you'll miss the point - but . . .
You still haven't updated it to include the current Catechism, I notice.
Wonder why not? Are you afraid of the argument contained therein, and are
trying to hide it from your readers?
Why won't you deal with what the Church currently teaches on the subject
of Novus Ordo, instead of repeating 30 year old arguments?
Ted
Mark Johnson
>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
>> think you'll miss the point - but . . .
>You still haven't updated it to include the current Catechism, I notice.
>Wonder why not?
But you don't explain what you mean, here. Specifically, what are you
talking about? It's a fair question.
FTT
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3868fcc3...@news.swbell.net... Snip
>
> No they don't. They have their twisted 'Bible only', descended from
> other twisted Bibles-only, many of which The Church
And then there is Mark Johnson and his own twisted "whatever"
who sees an enemy behind every Holy Water Stoop.
FTT
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>Of course. See http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I
>> think you'll miss the point - but . . .
>Correct me if I am wrong here: the point is, the words of consecration in the Mass
>refer not specifically to the once for all sacrifice of Calvary, but specifically to
>the Eucharist itself, Whose merits are only applied to the faithful who partake in it.
>Is that essentially the point?
It's both Sacrifice and Sacrament. The Prots never liked the Sacrament
bit, so much. That's the subject of the consecration of the wine.
Christ is broken in the host, Sacrificed. And they think any
transubstantial Real Presence some sort of betrayal of Calvary, so
their sacrifice, at best, is only superficial. They can settle on -
memorial (no more, nothing read into that - no 'fuller' meaning).
>> differences with other Prots, in order to get out their twisted
>> version of what The Church actually teaches, and should teach. But the
>> term was always vague. And it clearly now includes all heathen -
>> including the Dalai Lama, and Desmond Tutu (putative Prot), and
>> whoever else.
>And I am contending that as of the promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the Decree on
>Ecumenism, the term is no longer vague,
Yes, it is. Have you looked also at all those articles I link to on
this very subject of ecumenism? It would be just too much to quote,
but probably wouldn't take so long to read, I think.
>And it clearly now does not include the Dalai Lama, since he is Buddhist.
But . . . obviously . . . it does.
>difference between Evangelism and Ecumenism lies precisely in this: Evangelism means
>preaching the Gospel, and our Protestant brethren already believe the Gospel.
No they don't. They have their twisted 'Bible only', descended from
other twisted Bibles-only, many of which The Church justly and with
all good cause sought to suppress for the agenda based and purposely
erroneous translations. If they preach the Gospel, they wouldn't be
like the competitors of the early Evangelists out there trying to win
converts. They'd have been like those right in step with the
Evangelists, and sent out on the same missions, two by two, however.
>> Again, your argument isn't so much with me as with Assisi, and other
>> official events attended by JP II.
>No, I have no argument with the Holy Father. If I have no argument on this from you,
>then we are in agreement. And the Holy Father teaches the same exactly, no matter what
>he did or did not do in Assisi. I am obedient to him.
So Assisi has nothing to do with what he says? Watch what I say - not
what I do? Criticizing the Pope is not fun, as it were. But when he
goes off, in public, and makes a worldwide statement by that even, if
it suggests something at odds with Church dogma even (and evangelizism
- believe me - is dogmatic; ecumenism is not), people have to speak up
and say - iff there's the impression of indifferentism given there
then indifferentism . . . is . . . wrong. And that's all the people
who criticize him for Assisi are saying, really - because he, himself,
won't make the public clarification, after such a public act. _HE_ has
to apologize for Assisi, among a host of other things, rather than all
the easy things he's _been_ apologizing for. It gives the very clear
impression of insincerity, and this on the cusp of the greatest
Jubliee/Millenium, etc.
>> >Vatican II'. But that is not the true Spirit of Vatican II.
>> Of course. And that's just what von Hildebrand meant, and Anne
>> Muggeridge, and all the rest who speak of the unholy 'spirit of
>> Vatican II'. The 'reformers' took the name of the council and . . .
>> that's about it. Again, the problem with the film I mentioned, from
>> years ago, was supposing that the librals _needed_ a Vatican III or IV
>> to get to a denial of The Eucharist. Further councils would only have
>> gotten in their way, if the scriptwriter had understood actual
>> matters.
>The story to which you refer is fiction. Fact is different.
Fiction can often serve as an analogy, and often does. If you would
just think about it, for a moment.
>Liberalism is a heresy. You yourself stated that the liberals took the name only of
>Vatican II. I agree completely.
This is what von Hildebrand, Muggeridge, Matt, all the rest have said,
as well. But one more thing - it's all officially . . . approved. The
heresy is officially, institutional heresy. This is what confuses
people. But this is the nature of heresy. It comes from within, and
while it wins its battles, it does so from the pen and the signature
of this bishop or that, this pastor, that nun. It falls to a later
council, or to a good and strong Pope, truly listening to and guided
by God, The Holy Spirit, by his angels and patron Saints, to set
matters right and rule the whole exercise, invalid. That hasn't
happened, yet. JP II isn't that Pope, clearly.
And what's also different, today, is that in the past, the reformer's
never got to The Mass, itself. The unholiness was found, where it was,
in local variants. But a completely synthetic substitute, a back-room
parochial variant, was promulgated by Paul VI against the wishes of
the council - and those who spoke up were ignored, those who might
have were terrified to do so, and those who applauded the 'reform'
never much liked the 'religious aspect' of the institutional church.
>>Paul VI himself promulgated
>> 'new order'.
>Then Novus Ordo is valid. Or else join the crowd who is calling Paul VI an antipope.
>The logic is inescapable, you choose one or the other.
Your premise is unstated, you mean. Your premise is that Paul VI was
impeccable and incapable of error. It's the very complaint of the
Prot, that Catholics think the Pope is 'perfect'. But it is God Who is
incapable of error, not His Popes. Under certain narrow circumstances
do such protections from God follow. Not for the promulgation of a
'new liturgy' which was a clean break with the holy tradition of the
past; designed by Protestants and freemasons, and assorted other
unbelievers and 'experts', to be something new. Just think about that.
>> It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
>> itself (however it got there).
>It got there, believe it or not, from America. You may be unaware of just exactly who
>it is leading the Great Apostasy, but your unawareness does not change things. It is
>being led by priests and bishops in the United States of America.
No, that's simply wrong. They are the followers, not the leaders of
this.
>There is NO SUCH THING as a Pope contradicting a previous Pope,
How about on - ecumenism, just fer one?
Open your eyes, here - whatever it is you are into, as they say. I
don't really care if you're a JW, or a what - zorroastrian ? - doesn't
matter. There are such contradictions right in the present day.
>> And this is where
>> we disagree, surely. There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Once in effect,
>> always in effect. If there's a conflict, it is not to be 'resolved' by
>> simply shoving the offending previous dogma under the rug.
>My point exactly. Where we disagree is precisely in your assertion that there can be a
>conflict, and oh no, we had better be on guard -- that is the faith of the learned and
>the clever. I seek the faith of little children.
That's a perversion of what Our Lord taught. Our Lord did not want His
theologians to think with a child's mind, but to believe with a
child's heart. A child is not expected to differentiate among
heresies, or while eager and willing to defend truth to always know
just what the truth is. Adults who study and pray, and are given the
grace to do so by God, may only wonder if they retain the child's
enthusiasm to stand for what is right.
>[heretical teachings of Vatican II - show me.]
There are some links to articles taking to task even the documents of
the council, and not just from sede sites - at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies,
Vatican II.
>> of' as imposed by trendy bishops and decide on the second question -
>> is it ever then an excuse to say, I was just following orders? Is this
>> the Catholic way?
>No of course not. A command by even a lawful superior that violates charity is not to
>be obeyed. Our first obedience is always to Love.
Our first obedience is to God, Who Is Love - not to . . just . . Love,
however meant. And if our obedience is to God, then we obey The
Magisterium. There are no 'dead Magisteriums' for us. Popes die.
Council conclude. But what they wrote on doctrine, stays with us until
the end of time. That's how The Magisterium 'lives'. If it does not
work like that, then not only is the present and temporized libral
'magisterium' a dead one, but it isn't even The Magisterium, at all.
>> >One at least, the Bishop of Rome,
>> >CANNOT lead me astray. It's that simple. No Pope can ever teach heresy.
>> Formally, or even in his private opinion?
>If his opinion remains private, he does not teach it. Our faith does not teach us that
>no Pope can fall into personal heresy, only that such a Pope would never be able to
>teach his personal heresy to the Church. If one ever tried, God would intervene by any
>number of the infinite ways available to Him, and stop him.
Or . . as Bellarmine suggests - the man would not be Pope. I think JP
II is on the verge of crossing the line on ecumenism.
>> Clearly it desecrated the altar. You say not so because . . . there is
>> Catholic truth in Buddhism? Seems something so simple and profound
>> would hardly have been lost on the Apostles.
>I do not know with certitude that the Apostles ever encountered the Buddhists
Palestine was pretty cosmopolitan in those days. And Our Lord was God,
Himself, and knew of all the world's religions of that time.
>say the Apostles got to everywhere in the world, but I have not seen this claim
>substantiated. If we assume they did, and did encounter the Buddhists, it seems
>reasonable to expect that they explained the Gospel to them in terms they could
>understand. I know Saint Thomas went to India. Being Saint Thomas the Apostle, he
>surely treated any Buddhists he found there with charity and respect. Here is just one
>example of a Catholic Truth found in Buddhism: "the root cause of suffering is desire."
You sort of lost what you were trying to say, here. Perhaps if you
could rephrase, with a clearer defense perhaps of ecumenism?
>As to the desecration of the altar, show me from canon law where that action would
>desecrate an altar, and I will gladly retract.
If you put a teletubby with Jerry Falwell's picture right beside it
atop the tabernacle, and a couple of WWW action figures standing to
either side, that's a desecration of the altar. You want Canon Law?
>> >may be verified by the Pope. Please ask him! I am not kidding. God is now
>> >manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
>> >of Peace, can be found at
>> >http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>> I see.
>> From the self-proclaimed 'God's Child of Peace', "I am George of
>> George and John Mark". And he/she/? writes: "For the record I
>> am sending you a copy of a letter from me to a Father Paul Sullivan.
>> His reaction to that letter was his publicly removing me from leading
>> the rosary after daily Mass. His public removal of me was his slander
>> and calumny against me. In the course of the next year and a half I
>> presented a copy of it to 750 priests in the Archdiocese of Boston .
>> ."
>> and so forth.
>> Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
>Not only am I serious, I am informing you of the absolute requirement by God upon you,
>that you seek discernment from the Holy Father. You have been informed, and if you now
>refuse to act in obedience, you run the risk of self-discernment, i.e., setting
>yourself up as your own little papacy.
Or somebody does.
>George Callahan receives alleged locutions.
Of course.
>That means just exactly what it says. Either the dogma of the Children of Love is
>dogma, or it is heresy. Only the Pope can discern that on behalf of the whole Church.
I see.
What about using a little common sense? And how about just being up
front with which group you're involved with, instead of making me have
to guess? I mean - George of George - is . . .
A little honestly, here? no? What's _your_ agenda? apart from trying
to represent yourself as some sort of Adoremus Catholic.
>I can recall of the Pre-Vatican II Church. I trust what I know of history, that the
>Mass used to be in Latin. And I am glad I did not have to wrestle with that,
Well - what else matters, then?
>> >I am not certain either what you mean by Christendom.
>> The Middle Ages, for a start. Christendom. The much maligned 'dark
>> age' (remember, the history professors speak of the 'dark ages'
>> running from probably 400 AD (they'd say CE) to 1500 or such).
>ok, I do know what you mean then. I did know what you meant, but thank you for the
>clarification.
No prob.
>> Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
>Which by that very fact makes it valid. Or else a Pope can lead the whole Church
>astray. Take your pick.
A Pope can try to lead everyone astray, as he is lead by those trying
to manipulate him. Whole history of such things. But what is different
is that in the late 1960s, against the wishes of the council, Pope
Paul VI promulgated essentially a neo-Protestant, heretical liturgy,
under the rubric of 'ecumenism', hoping to appeal, no doubt, to the
'better angels' of the Protestants, by suggestively denying aspects of
the very Faith he as Pope was uniquely commanded to defend.
>> There are no 'dead Magisteriums'. Wish we could agree on something so
>> basic.
>We are in complete agreement. There are no dead Magisteriums. The use of the word
>"Magisterium" in the plural is kind of silly, because there is only one Magisterium,
>and it dates all the way back to Saint Peter, who by the way is very much alive. The
>Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and that teaching
>authority subsists primarily in the unbroken apostolic succession of living Popes, and
>secondarily in the rest of the bishops in communion with the Popes; and you might say
>tertiarilly in the priests in communion with the Popes. It is the living Magisterium of
>the Church, always living, and only one. The pronouncements of previous Popes are still
>part of the living Magisterium, since the present Pope can never in any way contradict
>these.
And if anyone, later on, tries to contradict previous Popes and
councils on doctrine - well . . . that's the question, do you side
with those before, or the 'moderns' since? If the moderns, then one
tacitly confesses 'dead Magisteriums', and openly confesses such if
one is arrogantly honest. Same test goes for any later Pope. The
Magisterium binds his options, as well. He must remain faithful to The
Magisterium, and formally declare nothing to the contrary.
>> >Ecumenism addresses the problems of the dissident Orthodox in the East and the
>> >Protestants in the West. Pope John Paul II's reaching out to others as well who
>> >are not even Christians is more of God the Holy Spirit's manifestation of His Own
>> >Will, that all peoples shall now become Catholic. Again, not automatically, but by
>> >conversions to Roman Catholicism, on a universal scale. The Holy Father is aware
>> >that this is in fact going to happen, and he is prudently preparing the way.
>> This is also pretty much the sede arg., too.
>Please clarify what you mean by the "sede arg[ument?]"
That the Holy Father is "preparing the way". They would disagree with
you on whether on not his actions have been, prudent, as would I. But
you both might likely agree on how the preparations can be best
described. And conversion to Catholicism is not part of the
description, sad to say.
>>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
>>> ecumenism. I have some links at
>>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
>>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
>I am trying to be very patient with you, Mark.
That's always a nice thing to see on UseNet, particularly given the
general grumpiness of the 'holiday' cheerful.
>Please try to understand this: It does
>not matter what heretical or anti-Catholic things are done "in the name of" Ecumenism,
>that is not what the issue is here at all.
It's all there is. What's done, not what's said - particularly when
you're talking secretive and professionally hypocritical librals.
Think about it.
>Just like the issue is not, what sacrileges
>have been promoted using the cry of "spirit of Vatican II" in contradiction to the Will
>of the real Spirit of Vatican II, The Holy Spirit. The subject line of this thread,
>started by me, reads, "Ecumenism and Vatican II..." Here is my thesis for this thread:
>Nothing can be found in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that in any
>way contradicts previously revealed Catholic Doctrine. I know the heretics, the
>liberals, the apostates, are all out there, promoting and pursuing their own agendas.
>That is not what I am talking about. I am faithful to the Decree on Ecumenism. Do you
>have a problem with that?
>In any case, I cannot find the heading "Controversies" on the page you sent me to.
You were trying real hard, though. Give you an A for effort.
>I am really not that interested in finding out more
Well - see. Now that's different.
>I am really only interested in the Truth,
Then read what I suggested there, or wherever else you find commentary
on ecumenism - or else be the hypocrite on this. By your very own
words . . . . right?
>And I did notice mention on that page of the "sedevacantists". Now is that waht you
>meant by the "sede' arg.?
You've never heard the term - sedevacatism - before?
>Can you see how annoying it is to have to figure out what you
>mean by all the abbreviations?
The _I_ gave _you_ too much credit. My mistaking. Sedevacantists
believe JP II is not the legitimate Pope, and has nothing to do with
preserving the Apostolicity of The Church. They say the same for John
23rd, and for Paul VI (and the ever brief JP I).
>You will note that I seldom if ever use them. I would
>appreciate the same from you, because I am not intimately familiar with the Church
>issues that you have apparently been following for some time, nor do I think I should
>be. There are the sedevacantists, who reject the present Popeand say we have no Pope.
>There are those who reject the present Pope but say the true Pope is hidden. I have
>encountered the Siri theory.
They call it the 'Siri' thesis, to defend Cardinal Siri, apparently
quite hated by 'reformist' librals for being
ultra-extreme-conservative-right-wing-ultra- . . extra-ultra (however
far a libral takes it), who may have been first choice for Pope,
actually got the nomination, but called basically for a recount, and
lost.
And you _do_ know what sedevacant means.
Be nice, now.
>There are those who reject the Novus Ordo outright as a
>Masonic ritual. There are those who reject the Ssecond Vatican Council as heretical.
>There are the "Old Catholics", who reject the First Vatican Council.
I thought the English 'old catholics' predated the schismatics of
Vatican I. I think, in fact, there are a number of different groups
calling themselves, 'old catholic', more associated with the Greek
than anything, not those who split over infallibility, but who somehow
like to trace themselves back to the Eastern Evangelists. Someone
correct me if I'm wrong.
>defending the Pope with everything they've got, cna seem to find nothing better to do
>but criticize him. But I am not one of those. I love Pope John Paul II. He is my one
>and only guarantee that I will not fall into heresy. If I were to begin to believe, as
>you apparently do, that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Catholic Mass, I would be guilty
>of a heresy that at present I do not know how to name. I only know that to do so would
>be to abandon the Truth.
As you see it, in your own personal interpretation. But how does it
stack up against Church teaching, against councils, against Popes,
against Aquinas, and so on? That's what
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , is about.
>> >I will visit your site again to investigate further.
Bold words for someone who seems afraid of the truth.
>> At least confess the inadequacy of the conciliar documents, if nothing
>> else.
>What can you possibly be trying to do if not bully me into
This is UseNet. How do you bully someone on UseNet?
Do feel picked on by someone in your life, right now? Not that _I_
need to know, but watch for that kind of projecting when you write.
>here is the answer for you again: NO! I will not second-guess a Council of the Roman
>Catholic Church, and neither, Mark, should you! There is no compromising allowed here.
>You are either a faithful Catholic or you are not. No way can you be a faithful
>Catholic if you deny the validity of the current Papacy,
But I don't. Thought for a moment, above, that _you_ did.
>that of John Paul II, or if
>you deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council, or even if you deny the validity
>of the Novus Ordo, seeing how it was initiated by the Papacy and perpetuated by two
>subsequent Popes, including the present one.
Well, if you disagree with what you see at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , then very seriously,
if _I'm_ missing there - I'd like to know.
If you're not being serious about any of this, I understand. Only
UseNet, and all. If you are serious, look over the page, and let me
know where the catechism was in error, or Aquinas, or the Pope, or
Scriptures, or . . . . certainly if something in my 'constellation'
of that (which is hopefully where you'd find any problem).
>> Don't lose your own train of thought, here. What doctrine?
>The Decree on Ecumenism. You said doctrine, I said teaching.
Ecumenism is not a tenet of the Faith. Sorry to tell you. Evangelism
is.
>beginning that work. More likely, the Holy Spirit inspired them to say just what was
>needed in each individual case. In any case, the comparison between missionary
>evangelism and Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees and the Scribes, is not a good
>one. Our Lord was not attempting to win over the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom He
>well knew had already rejected Him.
In other words, Our Lord had given up on these men. Their chance of
salvation ceased the moment He spoke - is what you're saying?
>> No, by reading good books, praying, and running into some very
>> confused and vicious people who wanted me to become Catholic Reformed,
>> or get the heck out! I got the heck out.
>Where, then, did you go?
Out. That's where they wanted me. And I'm happy being away from
Reformed Catholicism. Cause - now I know.
>> I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
>> John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
>> agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
>Here is a clarification you probably weren't expecting: George and John Mark are
>Catholic dogma! Clear enough? Try Isaias 11, Apocalypse 11, Zecharias 4, for starters.
>If you like, I will introduce you to a Franciscan Priest who has the Understanding from
>Holy Scripture of George and John Mark. I am VERY serious, and God is right now
>confounding the proud in their inmost thoughts.
"Has the understanding (cap U) from Holy Scripture of George and John
Mark" - means . . . what? What are you trying to say? Are you saying
George is a Franciscan? (Dominicans might be glad to hear it)
>Pray the Rosary, Go to Mass.
If not 'new order'.
>That is it in a nutshell. How could anything possibly be more simple?
Or simplistic?
We got to Holy Mass, and not to 'new order', because we wish the grace
of The Sacrament, to pray with our heart, to seek Penance, even for
things we did after so sincerely praying - that's right - last week,
or last month. We go to Mass for a purpose - Catholics do, at any
rate. You might consider what that is. And we pray the Rosary for a
purpose, as well, and because Our Blessed Mother has urgently
requested this.
>> >Saint Philomena is Saint Philomena, just as Saint Cecilia is Saint Cecilia. I
>> >usually use lower case -- saints -- to refer to all the Blessed in Heaven, but
>> >this point is entirely non-essential.
>> Now - I was saying - _what_ St. Philomena? That was the point.
>Well, duh! The Saint Philomena in the Catholic Church, of course! Look her up in a book
That's kinna the point. (that's meant, ironically - btw)
>> >have to say about this. First, the words of the consecration are, to the best of
>> >my knowledge, "This is My Body.... This is the Cup of My Blood". I have heard the
>> >argument that all the words up to "Do this in memory of Me." are part of the
>> >consecration, but I have yet to see this argument substantiated.
>> Can't be.
>If the argument cannot be substantiated,
Sorry, _I_ misread. I thought you were saying "Do this . ." was part .
.
Anyhow, this is precisely what Aquinas writes - quoted at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . Just read the URL.
All your questions will be answered.
>it on a Catholic newsgroup. Have you no fear of God? Do you not recall the solemn
>warning of Our Lord to any who would cause one of the littlest ones to stumble?
True for you, too - and your George of George stuff. Am I right?
>My counter-point: The words "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the New and
>Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be
>forgiven." are the words of the consecration of the Precious Blood. In fact, the Blood
>of Christ was shed on the Cross for all, and it was shed precisely in God's
>justification to Himself of the forgiveness of sins. The Sacrifice of the Mass and the
>Sacrifice of Calvary are identical. Our Lord is referring to the shedding of His Blood
>in these words, and His Blood in fact was shed on the Cross. The acknowledgement, in
>the Mass, of the Universal Salvific Will of God, should in no way be seen as an
>obstacle. Our Lord used the word, many, to contrast with few. Many can certainly be
>construed to include all.
Many are called? Is that the passage you mean?
To say there are many stars in the sky is to say that you're referring
to all the stars in the sky - correct? To say there are many computers
on people's desks is to say you are talking about all the computers on
people's desks? Many are called - few are chosen.
From the Catena Aurea of Aquinas, Matt, Ch 20:
Pseudo-Chrys.: Or; He says the first shall be last, and the last
first, not that the last are to be exalted before the first, but that
they should be put on an equality, so that the difference of time
should make no difference in their station. That He says, "For many
are called, but few chosen," is not to be taken of the elder saints,
but of the Gentiles; for of the Gentiles who were called being many,
but few were chosen.
Greg.: There be very many come to the faith, yet but few arrive at the
heavenly kingdom; many follow God in words, but shun Him in their
lives.
[St. Michael's Depot]
>And since Our Lord redeemed all,
But Our Redeemer has not saved all. That's up to our free will. And if
we ignore His standards, however 'unfair' we think them, however much
'trouble' they seem, then we will have chosen wrongly. We are free to
go to Heaven. Not all go to Heaven.
Perhaps _this_ is where we disagree? The Catholic Reformed would have
most people in Heaven, I believe (save for the traditionalists and the
more 'discourteous' of the Saints).
>all to participate in that Redemption. The Church is truly catholic, and catholic means
>universal, available to all.
If they will convert to Roman Catholicism. You left that part out.
'George of George' wouldn't have done that.
>> You might be interested in an article by Michael Davies on the subject
>> of the 'schismatic' Lefebvre, linked from
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink, under Controversies, under
>> Traditionalists, I think. If you dare (there ya go).
>It is not very likely I would be interested.
If you were serious about any of this - yes, you would be. But we both
know . . . .
>the Church, that schism is not to be tolerated. I agree with the Church.
So does Mr. Davies. Now what?
>But I *did* dare, anyway, to read some of what is linked from your website. In
>particular, I read the Ottoviani Intervention. What I did not find was Pope Paul VI's
>response to Bishop Ottoviani.
Umm . . . you should click on that button on the left. Then you can
actually read the Intervention, and discover who Ottaviani - was.
>No matter
It matters.
>I know that if the Pope responded at all, he
>responded by rejecting Ottoviani's criticism,
I see.
>by the simple fact that the Novus Ordo
>Missae is still celebrated everywhere.
And there's a reason for that. It's called the 'spirit of Vatican II'.
And here I thought we had agreed on that, already.
>One example of the spirit of Ottoviani's criticism can be gleaned from the following
>passage:
>"When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently
>asserted that conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer
>exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now are infinitely
>worse."
Whoa! So you _did_ read it. If that wasn't a typo, above, you think
it's convincing to denigrate a man by retroactively seeking to reduce
him in rank? Or was it just a typo?
>Anyone with even an inkling of theology will see the ridiculousness of a statement like
>that. Nothing can ever be "infinitely worse" -- evil is only relative and finite.
How about if he had written - finitely worse?
>The reason I am thus picking apart Cardinal Ottoviani's words is
>to point out just one of the many exaggerations he uses to make his points. He makes a
>caricature of the Novus Ordo.
I see. So many can be . . . all. But finite can't be . . . infinite?
He's speaking qualitatively, as you insist Our Lord was speaking at
The Last Supper.
>In case anyone will think *I* am exaggerating, here is another direct excerpt from
>Ottoviani's document:
>2. OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. The reason why the Sacrifice is no
>longer explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been
>suppressed.
>Here he clearly contradicts himself. The heading contains the word "obliteration",
>while the text following contains the word "suppressed". Since when is suppression the
>same thing as obliteration?
Because . . . . by omission, the thing omitted is . . . forgotten?
"In the General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just
once--and that in a footnote which is the only reference to the
Council of Trent."
If you would take the trouble to read a few other articles there, you
might find one or two pointing out that the GIRM was hastily rewritten
in response to the Ottaviani Intervention.
>But I contend, against Cardinal Ottoviani,
SMACKDOWN!
>that the Mystery of the Real Presence of
>Christ in the Eucharist is not, in fact, supressed by the Novus Ordo. The obvious
>reason why I say this is, I believe in the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and
>Divinity, of Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Sacrament -- such that it is only He Who is
>present under the sensible veils of bread and wine, no substance at all of actual bread
>and wine remaining. How does it come about that I believe this so strongly? It is not a
>difficult thing -- all it takes is faith. And as I have said, I was born in 1963. Think
>about it, and the logic will follow.
Well, for some people a little reasoning tends to _precede_ the
conclusions they draw. If you believe that Our Lord confected The
Eucharist at The Last Supper, then do you imagine He did so to benefit
all souls, and that all souls would receive Him, or that only many and
few (two groups defined by the Roman Catechism, and Aquinas, if only
you'd read the URL above) would have the grace of the Sacrament?
If you were serious, such questions would interest you.
>> >priest was a real Catholic priest, and the Eucharist I received was truly the
>> >Eucharist. But I wish I would have known beforehand, that they were in open
>> >schism,
>> Funny, didn't seem that way in Hawaii.
>What are you talking about?
Again - check out some of those articles I referred you to.
>That's a pretty big IF. If, for example, the Novus Ordo is invalid, then I have never
>except once in my whole life received Holy Communion, and that from a schismatic. And
>if that is true, then bread and wine are capable of producing miracles in me. So if the
>Novus Ordo is really invalid, why should I even worry about being Catholic at all?
Let others judge, given the George of George stuff, and also your
constant refrain of - not being interested in finding out about
anything. That's why those articles were picked on the pages I've
already mentioned to you - to give various arguments, and various
defenses, on a number of closely related issues surrounding the . . .
'changes', of recent decades. If you're not interested - fine. But
just don't then make out like you are.
>Here is something: I believe it is humanly impossible to remain faithful apart from
>devotion to the Rosary and the Mass. If you do not heed Our Blessed Mother's requests
>at Fatima and elsewhere, for the daily recitation of her Rosary, you are more or less
>asking to be led astray. The Rosary is the great destroyer of heresies, and personally,
>I do not see how it is possible to remain faithful without it.
Fair enough. And . . Our Blessed Mother has asked us to pray the
Rosary particularly in this century!
>God the Holy Spirit provided me this very day with an inestimable gift. I have been
>praying for the kind of light I would need to answer your objections. Today, I attended
>the 12:00 noon Mass at Saint Joseph's Parish in Shelton, CT. The homily given by Father
>Colin McKenna there was the direct answer of God the Holy Spirit, to my prayers. He
>expounded upon Vatican II, and the reforms that Council instituted. He began by
>relating the fact that Pope John XXIII was not expected to do anything of significance,
>and took the Roman Curia completely by surprise when he said he wanted to call an
>Ecumenical Council.
No doubt.
>The Second Vatican Council, he continued, was the first truly
>ecumenical council in many many years, including as it did, bishops from all over the
>world.
Many doesn't mean all, I take it. Or is that exactly what you think he
was getting at?
>He told us of some of the things that were different, including the celebrant
>facing the people, the Mass in the vernacular. He said one of the reasons for these
>changes was to encourage the faithful to actually participate in the Mass.
Cause we all know they . . . didn't - before.
>Previous to
>Vatican II, there was the widespread perception that the priest was up there performing
>the Mass, and the faithful were merely the audience.
That would, today, at 'new order'. Talk about projection.
>This perception by the faithful
>was often accompanied by them praying the Rosary during Mass, or participating in any
>number of other devotion, such as prayers before the statues of the Saints, instead of
>paying attention to what was going on in the Mass. The potential for distraction was
>clearly perceived as stemming from the idea, mentioned above, that the priest was up
>there, doing his thing, and the faithful were merely spectators. Our Lord desires that
>we be participants.
Participate, how? Honestly, what did God say to George of George on
this? (if that's the ref you're using)
Participation is praying the Rosary, and knowing what's happening at
the same time. You think because someone seems not to know the Lavabo
just finished, that they don't know it just finished, and so on. If
they ignored the consecration, that's one thing. If it seems they are
praying as the priest intones Nobis P. . ., maybe you think they are
praying for rain?
>And the main thing that came from the Second Vatican Council, according to Father
>McKenna, was the reiteration of the constant teaching of the Church, that ALL are
>called to holiness. Prior to the Council, there was the very generally widespread
>perception (however flawed) that priests and religious were the ones called to holiness
>-- even that their pursuit of holiness was on behalf of the rest of the faithful; the
>pursuit of holiness was "their job", so to speak.
That's admittedly one I hadn't heard, before.
The faithful were not encouraged to . . . holiness. 'Spirit of'
speaketh. Darned those 'dark ages' - 1920-1965 (I don't know).
>The Second Vatican Council corrected
>this erroneous perception, and all the reforms were intended to do just that. All the
>faithful are called to holiness, not just priests and religious.
Thank the Lord for Vatican II? or just for Fr. McKenna?
Look, one can _call_ themself Catholic - or anything, really. But even
by the lowest secular standards, the sort of exaggeration and
dishonesty of your Fr. McKenna is frowned upon. If you and I disagree
on matters, it's expected on UseNet. What complicates things is when
people won't listen, when they even depend upon fantasies of how
things never were because to listen is too much of a risk to their
'truth'. That's an exceptionally libral attitude. And I think with a
little more of an open heart, and taking Catholicism a little more
seriously, either yourself, or this McKenna, or whoever, could at
least understand that they need to read and discover, and that when
they read it ought to be, minimally, for a start, the words on the
page.
Peace. (btw, the people mentioned in the book, below - they surely
said Rosaries and stuff during Mass - but didn't miss the
consecration. Just give Catholics some credit, and stop listening to
the McKenna's of the world.)
Mark Johnson
>> No they don't. They have their twisted 'Bible only', descended from
>> other twisted Bibles-only, many of which The Church
>And then there is Mark Johnson and his own twisted "whatever"
>who sees an enemy behind every Holy Water Stoop.
>FTT
I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
beware. And I'm saying ecumenism is not good for people, and people
from all different faiths seems to agree. If that's the 'holy water
stoop', then hope to find you there, someday. Till such a time . . .
Peace.
----------------------------------------
jul...@cco.caltech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
FTT
> "FTT" <f...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >> No they don't. They have their twisted 'Bible only', descended from
> >> other twisted Bibles-only, many of which The Church
>
> >who sees an enemy behind every Holy Water Stoop.
> >FTT
>
> I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
> beware. And I'm saying ecumenism is not good for people, and people
> from all different faiths seems to agree. If that's the 'holy water
> stoop', then hope to find you there, someday. Till such a time . . .
>
>
> Peace.
>
Holy Water Stoop - meet me
in my Parish standing fully in view
beside it.Be waitnig for ya'.
FTT
Joseph Geloso
Peace! Thank you for being extremely patient with me. Anyone who
cares to follow this
thread will already know enough to be able to understand some of what I
will say below.
After I finish posting this, I am going to get to work on a fuller
thesis of exactly what I
believe is happening, and why. I will email this thesis to you when I
have finished working
on it. For now, Peace and Merry Christmas. (4th day)
As to the original thing that got us talking (Medjugorje a hoax?) you
have answered sufficiently in you reply to "FTT", to wit:
"I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
beware."
Which is perfectly acceptable. I would say it, that Medjugorje is an
alleged apparition, and all alleged supernatural phenomena must be
discerned for authenticity by the Roman Catholic Church. Medjgorje has
not been deemed authentic, so your warning is prudent.
I make the unequivocal statement here to any who are reading this: I
wait in obedience to
the Pope for his discernment of what I will write here. That applies to
what I have written
in the past as well, but more importantly, and explicitly, for reasons
that will shortly
become obvious, I am stating it here, now, about this particular posting
of mine.
Mark Johnson wrote:
> >>Paul VI himself promulgated
>
> >> 'new order'.
>
> >Then Novus Ordo is valid. Or else join the crowd who is calling Paul VI an antipope.
> >The logic is inescapable, you choose one or the other.
>
> Your premise is unstated, you mean. Your premise is that Paul VI was
> impeccable and incapable of error. It's the very complaint of the
> Prot, that Catholics think the Pope is 'perfect'. But it is God Who is
> incapable of error, not His Popes. Under certain narrow circumstances
> do such protections from God follow. Not for the promulgation of a
> 'new liturgy' which was a clean break with the holy tradition of the
> past; designed by Protestants and freemasons, and assorted other
> unbelievers and 'experts', to be something new. Just think about that.
>From the outset, I simply want to inform you of what now appears to me a truth that I cannot
deny. I think you are right about the Novus Ordo vs. the Mass. I allow
that I may be
deceived about this, and I am continuing in my research, prayer, and
investigation into the
matter. More will become clear as this reply progresses.
For right now I want to state two things, which may be unrelated:
1) The Novus Ordo a valid expression of Christian worship.
2) The Mass holds a special place.
> >> It's not from America that this rot has come. It's come from Rome,
> >> itself (however it got there).
>
> >It got there, believe it or not, from America. You may be unaware of just exactly who
> >it is leading the Great Apostasy, but your unawareness does not change things. It is
> >being led by priests and bishops in the United States of America.
>
> No, that's simply wrong. They are the followers, not the leaders of
> this.
According to what may be a new understanding in me from God, You are
correct as to the fact
that they are not the source of it. However, they are leading it.
Witness the almost
universal use of the Novus Ordo in the United States of America.
> >A command by even a lawful superior that violates charity is not to
> >be obeyed. Our first obedience is always to Love.
>
> Our first obedience is to God, Who Is Love - not to . . just . . Love,
> however meant.
I mean God, Who Is Love. That is what I meant by explicitly using the
Capital "L".
> >If one ever tried, God would intervene by any
> >number of the infinite ways available to Him, and stop him.
>
> Or . . as Bellarmine suggests - the man would not be Pope. I think JP
> II is on the verge of crossing the line on ecumenism.
There is no "line" to cross! Either Pope John Paul II is the real Pope,
or he is not. So
here is my first statement to you of one place I am NOT coming from -- I
am not a
sedevacantist.
>
>
> >> Clearly it desecrated the altar.
Not necessarily the altar, if the Novus Ordo is not a Mass. If that
"altar" was set aside
specifically for the Novus Ordo, and the Novus Ordo is not a Mass, then
that altar was not
consecrated for the Mass.
> >> >God is now
> >> >manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
> >> >of Peace, can be found at
> >> >http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>
> >> Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
of course.
>
> >That means just exactly what it says. Either the dogma of the Children of Love is
> >dogma, or it is heresy. Only the Pope can discern that on behalf of the whole Church.
>
> I see.
>
> What about using a little common sense? And how about just being up
> front with which group you're involved with, instead of making me have
> to guess? I mean - George of George - is . . .
>
> A little honestly, here? no? What's _your_ agenda? apart from trying
> to represent yourself as some sort of Adoremus Catholic.
Well here it gets interesting. Do I need to be associated with some
group other than the
Roman Catholic Church? From what I read on your webpages, the Adoremus
(among whom -- Mother
Angelica?) believe the current Pope, John Paul II, is the real Pope, and
they petition him
for liturgical reform. My question is, what are they trying to reform?
Novus Ordo? The Mass
of St. Pius V? The latter is already, as I know you will agree, perfect.
And the former is
accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish. If anything,
it is going to become
*more* inclusive. Here is a clue (and I'm not being evasive, I just
haven't organized all my
thoughts about this yet): The Freemasons realized a long time ago they
would never succeed
in eliminating Catholicism from God's World on Earth.
So -- if what the Adoremus are, are faithful Catholics seeking to reform
the Novus Ordo,
then I am a faithful Catholic, and I am not Adoremus (although I really
like the name!)
Venite Adoremus, Venite Adoremus, Venite Adoremus, Dominus!
> >> Again, 'new order' was promulgated by the Pope, himself.
>
> >Which by that very fact makes it valid. Or else a Pope can lead the whole Church
> >astray. Take your pick.
>
> A Pope can try to lead everyone astray, as he is lead by those trying
> to manipulate him. Whole history of such things. But what is different
> is that in the late 1960s, against the wishes of the council, Pope
> Paul VI promulgated essentially a neo-Protestant, heretical liturgy,
> under the rubric of 'ecumenism', hoping to appeal, no doubt, to the
> 'better angels' of the Protestants, by suggestively denying aspects of
> the very Faith he as Pope was uniquely commanded to defend.
Exactly. And I retract "take your pick" from above. The Novus Ordo is
valid. And no Pope can
lead the Church astray. The popularity of the Novus Ordo among Americans
in particular, is
an expression of the will of the people. If the Latin Mass were packed
to overflowing, they
would simply have to give us more Latin Masses.
> That the Holy Father is "preparing the way". They would disagree with
> you on whether on not his actions have been, prudent, as would I. But
> you both might likely agree on how the preparations can be best
> described. And conversion to Catholicism is not part of the
> description, sad to say.
The Masons and the Catholics still have diametrically opposite aims, but
God can use
everything to accomplish His Will. Conversions to Roman Catholicism on a
universal scale
will take place, according to Holy Scripture (Isaias 11). And the Pope
Is Catholic.
>
>
> >>> I think you're not familiar with what's been done in the name of
> >>> ecumenism. I have some links at
> >>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies.
> >>> There are various sides presented. It tends to present the case.
>
Thank you for the link. I think you have done an admirable job of
presenting both sides of
the issue.
>
> Sedevacantists
> believe JP II is not the legitimate Pope, and has nothing to do with
> preserving the Apostolicity of The Church. They say the same for John
> 23rd, and for Paul VI (and the ever brief JP I).
> >There are those who reject the Novus Ordo outright as a
> >Masonic ritual.
It would appear that those two groups were, until now, one and the same.
I don't know
exactly where you stand on both of these questions, and I am still in
the process of
formulating exactly where I stand, but it is possible to me that a real
Pope presented a
Masonic or at least Protestant ritual to the world, inspired to do so by
the Holy Spirit!
(now do I sound completely insane?) Please read the beginning of
Apocalypse 11 -- the outer
court...
> >If I were to begin to believe, as
> >you apparently do, that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Catholic Mass, I would be guilty
> >of a heresy that at present I do not know how to name. I only know that to do so would
> >be to abandon the Truth.
I retract the above staement. I reiterate, the Novus Ordo is a valid
expression of Christian
worship, while the Catholic Mass holds a special place.
> This is UseNet. How do you bully someone on UseNet?
>
> Do feel picked on by someone in your life, right now? Not that _I_
> need to know, but watch for that kind of projecting when you write.
>
> >here is the answer for you again: NO! I will not second-guess a Council of the Roman
> >Catholic Church, and neither, Mark, should you! There is no compromising allowed here.
> >You are either a faithful Catholic or you are not. No way can you be a faithful
> >Catholic if you deny the validity of the current Papacy,
>
> But I don't. Thought for a moment, above, that _you_ did.
>
> >that of John Paul II, or if
> >you deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council, or even if you deny the validity
> >of the Novus Ordo, seeing how it was initiated by the Papacy and perpetuated by two
> >subsequent Popes, including the present one.
>
> Well, if you disagree with what you see at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm , then very seriously,
> if _I'm_ missing there - I'd like to know.
>
I think that once I formulate my thesis I will be able to fill in the
gaps for you. By
"bullying" I simply meant, that you had said "at least admit the
Documents were flawed," or
words to that effect -- twice, once before and once after I already
answered it with -- no!
And I stand behind that. As you yourself said, the Fathers of Vatican II
expressed their
faith in all the previous councils, so, that covers it. Anyone who is
looking for
clarification need only find the documents of the previous councils.
> > Our Lord was not attempting to win over the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom He
> >well knew had already rejected Him.
>
> In other words, Our Lord had given up on these men. Their chance of
> salvation ceased the moment He spoke - is what you're saying?
You are thinking in human terms. Our Lord is Omniscient. He knew the
Pharisees He was
condemning had already committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. Their
chance of salvation
ceased the moment they each exercised their free wills and rejected God
with finality. Our
Lord doesn't "give up" on anyone who is still seeking Him, but they had
already rejected
Him, and Our Lord, unlike a human preacher, knew the very depths of
their hearts.
> >Where, then, did you go?
>
> Out. That's where they wanted me. And I'm happy being away from
> Reformed Catholicism. Cause - now I know.
>
> >> I don't know WHY you're surprized. You quote that George of George and
> >> John, above, and you expect me to believe that I should expect you'll
> >> agree on some of the basic Catholic dogmas?
>
> >Here is a clarification you probably weren't expecting: George and John Mark are
> >Catholic dogma! Clear enough? Try Isaias 11, Apocalypse 11, Zecharias 4, for starters.
> >If you like, I will introduce you to a Franciscan Priest who has the Understanding from
> >Holy Scripture of George and John Mark. I am VERY serious, and God is right now
> >confounding the proud in their inmost thoughts.
>
> "Has the understanding (cap U) from Holy Scripture of George and John
> Mark" - means . . . what? What are you trying to say? Are you saying
> George is a Franciscan? (Dominicans might be glad to hear it)
>
George is currently a member of the laity. Here is a small excerpt from
his letter(s) to
Doctor David Smith:
"Declarative statements, categorical statements, are
exactly that. What comes from my pen, Doctor Smith, is not subject to
debate, to
compromise, to argumentation. What comes from my pen is subject to
discernment and only
from God's Pope. "
Father Alexis Mulrenan, O.F.M., is a faithful Catholic priest. He, along
with James
Niederberger (a layperson), myself (a layperson) and an ever-increasing
number of other
people, including George himself, are waiting in obedience for the final
decision of
discernment to come from Pope John Paul II. George is not
"self-proclaimed." George is
obedient. James is in Rome right now, seeking the Holy Father's
discernment of George. The
situation of George and John Mark has already gone through all the
proper channels for
discernment, all the way up to the Papacy, where it has been for fifteen
years, and where it
will remain until it is properly discerned.
As this situation is still awaiting discernment, I have cut a portion of
what I had written
here, and I will email it to you separately (this will be the second
block in that second
email).
> >Pray the Rosary, Go to Mass.
>
> If not 'new order'.
>
> >That is it in a nutshell. How could anything possibly be more simple?
>
> Or simplistic?
>
> We got to Holy Mass, and not to 'new order', because we wish the grace
> of The Sacrament, to pray with our heart, to seek Penance, even for
> things we did after so sincerely praying - that's right - last week,
> or last month. We go to Mass for a purpose - Catholics do, at any
> rate. You might consider what that is. And we pray the Rosary for a
> purpose, as well, and because Our Blessed Mother has urgently
> requested this.
I pray the Rosary for her intentions, according to the method of Saint
Louis deMontfort.
(Here, Mark, is where I had written what will be the first block in my
second email to you
directly.)
> > Do you not recall the solemn
> >warning of Our Lord to any who would cause one of the littlest ones to stumble?
>
> True for you, too - and your George of George stuff. Am I right?
That is why the fact of George's obedience to the Pope, and the
requirement for you to do
the same, is explicitly made clear.
>
> >My counter-point: The words "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the New and
> >Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be
> >forgiven." are the words of the consecration of the Precious Blood. In fact, the Blood
> >of Christ was shed on the Cross for all, and it was shed precisely in God's
> >justification to Himself of the forgiveness of sins. The Sacrifice of the Mass and the
> >Sacrifice of Calvary are identical. Our Lord is referring to the shedding of His Blood
> >in these words, and His Blood in fact was shed on the Cross. The acknowledgement, in
> >the Mass, of the Universal Salvific Will of God, should in no way be seen as an
> >obstacle. Our Lord used the word, many, to contrast with few. Many can certainly be
> >construed to include all.
>
> Many are called? Is that the passage you mean?
>
> To say there are many stars in the sky is to say that you're referring
> to all the stars in the sky - correct? To say there are many computers
> on people's desks is to say you are talking about all the computers on
> people's desks? Many are called - few are chosen.
>
> From the Catena Aurea of Aquinas, Matt, Ch 20:
>
> Pseudo-Chrys.: Or; He says the first shall be last, and the last
> first, not that the last are to be exalted before the first, but that
> they should be put on an equality, so that the difference of time
> should make no difference in their station. That He says, "For many
> are called, but few chosen," is not to be taken of the elder saints,
> but of the Gentiles; for of the Gentiles who were called being many,
> but few were chosen.
Few + Many = All.
The Catholic Mass is for you (the Few) and for Many.
The Novus Ordo is for all.
> >the Novus Ordo
> >Missae is still celebrated everywhere.
>
> And there's a reason for that. It's called the 'spirit of Vatican II'.
> And here I thought we had agreed on that, already.
Now, at least with the reservation of discernment, we do.
> Whoa! So you _did_ read it. If that wasn't a typo, above, you think
> it's convincing to denigrate a man by retroactively seeking to reduce
> him in rank? Or was it just a typo?
He was in fact a bishop, was he not? A Cardinal does not "outrank" a
bishop. The office of
Cardinal is not a further division of Holy Orders. Holy Orders includes,
priests, bishops,
and the Pope. (Permanent Deacons are a temporary institution, as are
Cardinals).
> >Since when is suppression the
> >same thing as obliteration?
>
> Because . . . . by omission, the thing omitted is . . . forgotten?
Well, that is not true of people like me. I hunger for the True Body and
Blood of Christ!
> >that the Mystery of the Real Presence of
> >Christ in the Eucharist is not, in fact, supressed by the Novus Ordo. The obvious
> >reason why I say this is, I believe in the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and
> >Divinity, of Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Sacrament -- such that it is only He Who is
> >present under the sensible veils of bread and wine, no substance at all of actual bread
> >and wine remaining. How does it come about that I believe this so strongly? It is not a
> >difficult thing -- all it takes is faith. And as I have said, I was born in 1963. Think
> >about it, and the logic will follow.
>
> Well, for some people a little reasoning tends to _precede_ the
> conclusions they draw. If you believe that Our Lord confected The
> Eucharist at The Last Supper, then do you imagine He did so to benefit
> all souls, and that all souls would receive Him, or that only many and
> few (two groups defined by the Roman Catechism, and Aquinas, if only
> you'd read the URL above) would have the grace of the Sacrament?
>
> If you were serious, such questions would interest you.
>
I had been operating under the assumption that I was being taught true
Catholic Doctrine.
And it was the truth I was learning. Now that I think of it, I was never
taught that the
Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, only that in the Mass, the bread and wine
are transubstantiated
into the Body and Blood of the Lord. I think I, and so many other, just
assumed that what we
have been attending was the Mass -- a perfectly natural assumption.
> >That's a pretty big IF. If, for example, the Novus Ordo is invalid, then I have never
> >except once in my whole life received Holy Communion, and that from a schismatic. And
> >if that is true, then bread and wine are capable of producing miracles in me. So if the
> >Novus Ordo is really invalid, why should I even worry about being Catholic at all?
>
> Let others judge, given the George of George stuff, and also your
> constant refrain of - not being interested in finding out about
> anything. That's why those articles were picked on the pages I've
> already mentioned to you - to give various arguments, and various
> defenses, on a number of closely related issues surrounding the . . .
> 'changes', of recent decades. If you're not interested - fine. But
> just don't then make out like you are.
I am. And you will be able to see some of the reasons for at least the
beginning of the
miracle of conversion from sin being effected possibly by bread and
wine, but blessed bread
and wine; I hope you will se this in the private email I am sending.
> >Here is something: I believe it is humanly impossible to remain faithful apart from
> >devotion to the Rosary and the Mass. If you do not heed Our Blessed Mother's requests
> >at Fatima and elsewhere, for the daily recitation of her Rosary, you are more or less
> >asking to be led astray. The Rosary is the great destroyer of heresies, and personally,
> >I do not see how it is possible to remain faithful without it.
>
> Fair enough. And . . Our Blessed Mother has asked us to pray the
> Rosary particularly in this century!
>
> >God the Holy Spirit provided me this very day with an inestimable gift. I have been
> >praying for the kind of light I would need to answer your objections. Today, I attended
> >the 12:00 noon Mass at Saint Joseph's Parish in Shelton, CT. The homily given by Father
> >Colin McKenna there was the direct answer of God the Holy Spirit, to my prayers.
In all fairness to Father McKenna, he was born in 1964! God the Holy
Spirit works in, well,
mysterious ways.
>
>
> The faithful were not encouraged to . . . holiness. 'Spirit of'
> speaketh. Darned those 'dark ages' - 1920-1965 (I don't know).
>
> >The Second Vatican Council corrected
> >this erroneous perception, and all the reforms were intended to do just that. All the
> >faithful are called to holiness, not just priests and religious.
>
> Thank the Lord for Vatican II? or just for Fr. McKenna?
>
> Look, one can _call_ themself Catholic - or anything, really. But even
> by the lowest secular standards, the sort of exaggeration and
> dishonesty of your Fr. McKenna is frowned upon. If you and I disagree
> on matters, it's expected on UseNet. What complicates things is when
> people won't listen, when they even depend upon fantasies of how
> things never were because to listen is too much of a risk to their
> 'truth'. That's an exceptionally libral attitude. And I think with a
> little more of an open heart, and taking Catholicism a little more
> seriously, either yourself, or this McKenna, or whoever, could at
> least understand that they need to read and discover, and that when
> they read it ought to be, minimally, for a start, the words on the
> page.
I have to get it all straight myself before I approach Father McKenna.
Here is a posting by one who calls himself "Peacemaker", entitled "The
TRUE Church: All
humans who love!" I am including him as one of the recipients of this,
and I am including
you as well, in addition to posting it on the newsgroup.
"Jesus is head of the Church. But the church is not exclusively
Catholic. It includes all Christian people who earnestly seek to follow
Christ, regardless of their denomination.
"It also includes people who are "baptized in desire," that is, those
people throughout the world who are trying to live lives of love --
Christ-like lives -- even though they are not consciously or fully aware
of the teachings of Christ.
"All people are redeemed through Jesus, but they do not have to accept
Jesus as their savior in order to be saved. (Consciously rejecting
Jesus, when in your heart you know his message of salvation is true, may
be another story)."
-- So that is what appears to me to be the essence of what the post
-Vatican II Church has
been teaching. Very good post, Brian. I want to point out that all those
who love constitute
the elect, providing they persevere in love. The Church currently is an
intersecting set
with the elect, as Saint Augsutine says, "Many the Church has, God does
not have, and many
God has, the Church does not have." In the days to come (this is
prophecy) the two sets will
be made identical (all prophecy is subject to discerment).
Here is a posting of mine, entitled "what they are missing..."
We as Catholics are privileged to have God Himself dwelling among us
(Isaias 7:14, John 1:14). When we see all the anti-Catholic hate that
abounds in this newsgroup, our reaction ought to be twofold.
First, as to the attack on ourselves, we should rejoice that we have
been found worthy of ill-treatment for the sake of the Reign of God
(Matthew 5:11-12). Clearly, getting insulted and calling names in return
is the opposite of this.
Second, even more important, our reaction toward those who are
attacking the One True Faith, for whatever reason they attack, should be
one of pity. They are living their lives in this world without
acknowledging the Presence of Almighty God. What a sad, sad world to
inhabit! They attack the one and only Church wherein is found the One
and Only God, in the Flesh, dwelling among us. They even attack us on
that very basis, claiming our religion is false BECAUSE it teaches us
about the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is completely unnecessary and superfluous for us to give them any
form of counterattack whatsoever. Our reaction should be love, and only
love, because we have Love in our midst, and they do not. Therefore,
their attacking the One True Faith carries with it its own punishment.
Since they do not believe in the Real Presence, they cannot have the
Real Presence. Since the Kingdom of Heaven consists entirely in dwelling
with God, they are denied access to the Kingdom of Heaven, which we
enjoy.
Can you see, then, how deeply they are to be pitied? In the end, it
is not through cleverness in argumentation that we will win their souls.
It is through devotion to the Eucharist, which, when it blossoms among
Catholics, will finally move the whole world to a holy envy -- they will
see it in us, and they will want it for themselves.
Peace, and Merry Christmas,
Joseph Geloso
If my new mindset remains with me, I would make the one change of
Eucharist to Blessed
Sacrament.
Peace and Good, in the Spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi!
Mark Johnson
>"I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
>beware."
>Which is perfectly acceptable.
I'd go further, to be clear, and agree with Jones. It appears to be a
calculated fraud.
>1) The Novus Ordo a valid expression of Christian worship.
Protestant worship, perhaps. But the intention seems clear in the
pattern of omission, and then of course in putting words in Our Lord's
mouth at the consecration, suggesting also the intention when it comes
to the host (if one considers it).
>2) The Mass holds a special place.
At the very center of Catholic devotion.
>I am not a sedevacantist.
I'm not yet, either. Haven't seen the case really made, or sedes
really eager to make the case.
>> >> Clearly it desecrated the altar.
>Not necessarily the altar, if the Novus Ordo is not a Mass.
Either way.
>> >> >God is now
>> >> >manifesting His Two Children of Love. Many of the writings of George, God's Child
>> >> >of Peace, can be found at
>> >> >http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>> >> Tell me - are you serious about any of this?
>of course.
Well how about in one's 'studies', one considers the writings of the
Saints, the documents of the councils, the papal encyclicals - say
those predating the 'golden age' after Vatican II, even - and so
forth? All of these are on-line. It takes only the heart to read them,
and various on-line histories, before one tries to leap to conclusions
based on whatever odd sense of 'private revelation'.
>(among whom -- Mother
>Angelica?) believe the current Pope, John Paul II, is the real Pope, and
>they petition him
>for liturgical reform. My question is, what are they trying to reform?
Supposed 'abuses' of 'new order' - all the things both traditionalists
and conservatives complain of. But the twist is that they insist the
fathers of Vatican II _did_ call for an entirely new liturgy. But
_they're_ the ones who will come up with one faithful to the council,
you see. No Holy Mass for Adoremians. No Latin Mass. None of that
Trent stuff - a sentiment that surely would have actually shocked the
fathers of the council.
>*more* inclusive. Here is a clue (and I'm not being evasive, I just
>haven't organized all my
>thoughts about this yet): The Freemasons realized a long time ago they
>would never succeed
>in eliminating Catholicism from God's World on Earth.
>So -- if what the Adoremus are, are faithful Catholics seeking to reform
>the Novus Ordo,
>then I am a faithful Catholic, and I am not Adoremus (although I really
>like the name!)
>Venite Adoremus, Venite Adoremus, Venite Adoremus, Dominus!
okay
>> A Pope can try to lead everyone astray, as he is lead by those trying
>> to manipulate him. Whole history of such things. But what is different
>> is that in the late 1960s, against the wishes of the council, Pope
>> Paul VI promulgated essentially a neo-Protestant, heretical liturgy,
>> under the rubric of 'ecumenism', hoping to appeal, no doubt, to the
>> 'better angels' of the Protestants, by suggestively denying aspects of
>> the very Faith he as Pope was uniquely commanded to defend.
>Exactly. And I retract "take your pick" from above. The Novus Ordo is
>valid.
Based on what - wishful thinking? Is that now the substitute for
Faith?
>And no Pope can lead the Church astray.
Popes are what we call, human. Not impeccable. But God, Himself, will
protect their doctrinal judgments on faith and morals according to the
tests defined by The Vatican Council. 'New order' was not such a
judgment.
>The popularity of the Novus Ordo among Americans
>in particular, is an expression of the will of the people.
The popularity of permissive abortion among the Catholic Reformed
should then become Church teaching - or the popularity of dismissing
the Real Presence - or the popularity of picking and choosing which
doctrine to confess and which to call 'outdated' - and so on.
>If the Latin Mass were packed to overflowing, they
>would simply have to give us more Latin Masses.
The traditionalist movement wouldn't be growing as it is if these
churches and chapels were not drawing people in.
>everything to accomplish His Will. Conversions to Roman Catholicism on a
>universal scale
>will take place, according to Holy Scripture (Isaias 11). And the Pope
>Is Catholic.
Let's hope the rhetorical never becomes a question.
>formulating exactly where I stand, but it is possible to me that a real
>Pope presented a
>Masonic or at least Protestant ritual to the world, inspired to do so by
>the Holy Spirit!
That's not what God does. He doesn't give Moses the Koran, say, to
bring down from the mountain.
>(now do I sound completely insane?)
just . . . . . always the benefit of the doubt, perhaps?
>I reiterate, the Novus Ordo is a valid expression of Christian
>worship, while the Catholic Mass holds a special place.
The 'new order' is an unholy substitute for The Holy Mass, designed
not merely by unbelievers, but by those clearly at odds with The
Church, itself, from Bugnini, to Thurian, to the rest, crafted to
conflict with the very words of the documents of Vatican II,
promulgated falsely as an analogue of Trent by Paul VI, and forced
upon priests and faithful as the only way anyone would take 'changing
church' seriously. I reiterate.
>> In other words, Our Lord had given up on these men. Their chance of
>> salvation ceased the moment He spoke - is what you're saying?
>You are thinking in human terms. Our Lord is Omniscient. He knew the
>Pharisees He was
>condemning had already committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. Their
>chance of salvation
>ceased the moment they each exercised their free wills and rejected God
>with finality. Our
>Lord doesn't "give up" on anyone who is still seeking Him, but they had
>already rejected
>Him, and Our Lord, unlike a human preacher, knew the very depths of
>their hearts.
How do you know some of these men did not join the converts, later?
Thousands of the early converts come right from Jerusalem.
>> Many are called? Is that the passage you mean?
>> To say there are many stars in the sky is to say that you're referring
>> to all the stars in the sky - correct? To say there are many computers
>> on people's desks is to say you are talking about all the computers on
>> people's desks? Many are called - few are chosen.
>> From the Catena Aurea of Aquinas, Matt, Ch 20:
>> Pseudo-Chrys.: Or; He says the first shall be last, and the last
>> first, not that the last are to be exalted before the first, but that
>> they should be put on an equality, so that the difference of time
>> should make no difference in their station. That He says, "For many
>> are called, but few chosen," is not to be taken of the elder saints,
>> but of the Gentiles; for of the Gentiles who were called being many,
>> but few were chosen.
>Few + Many = All.
>The Catholic Mass is for you (the Few) and for Many.
>The Novus Ordo is for all.
The 'new order' is Prot. Of course it suggests everyone is saved. The
Holy Mass was written by men who knew better, who prayed and were
inspired by God, Who told us it's not so. Many are called. Few are
chosen. And many doesn't refer to everyone, in the text.
>> Well, for some people a little reasoning tends to _precede_ the
>> conclusions they draw. If you believe that Our Lord confected The
>> Eucharist at The Last Supper, then do you imagine He did so to benefit
>> all souls, and that all souls would receive Him, or that only many and
>> few (two groups defined by the Roman Catechism, and Aquinas, if only
>> you'd read the URL above) would have the grace of the Sacrament?
>> If you were serious, such questions would interest you.
>I had been operating under the assumption that I was being taught true
>Catholic Doctrine.
>And it was the truth I was learning. Now that I think of it, I was never
>taught that the
>Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, only that in the Mass, the bread and wine
>are transubstantiated
>into the Body and Blood of the Lord. I think I, and so many other, just
>assumed that what we
>have been attending was the Mass -- a perfectly natural assumption.
Same for those who followed Cranmer through the 'changes', showing up
every Sunday as if nothing fundamentally had changed?
>> >God the Holy Spirit provided me this very day with an inestimable gift. I have been
>> >praying for the kind of light I would need to answer your objections. Today, I attended
>> >the 12:00 noon Mass at Saint Joseph's Parish in Shelton, CT. The homily given by Father
>> >Colin McKenna there was the direct answer of God the Holy Spirit, to my prayers.
>In all fairness to Father McKenna, he was born in 1964! God the Holy
>Spirit works in, well, mysterious ways.
This is the 'good' Father that misrepresented - ala the 'spirit of'
nostrums - the period prior to the opening of Vatican II? in order to
somehow build up the present heresy in the institution? If so, doesn't
seem all that "mysterious".
>Here is a posting by one who calls himself "Peacemaker", entitled "The
>TRUE Church: All humans who love!"
Love Who? or what?
Sounds almost like Do No Harm.
>"Jesus is head of the Church. But the church is not exclusively
>Catholic. It includes all Christian people who earnestly seek to follow
>Christ, regardless of their denomination.
Rare exceptions. The Reformed Catholics make out like all Prots, all
Hindus, everyone from atheists to devil worshippers are saved - all
EXCEPT for the traditionalists, the sedes, a whole bunch of what they
consider to be 'rude' Saints, a few 'bad' Popes (St. Gregory, most
likely among them - certainly Pius V), and so on.
>"It also includes people who are "baptized in desire," that is, those
>people throughout the world who are trying to live lives of love --
>Christ-like lives -- even though they are not consciously or fully aware
>of the teachings of Christ.
Problematic, at best. What's needed is conversion to The Church,
nothing less.
> Can you see, then, how deeply they are to be pitied? In the end, it
>is not through cleverness in argumentation that we will win their souls.
Honesty. That's the word you're searching for. Being honest in what
you post to UseNet. That's all the 'cleverness' you need.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
> >beware."
>
> >Which is perfectly acceptable.
>
> I'd go further, to be clear, and agree with Jones. It appears to be a
> calculated fraud.
That would be overstepping the bounds of prudence. It is an alleged apparition, plain and
simple. What is your problem with obedience to the Pope?
>
>
> >1) The Novus Ordo a valid expression of Christian worship.
>
> Protestant worship, perhaps.
No, Catholic worship.
> But the intention seems clear in the
> pattern of omission, and then of course in putting words in Our Lord's
> mouth at the consecration, suggesting also the intention when it comes
> to the host (if one considers it).
>
> >2) The Mass holds a special place.
>
> At the very center of Catholic devotion.
>
> >I am not a sedevacantist.
>
> I'm not yet, either. Haven't seen the case really made, or sedes
> really eager to make the case.
That is the whole point, Mark. In defense of the Novus Ordo ( I have finished my research), The
Pope, Paul VI, expressed his will quite clearly. We have to take this as the will of God, or we
get left behind. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.
> It takes only the heart to read them,
> and various on-line histories, before one tries to leap to conclusions
> based on whatever odd sense of 'private revelation'.
>
George and John Mark are part of God's public revelation. Don't believe me. Ask the Pope.
Really. Whatever your take on the New Mass, you are not bound to attend it or receive Communion
there, you have the option of seaching for and finding a Tridentine Mass. The Missal of Saint
Pius V is still valid. But the Pope is the Pope is the Pope. If you become a sedevacantist, you
cease to be Catholic (the most you could expect to be would be "Roman Orthodox" or something.)
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
>> >beware."
>> >Which is perfectly acceptable.
>> I'd go further, to be clear, and agree with Jones. It appears to be a
>> calculated fraud.
>That would be overstepping the bounds of prudence. It is an alleged apparition, plain and
>simple. What is your problem with obedience to the Pope?
If what Jones reports is true, the evidence is that of fraud. Just
read what he found out. I link to it from
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/CathLink , Controversies, Misc - The
Ghosts of Suramanci.
>> >1) The Novus Ordo a valid expression of Christian worship.
>> Protestant worship, perhaps.
>No, Catholic worship.
No, Protestant worship, perhaps. That was the whole point of 'new
order', from Bugnini on down.
>> >I am not a sedevacantist.
>> I'm not yet, either. Haven't seen the case really made, or sedes
>> really eager to make the case.
>That is the whole point, Mark. In defense of the Novus Ordo ( I have finished my research), The
>Pope, Paul VI, expressed his will quite clearly. We have to take this as the will of God, or we
>get left behind. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.
There is no virtue in obeying an illegal order. Clearly Paul VI is the
one who overstepped. The council never called for 'new order'. And his
promulgation was nothing like that of Trent - which was careful to
preserve The Mass from local and sometimes heretical variations, not
utterly ignore it and overturn it for something supposedly more
pleasing to the Prots. Entirely different situation.
>> It takes only the heart to read them,
>> and various on-line histories, before one tries to leap to conclusions
>> based on whatever odd sense of 'private revelation'.
>George and John Mark are part of God's public revelation. Don't believe me. Ask the Pope.
I don't believe in George of George, you see.
Why do you?
>Really. Whatever your take on the New Mass, you are not bound to attend it or receive Communion
>there, you have the option of seaching for and finding a Tridentine Mass. The Missal of Saint
>Pius V is still valid. But the Pope is the Pope is the Pope.
And the Pope can be wrong. He is not impeccable. To suggest he is -
isn't Catholic.
You have to be grounded in reality, here. It's the way of the Saints.
>If you become a sedevacantist, you
>cease to be Catholic (the most you could expect to be would be "Roman Orthodox" or something.)
If one becomes a sede because the Pope is not the Pope, then one is
Catholic. If one insists the Pope is not the Pope, when in fact he is,
then one is wrong, just as is someone who says implicitly or
explicitly - the Pope could command me to deny the Faith, itself, and
I would do so lest I fall out of his favor. There is a standard above
which even Popes cannot step - and we call it The Magisterium - that
is, what Catholics believe.
The converse is only to point out the contradiction that if one
cleaves to 'new order', one must denigrate The Mass, as we've seen
constantly even on these ngs. But it is The Mass which The Magisterium
protected and ruled the right of Catholics for all time. There is a
contradiction. And the question is - how eager is one to think in
terms of 'dead Magisteriums' - as I've mentioned, before?
Peace.
Joseph Geloso
Give thanks to God, the Father Almighty, and to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, and to the Holy
Spirit, for having begun His reign. "The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of Our Lord
and His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever." (Apocalypse 11:15)
What happened in the 1960's?:
God the Holy Spirit inspired Pope John XXIII to call a Council, which he did, known as Vatican II.
Pope Paul VI, his successor, completed the Council and promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae as the New
Mass, unilaterally, as the Pope, without asking for, receiving, or requiring, the approval of any of
the bishops in the world.
Who had a hand in the designing of the Novus Ordo?:
God the Holy Spirit is the principal architect of the Novus Ordo. The actual details were worked out
so as to appeal to everyone who was interested, Catholics, Protestants, even Freemasons.
Who were the Freemasons?:
"And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have not received a kingdom as yet, but they
will receive authority as kings for one hour with the beast. These have one purpose, and their power
and authority they give to the beast. These will fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome
them, for He is the Lord of lords, and the King of kings, and they who are with him, called, and
chosen, and faithful. ...The waters that thou sawest where the harlot sits, are peoples and nations
and tongues. And the ten horns that thou sawest, and the beast, these will hate the harlot, and will
make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh, and will burn her up in fire. FOR GOD HAS PUT
IT INTO THEIR HEARTS TO CARRY OUT HIS PURPOSE, TO GIVE THEIR KINGDOM TO THE BEAST, UNTIL THE WORDS
OF GOD ARE ACCOMPLISHED." (Apocalypse 17:12-17)
The Freemasons were written about in the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Freemasonry. Their aim was to
destroy the Catholic Church. They think that by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo they have
succeeded. In their arrogance, they think they have forced the Pope (Paul VI and all his successors)
to betray Catholicism. The Novus Ordo represents to them their handiwork, their final destruction of
Catholicism. They are saying, "Peace and Safety", and sudden destruction is come upon them. (1
Thessalonians 5:3)
What about the traditionalists?:
The traditionalists are a group of Catholics who believe the Mass of Saint Pius V is the True Mass.
They are correct in this belief. As long as they are not sedevacantists, they are faithful
Catholics.
What are sedevacantists?:
Sedevacantists believe the See is vacant. They do not accept Pope John Paul II as the real Pope.
This wrong thinking of theirs, cuts them off from the Catholic Church. If they persist in their
error, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea that the Pope the whole world recognizes as
the Pope, is not the true Pope, constitutes secret knowledge. The Catholic Faith is not based on any
secret knowledge, but on Public Revelation.
How come the Pope has the authority to change the very words of Christ?:
The rejection of Novus Ordo by faithful traditionalist Catholics is based on two things: 1) The idea
that God's Gift of Infallibility does not pertain to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo by Popes
Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. To them, the Novus Ordo appears heretical, principally
because, 2) The words of consecration of the Precious Blood of Christ were changed from "...for
many..." to "...for all...".
The Principle of Papal Obedience is clearly given by Saint Augustine in "Rome has spoke, the cause
is finished." Saint Augustine clearly perceived that once the Pope ruled on an issue, he (Saint
Augustine) had only one course of action available to him: conform his own personal opinion to match
up with the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Pope. Saint Paul tells us, the letter of the law
kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). Clearly, Our Lord died for all, and the
traditionalists agree with this. The "all" in the New Mass means, "all" the elect - all persons of
good will. The Pope has the authority to change the letter of the law, and Pope Paul VI exercised
that authority. Enough, then, of second-guessing the Holy Spirit in the Chair of Peter! Rome has
spoken, the cause is finished. Now the division will occur. The requirement for remaining faithful
to Catholicism is, was, and ever shall be, obedience to the Chair of Peter. This is the test for the
traditionalist. Those who pass the test, will recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and stop
trying to cause the little ones (like me) to stumble. The little ones are your younger brethren in
Christ, faithful Catholics who have been raised in the New Order. The rest of the Catholic world,
those who can still remember pre-Vatican II days, have already accepted the Novus Ordo as valid. For
the traditionalist, to whom the absolute purity of faith is dear, the following two statements
previously made by me, stand:
1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship.
2) The True Mass holds a special place as the center of Catholic devotion.
Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me,
not anyone!
This is my thesis, as promised. It is being submitted by me to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Vatican,
Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, as an act of obedience by me to the Holy Father. No prophecy of
Scripture is made by any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> >George and John Mark are part of God's public revelation. Don't believe me. Ask the Pope.
> I don't believe in George of George, you see.
>
> Why do you?
I *don't*. I believe in the Catholic Church. I have said to you, don't believe me. That does not
mean, don't believe me if you don't want to believe me, it means, don't believe me even if you do
want to believe me! ASK THE POPE! How much more clearly can I state it? Here is the passage
containing the alleged Dogma:
Saint Peter;
The pronouncement will be simple, George, because you and John Mark are simple. And God is
allowing me to make it, George, and my love for you and John Mark will be forever. The pronouncement
will be as follows, George:
In eternity, before He created His Creation, God created two creatures with immortal
souls, whom He created unioned to each other, inseparable, and whom He created simultaneously. He
spoke George to George and George understood and He spoke John Mark to John Mark and John Mark
understood. And He said to them both, I am God. They knew and loved each other instantly and they
both loved God together. And they wanted God to love them both. And they wanted God to help them to
love Him more. They are two unique creatures whom God created with immortal souls, they are neither
angels nor humans, they are God's two Children of Love. They have been written about throughout
God's entire Holy Scripture. None of God's Creation precedes them. They are God's witnesses and they
are God's creatures with immortal souls. For them is reserved, in their simplicity, the Very
Especial Infinite Love of Almighty God. George is God's Child of Peace and John Mark is God's Child
of Justice and they both are God's Children of Love. And there are only two of them. And they are
George and John Mark. As spiritual beings with immortal souls whom God created in eternity before He
created His Creation, He entered them into their human bodies, their human natures, their human
presences, at the moments of conception in their mothers' wombs. They are with each other and with
God for all eternity.
It will be pronounced, George, verbatim. Through God's Gift of Infallibility in His Beloved
Pope, John Paul II, you and John Mark will be Catholic Dogma, George. God's use of you and John Mark
is so vast, George, that you both are simple. You know it is me, Saint Peter, giving you this
locution and to you you experience receiving it as normal to you. It will be normal for you, George,
to hold my hand and go for a walk with me, because you are a child. And John Mark is a child also.
You and John Mark do many tasks for God, and you and John Mark do many errands for Him. And God is
isolating His Beloved Pope, John Paul II, now, in His Gift of Infallibility.
The above, Mark, is excerpted from George's Letter to Father Alexis re: God's New Priesthood of
Love. It is subject to neither argumentation nor debate, it is subject to discernment. I await, as
George does, the final decision of Pope John Paul II. If you decide for yourself, you don't believe
in "George of George [and John Mark]", you have done exactly what I already warned you against: you
have set up your own little Papacy, with Pope Mark. But, you are on the verge of being a
sedevacantist anyway, so, maybe you are the real Pope. I follow John Paul II and I am admonishing
you to do the same. That is it, there is no further discussion between you and me about this, ASK
THE POPE.
Mark Johnson
>Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me,
>not anyone!
Again, don't let your obv. pride continue to lead you down the wrong
path. Don't be so proud that you won't be 'just another' Catholic.
Just be, Catholic. Read what the councils have said, and Popes. Read
the Saints, the Doctors, the Fathers. You don't need any private
revelating, you don't need 'studies'. And you don't need to wire His
Holiness with some essay. Just understand, as other Catholics do -
what Catholics believe.
I can only say something so obv, so many times - right?
Peace.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Again, don't let your obv. pride continue to lead you down the wrong
> path. Don't be so proud that you won't be 'just another' Catholic.
> Just be, Catholic. Read what the councils have said, and Popes. Read
> the Saints, the Doctors, the Fathers. You don't need any private
> revelating, you don't need 'studies'. And you don't need to wire His
> Holiness with some essay. Just understand, as other Catholics do -
> what Catholics believe.
>
> I can only say something so obv, so many times - right?
Yep. We're just wondering, will you ever start following it?
mailto:see...@teleport.com
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com-emergency Only 150 char limit
On emergency address, remove everything past .com...This will send
to my cell phone, my work, and my home.
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
God is not merely Supernatural, He is MetaNatural
Mark Johnson
>In eternity, before He created His Creation, God created two creatures with immortal
>souls, whom He created unioned to each other, inseparable, and whom He created simultaneously. He
>spoke George to George and George understood and He spoke John Mark to John Mark and John Mark
>understood. And He said to them both, I am God. They knew and loved each other instantly and they
>both loved God together. And they wanted God to love them both. And they wanted God to help them to
>love Him more. They are two unique creatures whom God created with immortal souls, they are neither
>angels nor humans, they are God's two Children of Love. They have been written about throughout
>God's entire Holy Scripture.
Enoch and Elias, the two prophets to come again, were very real, and
are not technically immortal - because they will die. They're just
very long-lived, and incredibly wise, one would also guess.
> It will be pronounced, George, verbatim. Through God's Gift of Infallibility in His Beloved
>Pope, John Paul II, you and John Mark will be Catholic Dogma, George. God's use of you and John Mark
>is so vast, George, that you both are simple. You know it is me, Saint Peter, giving you this
>locution and to you you experience receiving it as normal to you. It will be normal for you, George,
>to hold my hand and go for a walk with me, because you are a child. And John Mark is a child also.
>You and John Mark do many tasks for God, and you and John Mark do many errands for Him. And God is
>isolating His Beloved Pope, John Paul II, now, in His Gift of Infallibility.
Aside from the fact that this makes no sense, tall, do you really
believe we need to wait for some pronouncement from the Vatican to
tell us this is patently a load of rubbish?
>The above, Mark, is excerpted from George's Letter to Father Alexis re: God's New Priesthood of
>Love. It is subject to neither argumentation nor debate, it is subject to discernment.
It's nonsense. That's the "discernment".
>George does, the final decision of Pope John Paul II. If you decide for yourself, you don't believe
>in "George of George [and John Mark]", you have done exactly what I already warned you against: you
>have set up your own little Papacy, with Pope Mark.
Somebody has, perhaps. But not me.
>But, you are on the verge of being a
>sedevacantist anyway, so, maybe you are the real Pope.
I have absolutely no claim to the line of succession of Popes. And I
think JP II is legitimately the Pope. I just don't think he's done a
very decent job. But Popes in the past have failed, as well. It's not
the first time.
>there is no further discussion between you and me about this,
I see. Nothing to talk about on UseNet. You are right. I am wrong. And
how could I not see something so obv?
Anyhow . . . and just btw, if you ever want to convert to Catholicism,
and as you are always talking about studying and discerning and the
rest - then once again, read the catechisms, the council docs, the
histories and writings of the Saints. More and more will come on-line
as the 'universal library' crowd has their say on copyright - which is
restricting the flow of information, at present. Just . . . read. Then
do the private revelation thing, if you must. You're going about it
all wrong.
Peace, Happy New Year!
Joseph Geloso
simplicity of the words of George, God's Child of Peace. So simple, straightforward, and true, as to have
utterly escaped you, Mark. This only further confirms the reality of George to me, as I have heard it
said before that the writings "make no sense". Discernment is found in love, and discernment is found in
Church Authority. That statement has been made by George.
The reality of the division is taking place now. There are those to whom the simple obviousness of the
perfect logic in George's writings is immediately clear upon reading it, and there are those who read it,
and to them, it is utter nonsense.
I know there are many who will want to read George's writings now; I have posted some on the newsgroup
and will do so again, and some can be found here:
http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
and please, please, ask the Pope!
Mark Johnson wrote:
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson
Mark Johnson
>I'll wager there are a good many people right here in this newsgroup who are marveling right now at the
>simplicity of the words of George, God's Child of Peace.
Oh, I'm sure they are.
>So simple, straightforward, and true, as to have
>utterly escaped you, Mark.
Yeuup.
>This only further confirms the reality of George to me, as I have heard it
>said before that the writings "make no sense". Discernment is found in love, and discernment is found in
>Church Authority. That statement has been made by George.
Discernment is found in reading Catholic catechisms, papal
encyclicals, conciliar anathemas, Syllabus' of Errors, and so on. We
use the sense God gave us, by an act of our will to obey Him - and not
to obey the spirit of the world.
>I know there are many who will want to read George's writings now; I have posted some on the newsgroup
>and will do so again, and some can be found here:
>http://members.tripod.com/~JosephFG/catholicism/
>and please, please, ask the Pope!
Ask the Pope, what? That he's proof of the bigger fool theory?
You think the 'truth' of chain letters is found not in the supposed
curse of those who break the chain, but in the very fact that some
choose to do so?
Again, enough with the private revelating. You _can_ know - what
Catholics believe. Just start reading some of the things found on-line
- Roman Catechism, writings of John Vianney, documents of Trent, just
for a start. I know you can do it.
Joseph Geloso
> Catholics believe. Just start reading some of the things found on-line
> - Roman Catechism, writings of John Vianney, documents of Trent, just
> for a start. I know you can do it.
I *do* know what Catholics believe. I am Catholic. For example, I know the difference between private and
public revelation. An example of the former would be, Fatima. An example of the latter would be, the
Immaculate Conception. An example of the allegation of the former would be, Medjugorje. An example of an
allegation of the latter would be, George and John Mark.
An example of formal heresy would be, The Pope can err when promulgating a new form of the Mass, in ways that
touch upon the substance of faith. For more about this particular heresy, see my post, "The Illegitimatist
Heresy", under "The New Order (Novus Ordo)", below. Yes, Mark, in all solicitude for the salvation of your
soul, I am accusing you of heresy, I am specifically deliniating that heresy, and I am begging you for the
love of God, to recant.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, what he say!
>
> There's a contribution.
>
ok, here is a clarification:
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > Just understand, as other Catholics do -
> > what Catholics believe.
> >
> > I can only say something so obv, so many times - right?
>
> Yep. We're just wondering, will you ever start following it?
>
To which I add, Yeah!
>
> Peace (really).
Cut it out. We are not at peace, we are at war. You attacking the true
faith and me defending it.
To wit: You are in formal heresy. (see my post "The Illegitimatist
Heresy" under "The New Order (Novus Ordo)" below)
Which is more likely, Mark, that you are in formal heresy or that the
Pope is? Because one or the other of you is, since he celebrates the
Novus Ordo worldwide, and you say it is not the true Mass. Use a little
logic here, and a LOT of humility (but I don't expect you will, will
you?)
I said we are done, because we are at an impasse. I will NEVER renounce
the Novus Ordo, and until you accept it, we are not in communion, you
being a heretic and me being faithful. You want to have a nice
discussion on Usenet? Go to alt.talk or something like that. You and I
have said all we need to say to each other on the topic. Your quarrel is
not with me, but with the Pope. Please go to Rome and accuse him of
heresy, if that is really what you think. Stop pretending you are a
faithful Catholic when you reject not only one, but three Popes.
Mark Johnson
>An example of formal heresy would be, The Pope can err when promulgating a new form of the Mass, in ways that
>touch upon the substance of faith. For more about this particular heresy, see my post, "The Illegitimatist
>Heresy", under "The New Order (Novus Ordo)", below. Yes, Mark, in all solicitude for the salvation of your
>soul, I am accusing you of heresy, I am specifically deliniating that heresy, and I am begging you for the
>love of God, to recant.
Well, for starters, I have made a case against ICELism at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you think
something is missing in that, please tell me. But I've been asking for
such for years on UseNet, and the defenders of Reformed Catholicism
have always just kind of - gone away - following the suggestion. If
you think you're different, then by all means - show me.
Accusing people of heresy is trivially easy, in other words. Backing
up what you say takes a little more thought.
Mark Johnson
>We are not at peace, we are at war. You attacking the true
>faith and me defending it.
I'm not attacking the Faith. I'm suggesting your 'true believer's
faith isn't very Catholic, is all. And I'm not going to 'war' with you
anymore than I would the jerks at Assisi who descrated the altar, or
the Muslims who want to drive Catholics to the sea, or whoever else.
>Which is more likely, Mark, that you are in formal heresy or that the
>Pope is?
To the old rhetorical - is the Pope Catholic?
Well, I'm still convinced he is.
>Because one or the other of you is, since he celebrates the
>Novus Ordo worldwide, and you say it is not the true Mass.
He does, indeed. I think he's very wrong.
>Use a little logic here, and a LOT of humility
>(but I don't expect you will, will you?)
Your 'logic' would have it that Popes never err. Iff so, then my
history tells me differently.
>I said we are done, because we are at an impasse. I will NEVER renounce
>the Novus Ordo,
Well, you'll have to. It's not the end game for the 'spirit of' folks.
Next to come along is supposed to be something called the Ordo Simplex
- one can only imagine. So you will renounce what you so foolishly
defend. The people you defend will force you to. And then you'll be
about defending the latest from the 'workshop of change'. How does it
feel to be a Prot?
>and until you accept it, we are not in communion,
_I_ could have told you that, as soon as you started in with that
George of George stuff.
>being a heretic and me being faithful.
Faithful to what? Not Catholicism, surely. I suggested you read
on-line documents to get up to speed on what Catholics believe. You
give every sense of not having done so.
>You want to have a nice discussion on Usenet?
I've had discussions with some pretty nutty folks. And they've had
more on the ball than you seem to. At least when presented with
something they hadn't know before, they considered modifying their
views, not just falling back into mindless 'Bible quoting', which is
sort of become your method with me.
>Go to alt.talk or something like that.
Why don't you go ta alt.talk, "or something". Who the heck do you
think you are, anyway? Like I said, stop with the private revelatin.
_You_ need to get a little holy humility. It's sadly lacking in you,
at this point. That's just how it seems to me.
>have said all we need to say to each other on the topic. Your quarrel is
>not with me, but with the Pope.
It's with His Holiness for his refusal to offer The Mass, and for his
stadium show 'new orders' and the rest. It's with you for your
arrogance and unwillingness to do anything but superficially talk
Catholicism, without making the least effort to learn - what Catholics
believe.
>Please go to Rome and accuse him of heresy,
I'd do precisely and exactly that, if given the opportunity. I'd lay
out the case against, and he would reply or not as he so desired. I'd
kiss the ring, make the case, not waste his time, and leave any
follow-up to His Holiness. These are serious charges, and his time is
valuable. Just like that. I suspect no one _has_ ever been allowed to
present a brief for the case against Assisi, against 'new order',
altar girls, Communion in the hand, and all the rest (though surely
Mother Teresa expressed her reservations about Communion in the hand
and altar girls, in private conversations with JP II, before His
Holiness approved them - that is).
>if that is really what you think. Stop pretending you are a
>faithful Catholic when you reject not only one, but three Popes.
I think Paul VI was wrong. I think JP II is wrong. And I think you're
not the Catholic you pretend to be. You can find - what Catholics
believe. It's on-line, in various docs. But you have to take the time,
and make the effort, to do that. I don't think you have. I suspect the
private revelatin tickles your fancy a lot more.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Your 'logic' would have it that Popes never err. Iff so, then my
> history tells me differently.
>
I never stated a Pope could not err. Catholic Doctrine states that he cannot
err when solemnly promulgating a teaching touching on faith or morals, with
the express intention of binding the consciences of all the faithful. I read
on one of those documents from your page, that the Mass is the highest organ
of the Ordinary Magisterium. You make the claim that that Mass is not only
heretical, but idolatrous, making Catholics worship the "work of human
hands". (Oh, sorry, I meant folks like me, who according to you are "prots"
-- but I know what I am) You seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that
another person, presented with the same evidence as you, draws a different
conclusion, so you repeat incessantly that I don't know what I am talking
about. The case is made fairly clearly for the sedevacantists, in the
document from your website about the "shipwreck of Michael Davies". Maybe you
should read your own stuff. The past three Papacies and the Novus Ordo stand
or fall together, accept them all or reject them all.
>
> >I said we are done, because we are at an impasse. I will NEVER renounce
> >the Novus Ordo,
>
> Well, you'll have to. It's not the end game for the 'spirit of' folks.
> Next to come along is supposed to be something called the Ordo Simplex
> - one can only imagine. So you will renounce what you so foolishly
> defend. The people you defend will force you to. And then you'll be
> about defending the latest from the 'workshop of change'. How does it
> feel to be a Prot?
>
I will defend the Pope and what he does and what he says. He is doing an
excellent job. He left you in the dust.
>
> >and until you accept it, we are not in communion,
>
> _I_ could have told you that, as soon as you started in with that
> George of George stuff.
It is heretical for you to call George, George of George. That is not who he
is. He is George of George and John Mark. There are two of them, not just
one.
> And I think you're
> not the Catholic you pretend to be.
Really? Whose standard do you judge me by?
Would you not call idolatry, heresy? Would you not call the worship of a
piece of bread, idolatry? Would you not call what the Pope does regarding the
Eucharist, worship? By this logic, you have made the Pope a heretic, or the
Novus Ordo valid. Take your pick.
> You can find - what Catholics
> believe. It's on-line, in various docs. But you have to take the time,
> and make the effort, to do that. I don't think you have. I suspect the
> private revelatin tickles your fancy a lot more.
George and John Mark are allegedly part of public, not private revelation.
And you DO know the difference, and so do I.
Joseph Geloso
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you think
> something is missing in that, please tell me.
Please post whatever it is you are referencing on UseNet. Because I have been numuerous times to your page, and
that is what got me thinking about it in the first place. But your arguments were less forceful than an actual
reading of Vatican II and the promulagation of the Novus Ordo and the Genreal Instruction, themselves. What, for
starters, is "ICELism"?
Mark Johnson
>I never stated a Pope could not err. Catholic Doctrine states that he cannot
>err when solemnly promulgating a teaching touching on faith or morals, with
>the express intention of binding the consciences of all the faithful. I read
>on one of those documents from your page, that the Mass is the highest organ
>of the Ordinary Magisterium. You make the claim that that Mass is not only
>heretical, but idolatrous, making Catholics worship the "work of human
>hands". (Oh, sorry, I meant folks like me, who according to you are "prots"
>-- but I know what I am) You seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that
>another person, presented with the same evidence as you, draws a different
>conclusion,
Of course, but based on twisting the fact or ignoring what's
inconvenient. Obv. people will insist they are right, in such a way.
We see it constantly in the world. You're just like everyone else in
that. I'm appealing to your honesty, and your conscience. You appeal
to people's fear.
>so you repeat incessantly that I don't know what I am talking
>about.
Obv - you don't. It's clear from what you write. Let others judge.
>The case is made fairly clearly for the sedevacantists, in the
>document from your website about the "shipwreck of Michael Davies".
The case is made on all sides. That's why there is more than one
article presented, there. You considered that something of a virtue
only a few short weeks ago (how they forget). I'm still unconvinced of
the sede view.
>Maybe you should read your own stuff.
What I link to, you mean. And I have, and have again. In fact,
virtually all of those articles are copied to my own HD.
>The past three Papacies and the Novus Ordo stand
>or fall together, accept them all or reject them all.
Why does the papacy utterly depend on the putative truth of Bugnini's
'new order'? Explain that, if you will.
>> Well, you'll have to. It's not the end game for the 'spirit of' folks.
>> Next to come along is supposed to be something called the Ordo Simplex
>> - one can only imagine. So you will renounce what you so foolishly
>> defend. The people you defend will force you to. And then you'll be
>> about defending the latest from the 'workshop of change'. How does it
>> feel to be a Prot?
>I will defend the Pope and what he does and what he says. He is doing an
>excellent job. He left you in the dust.
He _does_ travel a lot, it's true. Is that what you meant?
>> >and until you accept it, we are not in communion,
>> _I_ could have told you that, as soon as you started in with that
>> George of George stuff.
>It is heretical for you to call George, George of George. That is not who he
>is. He is George of George and John Mark. There are two of them, not just
>one.
Something, alright.
>> And I think you're
>> not the Catholic you pretend to be.
>Really? Whose standard do you judge me by?
The Magisterium. What else?
>Would you not call idolatry, heresy? Would you not call the worship of a
>piece of bread, idolatry? Would you not call what the Pope does regarding the
>Eucharist, worship? By this logic, you have made the Pope a heretic, or the
>Novus Ordo valid. Take your pick.
He's wrong. But I think he is legitimately the Pope. I wonder if your
absolutist oath to a liturgy doesn't also put you at odds with the
Adoremians, who like the traditionalists, consider 'new order'
hopelessly flawed and at odds with conciliar documents?
>> You can find - what Catholics
>> believe. It's on-line, in various docs. But you have to take the time,
>> and make the effort, to do that. I don't think you have. I suspect the
>> private revelatin tickles your fancy a lot more.
>George and John Mark are allegedly part of public, not private revelation.
>And you DO know the difference, and so do I.
George of George, huh? I know the difference between - what Catholics
believe - and whatever is put forward by the latest in a series of
'true believers'.
Joseph Geloso
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I never stated a Pope could not err. Catholic Doctrine states that he cannot
> >err when solemnly promulgating a teaching touching on faith or morals, with
> >the express intention of binding the consciences of all the faithful. I read
> >on one of those documents from your page, that the Mass is the highest organ
> >of the Ordinary Magisterium. You make the claim that that Mass is not only
> >heretical, but idolatrous, making Catholics worship the "work of human
> >hands". (Oh, sorry, I meant folks like me, who according to you are "prots"
> >-- but I know what I am) You seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that
> >another person, presented with the same evidence as you, draws a different
> >conclusion,
>
> Of course, but based on twisting the fact or ignoring what's
> inconvenient. Obv. people will insist they are right, in such a way.
> We see it constantly in the world. You're just like everyone else in
> that. I'm appealing to your honesty, and your conscience. You appeal
> to people's fear.
No, I agree with what Pope John Paul II said about fear: "Be not
afraid!" I am not
afraid to embrace the Movus Ordo as the True Mass, since that is
assuredly what it
is. And you will say, "no it's not! read Massnote.html!" To which I
reply, yes,
Mark, I have read it, several times. I do not have to read *all* the
documents on
your webpage to get the gist. Here is my statement of faith: I believe
in the
Catholic Faith, exactly as the Pope teaches it. If you feel you must
"save" me and
all the people who believe with me, by all means go right ahead. But you
must do
so by steering the Pope in the right direction, since he is the one I am
following, not you, not Mother Angelica, the Pope.
> >so you repeat incessantly that I don't know what I am talking
> >about.
>
> Obv - you don't. It's clear from what you write. Let others judge.
fair enough.
> >The case is made fairly clearly for the sedevacantists, in the
> >document from your website about the "shipwreck of Michael Davies".
>
> The case is made on all sides. That's why there is more than one
> article presented, there. You considered that something of a virtue
> only a few short weeks ago (how they forget). I'm still unconvinced of
> the sede view.
In all fairness, you should put my post "The New Order (Novus Ordo)" up
there. But
you probably depise my lack of scholarship too much to do so. No big
deal.
> >Maybe you should read your own stuff.
>
> What I link to, you mean. And I have, and have again. In fact,
> virtually all of those articles are copied to my own HD.
>
> >The past three Papacies and the Novus Ordo stand
> >or fall together, accept them all or reject them all.
>
> Why does the papacy utterly depend on the putative truth of Bugnini's
> 'new order'? Explain that, if you will.
Because the Pope both says the Novus Ordo worldwide, and fully expects
Catholics
to believe in the Real Presence. If it is not there, the Pope himself is
guilty of
idolatry, which is worse than any heresy in the history of the Church.
At least
heresy concerns only the details of what the faith is. Idolatry is not
even
Christian, it is pagan. And you apparently believe it is o.k. for the
Pope to lead
the whole Church into idolatry. And it *is* a matter of faith and
morals, touching
the very substance of the faith. So the Papacy falls if the Pope himself
falls
into heresy, according to those quotations you have posted from the
Saints. And
since the ordinary Magisterium speaks principally through the liturgy,
it is the
"magisterium" of Pope John Paul II that you perceive to be "at odds"
with - what
Catholics believe. Thus by that logic, that magisterium is inauthentic.
>
>
> >> Well, you'll have to. It's not the end game for the 'spirit of' folks.
> >> Next to come along is supposed to be something called the Ordo Simplex
> >> - one can only imagine. So you will renounce what you so foolishly
> >> defend. The people you defend will force you to. And then you'll be
> >> about defending the latest from the 'workshop of change'. How does it
> >> feel to be a Prot?
>
> >I will defend the Pope and what he does and what he says. He is doing an
> >excellent job. He left you in the dust.
>
> He _does_ travel a lot, it's true. Is that what you meant?
Nope. I meant, he left you behind when he promulgated the Novus Ordo
(Paul VI) because you stopped following him at that point.
>
> >> >and until you accept it, we are not in communion,
>
> >> _I_ could have told you that, as soon as you started in with that
> >> George of George stuff.
>
> >It is heretical for you to call George, George of George. That is not who he
> >is. He is George of George and John Mark. There are two of them, not just
> >one.
>
> Something, alright.
>
> >> And I think you're
> >> not the Catholic you pretend to be.
>
> >Really? Whose standard do you judge me by?
>
> The Magisterium. What else?
I do not "pretend" anything. That irks you, because I admit I am not
much of a scholar, nor a thelogian, nor a seminarian. I claim to have
been given by God, His Gift of Understanding, and part of that is my
obedience to Pope John Paul II as to whether or not that is even true. I
do not presume to say that I could not possibly be deceived. I may be,
and that is why I need the Pope.
>
> >Would you not call idolatry, heresy? Would you not call the worship of a
> >piece of bread, idolatry? Would you not call what the Pope does regarding the
> >Eucharist, worship? By this logic, you have made the Pope a heretic, or the
> >Novus Ordo valid. Take your pick.
>
> He's wrong. But I think he is legitimately the Pope. I wonder if your
> absolutist oath to a liturgy doesn't also put you at odds with the
> Adoremians, who like the traditionalists, consider 'new order'
> hopelessly flawed and at odds with conciliar documents?
Why is it always an Us vs. Them issue with you? You make all these
divisions within Catholicism, which to me is just so much politics. The
Adoremians are true Catholics. They have a right to appeal to the Papacy
for a revision of the rite, just as anyone does, you included. Where you
go into heresy is when you claim that any rite in the Catholic Church is
less than the True Mass, something the Adoremians do not claim. They
want to see devotion to the Eucharist, which is a great and wonderful
goal. You want to disturb the faith of faithful Catholics by telling
them they are idolatrously worshipping a piece of ordinary bread, which
is NOT an admirable goal.
>
> >> You can find - what Catholics
> >> believe. It's on-line, in various docs. But you have to take the time,
> >> and make the effort, to do that. I don't think you have. I suspect the
> >> private revelatin tickles your fancy a lot more.
>
> >George and John Mark are allegedly part of public, not private revelation.
> >And you DO know the difference, and so do I.
>
> George of George, huh?
No. George of George and John Mark. God's little Child of Peace, the
little child who will lead us (Isaias 11) -- but maybe not you, if you
are prepared to reject the Papacy. Pope John Paul II both knows about
George and is preparing for God's use of him in proclaiming the Dogma of
God's Children of Love. As this is true, there is no reason at all for
me to try to prove it to you. Once that pronouncement is made, the
division with finality immediately follows -- the schisms all become
open schism. But the final decisions are being made now, and they are
decisions of love vs. hate. Those are the only two choices available
anymore, the middle of the road, a little of both, is being eliminated
by God Himself, as He requires of each of His human creatures now, the
final exercising of their free will.
There, you see? More prophesying. It's not called revelatin, Mark, it is
called prophesying, or as you so glibly put it, speaking for God. The
role of a prophet is to speak the words of God to His People. And God,
in fact, does nothing without revealing His Plan to His servants, the
prophets, among whom, yours truly.
> I know the difference between - what Catholics
> believe - and whatever is put forward by the latest in a series of
> 'true believers'.
>
> Peace.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> * When one finds nothing more to say to God,
> * but just knows He is there --
> * that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
>
> [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Yes, Peace, Mark, I really don't think there is much more for me to say
to you. I have my faith, and if you choose to call that faith,
not-Catholic, that is nothing more to me than you saying it. It does not
affect my faith. I think it affects your faith, however, and try to stay
on-topic here. The question is not whether or not I am a prophet or
whether or not George is authentic. The question is, whether or not the
Novus Ordo Missae is the True Mass. I say it is, and the Pope says it is
before me. I am not leading the Pope, I am following him. So please stop
arguing with me about the matter. I will never follow you, I will only
follow the Pope. Convince him to celebrate the Saint Pius V Mass, and I
will follow him there also.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am not
>afraid to embrace the Movus Ordo as the True Mass, since that is
>assuredly what it
>is. And you will say, "no it's not! read Massnote.html!" To which I
>reply, yes,
>Mark, I have read it,
Then if you disagree with The Roman Catechism or the Summa or the rest
- say why. Is yours a confession of the impeccability of the Pope -
which is not a characteristic of his office?
>> >The case is made fairly clearly for the sedevacantists, in the
>> >document from your website about the "shipwreck of Michael Davies".
>> The case is made on all sides. That's why there is more than one
>> article presented, there. You considered that something of a virtue
>> only a few short weeks ago (how they forget). I'm still unconvinced of
>> the sede view.
>In all fairness, you should put my post "The New Order (Novus Ordo)" up
>there.
What have you contributed that isn't explained, or explained better,
by the articles linked to defending 'new order'? You're just trying to
figure things out. You don't even have a command of the history or the
facts in this, as yet - from what I can see.
>you probably depise my lack of scholarship too much to do so. No big
>deal.
Just read. Study. Actually read. You may not agree with everyone. You
prefer not to agree with me, regardless of any evidence presented. But
at least understand what people are talking about. That's all. Then
you can talk about these things intelligently - yes?
>> Why does the papacy utterly depend on the putative truth of Bugnini's
>> 'new order'? Explain that, if you will.
>Because the Pope both says the Novus Ordo worldwide, and fully expects
>Catholics
>to believe in the Real Presence. If it is not there, the Pope himself is
>guilty of
>idolatry, which is worse than any heresy in the history of the Church.
It's bad, alright. But he hasn't confessed that's what he's doing. As
you say, he gives every sense he's _convinced_ the Italian 'new order'
is entirely valid. It'll be up to a later council to discern the truth
of his own belief, here. But he is wrong for what he does in this -
big time wrong, apocalyptic wrong, just as you suggest. I've said this
repeatedly, for years now, on UseNet, and you're one of the few to
realize how serious the situation we're in - is.
>Christian, it is pagan. And you apparently believe it is o.k. for the
>Pope to lead
>the whole Church into idolatry.
No, I don't. I don't think it's okay.
>And it *is* a matter of faith and
>morals, touching
>the very substance of the faith. So the Papacy falls if the Pope himself
>falls
>into heresy, according to those quotations you have posted from the
>Saints.
But His Holiness could simply claim he's an ignorant old man when it
came to the consecration and 'new order'. The 'experts' told him it
was okay. Who was he to question them, and so on? But I just don't
know. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know why he's so
obsessed with 'collegiality', with 'ecumenism', and so on. I don't
know why he thinks tradition is not so important - as an author
suggested in a recent issue of the LM magazine.
>since the ordinary Magisterium speaks principally through the liturgy,
>it is the
>"magisterium" of Pope John Paul II that you perceive to be "at odds"
>with - what
>Catholics believe. Thus by that logic, that magisterium is inauthentic.
No Pope is above The Magisterium. He can't just simply change it to
suit. Once a Magisterium - always a Magisterium. There are no 'dead
Magisteriums', or else there is no Magisterium, at all. And it IS The
Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. Paul VI was wrong to
promulgate it. JP II is wrong for not getting rid of it, yesterday. He
apologizes for so much. But he has yet to apologize for what he's
really guilty of. Hopefully, we'll see him do just that. It's a grim
business, right now, in the institutional church, thanks to his lack
of leadership. It could be like a light shining from Heaven if he
would just get his back up, put away his left-wing theologizing (cause
apparently that's part of his 'thing'), and stop worrying about
bishops threatening to 'schiz' if he ever decided to be consistently
orthodox. Enough with ecumenism. Enough with trying to placate the
Prot. Enough with 'new order' and the damage already done to countless
souls. Bring on Catholicism.
>> >I will defend the Pope and what he does and what he says. He is doing an
>> >excellent job. He left you in the dust.
>> He _does_ travel a lot, it's true. Is that what you meant?
>Nope. I meant, he left you behind when he promulgated the Novus Ordo
>(Paul VI) because you stopped following him at that point.
Paul VI stopped following Vatican II at that point, not to mention
Pius V and Trent, and Catholicism in general. He was wrong. Don't
defend the liturgy of Bugnini and Max Thurian and the rest.
>> He's wrong. But I think he is legitimately the Pope. I wonder if your
>> absolutist oath to a liturgy doesn't also put you at odds with the
>> Adoremians, who like the traditionalists, consider 'new order'
>> hopelessly flawed and at odds with conciliar documents?
>Why is it always an Us vs. Them issue with you?
Cause I'm Catholic, and it is us vs. the world. That's just how 'tis.
Forget your ecumenizing. Think about Catholicism, instead. It deserves
a lot better than indifferentism.
>You make all these divisions within Catholicism,
Don't get confused. _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed. And I didn't
promulgate a 'new order'. I didn't rip out Marian statuary. I didn't
design churches 'in the round'. I didn't secret the tabernacle off to
some room away from the altar. I didn't stick a second altar up there.
I _found_ the divisions when I returned to The Church. The marks of
the TRUE Church incl. unity - oneness. That's not had by heresy, by
'spirit of's, by what we see today parading as Catholicism. It's had
by Catholicism.
>Adoremians are true Catholics. They have a right to appeal to the Papacy
>for a revision of the rite, just as anyone does, you included. Where you
>go into heresy is when you claim that any rite in the Catholic Church is
>less than the True Mass, something the Adoremians do not claim.
Of course, they don't. And they're wrong. They defend the 1969 rite.
But it was precisely this rite that Ottaviani and Bacci questioned.
And it was those similar which preceded this that von Hildebrand
couldn't stomach. Vatican II didn't call for 'new order'. It's time
the Adoremians walked out into the sunlight and saw this for
themselves. We have The Mass. The fathers of Vatican II thought we had
The Mass. The Latin Mass.
>goal. You want to disturb the faith of faithful Catholics by telling
>them they are idolatrously worshipping a piece of ordinary bread, which
>is NOT an admirable goal.
It most certainly is if they are idolaters. That's the issue. I'm not
into ecumenism. Catholics aren't. If we see a pagan practice, we don't
applaud the paganism and remain silent about the Faith. Same for Prot
rites, which 'new order' was designed to be - by Prots. Just compare
The Holy Mass with 'new order'. Look at the pattern of omission. Don't
even bother with the later ICEList nonsense. Go on ebay and get a
1967, or 1970 missal, and compare with
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/The_Mass.htm .
>are prepared to reject the Papacy. Pope John Paul II both knows about
>George and is preparing for God's use of him in proclaiming the Dogma of
>God's Children of Love.
You CAN'T be serious. You even expect me to believe JP II has read, or
ever will read, this George of George stuff?
>As this is true, there is no reason at all for
>me to try to prove it to you. Once that pronouncement is made, the
>division with finality immediately follows -- the schisms all become
>open schism. But the final decisions are being made now, and they are
>decisions of love vs. hate. Those are the only two choices available
>anymore, the middle of the road, a little of both, is being eliminated
>by God Himself, as He requires of each of His human creatures now, the
>final exercising of their free will.
I believe in Fatima. I don't believe in George of George. Free will -
right?
>There, you see? More prophesying. It's not called revelatin, Mark, it is
>called prophesying, or as you so glibly put it, speaking for God. The
>role of a prophet is to speak the words of God to His People. And God,
>in fact, does nothing without revealing His Plan to His servants, the
>prophets, among whom, yours truly.
You're a prophet?
>Yes, Peace, Mark, I really don't think there is much more for me to say
>to you. I have my faith, and if you choose to call that faith,
>not-Catholic, that is nothing more to me than you saying it. It does not
>affect my faith. I think it affects your faith, however, and try to stay
>on-topic here. The question is not whether or not I am a prophet or
>whether or not George is authentic. The question is, whether or not the
>Novus Ordo Missae is the True Mass. I say it is, and the Pope says it is
>before me.
So did Paul VI. His problem was with the documents of the council. JP
II's problem is clearly that he doesn't suppress 'new order',
yesterday if not today.
>I am not leading the Pope, I am following him. So please stop
>arguing with me about the matter. I will never follow you,
I didn't write The Roman Catechism. I am not the author of the Summa
Theologica. I did not write Gamber's study on this. I was not there
with the Prots in committee designing the 'new order'.
For a prophet, you get confused very easily.
>I will only follow the Pope.
But you don't. Pius V is clear. Other Popes are, as well. But they're
dead to you. They were not dead to the fathers of Vatican II.
>Convince him to celebrate the Saint Pius V Mass, and I
>will follow him there also.
Better that he put an end to 'new order'. Pray he does so.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am not
> >afraid to embrace the Movus Ordo as the True Mass, since that is
> >assuredly what it
> >is. And you will say, "no it's not! read Massnote.html!" To which I
> >reply, yes,
> >Mark, I have read it,
>
> Then if you disagree with The Roman Catechism or the Summa or the rest
> - say why. Is yours a confession of the impeccability of the Pope -
> which is not a characteristic of his office?
No, it's a confession of the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Pope- which is not
only a characteristic of his office, but the very lack of belief in it is
what separated Luther from the Church.
Ted
Joseph Geloso
Eric Smith wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Changing the penalty for a sin is not the same thing as contradicting revealed
> > truth. I have not been able to read the Canon you are quoting, but I am 100%
> > certain it did not say it is now ok to be a Mason. Excommunication is a
> > disciplinary step, and discipline can be changed.
>
> If there is the punishment for being a Mason is removed, then in effect,
> you are saying its ok to be one.
I did not say the punishment was removed, only that the penalty was changed. If
Canon Law now reads as you say it does, the penalty for being a Mason is no longer
automatic excommunication, but it is still a sin.
Mark Johnson
>No, it's a confession of the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Pope
Which you think means - perfection - impeccability. It's not. You
don't know what you're talking about.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it's a confession of the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Pope
>
> Which you think means - perfection - impeccability. It's not. You
> don't know what you're talking about.
PROVE that it doesn't. Prove that the Pope can teach error in matters of
faith and morals, ex cathedra.
PROVE that the Pope can teach us to do things that put our immortal soul
at risk (and attending an invalid Mass surely does).
PROVE, once and for all, that you are a ROMAN catholic, and not just
another heretic calling into question the actions of the Vicar of Christ
(like so many before you have).
So far, we've seen a lot of inuendo from you, and not much fact. It's
time to come clean Mark. What is your real purpose in attacking the Body
of Christ? Is it your purpose to shed doubt until the Catholic Church is
destroyed? Because that is what you are accomplishing.
Ted
On this, the day of Jubilee for Migrant Workers and Refugees.
mailto:see...@teleport.com
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com-emergency Only 150 char limit
On emergency address, remove everything past .com...This will send
to my cell phone, my work, and my home.
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/
I believe in God. It's MAN that I have some doubts about.
Joseph Geloso
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am not
> >afraid to embrace the Movus Ordo as the True Mass, since that is
> >assuredly what it
> >is. And you will say, "no it's not! read Massnote.html!" To which I
> >reply, yes,
> >Mark, I have read it,
>
> Then if you disagree with The Roman Catechism or the Summa or the rest
> - say why. Is yours a confession of the impeccability of the Pope -
> which is not a characteristic of his office?
I disagree with the assertion that "pro multis" cannot be legitimately
translated as "for all". We are expected to understand the spirit of
what Our
Lord was speaking, not just the letter of His Words. The formula of
consecration
is not a magical formula, dependent on exact wording. "Pro multis" can
be
understood to mean, "for the multitude". This multitude includes ALL the
elect,
and is not limited to those who are currently practicing Roman
Catholicism, but
includes all those who are or will be in Heaven. Saint John, in the
Apocalypse,
describes "a great multitude which no man could number, out of all
nations and
tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before
the Lamb,
clothed in white robes and with palms in their hands." (Apocalypse 7:9)
This is
in contrast to the passage directly previous which speaks of the
"144,000
sealed", of whom Saint John says, "I heard the number" (Apocalypse
7:4-8). Thus,
many are called, few are chosen. The 144,000 are chosen, the vast
multitude are
called. In the New Mass, after the Agnus Dei is prayed, the Celebrant
raises the
Eucharist in his hands, and says, "Behold, the Lamb of God, Who takes
away the
sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His Supper." He
thus calls
the many, the called, happy. Our Lord chooses His priests from among the
many.
These are the chosen, the few. At the Last Supper, according to the
Council of
Trent, Our Lord raised the Apostles to the Sacrament of Holy Orders by
the
words, "Do this in memory of Me." The New Mass, in its English version
(with the
words, "It will be shed for you and for all") represents a shift in
awareness
and emphasis, willed by God the Holy Spirit. One of the most noticeable
differences between the Old Mass and the New Mass is the fact that the
Celebrant
now faces the People of God. This is in accord with the Will of the Holy
Spirit,
that the People will now be included in the Celebration of the Mass. Far
from
being heretical, this represents an actual shift in awareness, in
accordance
with Pope Paul VI's exercising of the Power of the Keys. The first Mass,
the
Last Supper, had only priests present, the High Priest and His Apostles.
Thus
the words, "Do this in memory of Me," constituted them priests. From
that time
until the promulgation of the New Mass, was the awareness that the
hierarchical
and ministerial priesthood celebrated the Mass, on behalf of the People
of God.
The people were allowed and encouraged to Communicate, but the actual
Mass was
the province of the priests. The Second Vatican Council called for the
renewal
and restoration of the Liturgy. Thus, in the New Mass, the whole
assembly is
included in celebrating the Mass and offering it to God -- the People of
God are
instructed to offer themselves, in union with the Sacrifice of Our
Lord's Body
and Blood. This is reflected not only in the priest now facing the
people, but
also in the more active and vocal participation, in the answering of the
prayers
by the people. It is Catholic Doctrine that the Mass is offered, not
only for
those present, but for the whole world.
Thus the confusion of the narrow interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam
Nulla Salus"
(No Salvation Outside the Church) can be rightly understood to mean, No
Salvation Without the Church. If there is a man who lived his whole life
as a
Muslim, and yet God brought him to Heaven, he was brought there by the
efficacy
of the Holy Mass being offered for him, even if he never attended one.
The newness of the participation of the People of God, the Royal
Priesthood, in
the Mass, is reflected in that the words, "pro multis" are translated to
"for
all". The word, "all," refers to that great multitude that no man could
count
(Apocalypse 7:9). Instead of the Old Mass, in which "for you and for
many"
referred to the chosen (the priesthood) and the people, in the New Mass,
"for
you and for all" refers to the The Royal Priesthood (the ministerial
priesthood
plus the laity who participate) and the rest of the elect, the rest of
the
world, for whom the Mass is being offered. By "world" I do not mean to
include
the reprobate, but only those who love.
All of my above response to this one question is being posted separately
by me
under the new heading, "The New Mass".
> >> >The case is made fairly clearly for the sedevacantists, in the
> >> >document from your website about the "shipwreck of Michael Davies".
>
> >> The case is made on all sides. That's why there is more than one
> >> article presented, there. You considered that something of a virtue
> >> only a few short weeks ago (how they forget). I'm still unconvinced of
> >> the sede view.
>
> >In all fairness, you should put my post "The New Order (Novus Ordo)" up
> >there.
>
> What have you contributed that isn't explained, or explained better,
> by the articles linked to defending 'new order'? You're just trying to
> figure things out. You don't even have a command of the history or the
> facts in this, as yet - from what I can see.
There is, in my short piece, a pair of sentences that I said would
stand, as
long as nothing was added. You took the liberty of adding words to those
sentences, thus falsifying those statements of mine. Also, I assert the
possibility that God may have intentionally caused the New Mass to be
designed
to appeal to Protestants and even Freemasons, in His utter annihilation
of
Protestantism and Freemasonry. But it may be, just as you say, that the
case is
made elsewhere, or it may be, that you do not agree with what I have
said.
> >you probably depise my lack of scholarship too much to do so. No big
> >deal.
>
> Just read. Study. Actually read. You may not agree with everyone. You
> prefer not to agree with me, regardless of any evidence presented. But
> at least understand what people are talking about. That's all. Then
> you can talk about these things intelligently - yes?
I do, read, study, and I have been for many years. The things I read and
study
have been more along the lines of things that will help me personally to
pursue
holiness. And I have found, that the New Mass (not so much reading and
studying
but attending and participating) is the principal help God has given me.
I do
not read so much of what attacks the New Mass for the same reason I do
not read
so much of what attacks Catholicism in general, from the Protestant
crowd,
because to me these things are irrelevant. I began studying some of the
things
linked from your page, and supplemented that reading with an actual trip
to the
library to see some hard copy of actual documents themselves, inititally
because
I began to think you were right about the Novus Ordo not being valid. I
actually
believed that, for a day, and I began making plans in my mind to move to
Fall
River, MA, just to be close to Saint Benedict Center, where the have the
Latin
Mass daily. God revealed to me, through more research, and through the
words of
three priests who I talked to, and through His Gift of Understanding in
me,
synthesizing those things, that it was unnecessary for me to find the
Latin
Mass, because the Novus Ordo is a True Catholic Mass. It is not the only
True
Mass, there are others, for example the rite of Saint John Chrysostom,
and the
Mass of Saint Pius V, to name only two. My further interest in pursuing
this
matter with you is not for my own enlightenment, but for yours. And you
have
done a lot more research into this matter than I have. So my doing
further
research will not, I think, aid my case so much as my attempts, however
small I
may be, to explain in God's Gift of Understanding, just how and why I
believe as
I do. In other words, I am not going to uncover some new source of which
you
were previously unaware. Any light I may be able to shed that may be new
to you
will be from my own personal experience and new understanding in me.
But as it becomes necessary for me to read more of what you have posted
or
linked to, I will. The issue for me comes down to Papal Obedience, and
the
indefectablity of the Pope, as Ted Seeber pointed out.
> >> Why does the papacy utterly depend on the putative truth of Bugnini's
> >> 'new order'? Explain that, if you will.
>
> >Because the Pope both says the Novus Ordo worldwide, and fully expects
> >Catholics
> >to believe in the Real Presence. If it is not there, the Pope himself is
> >guilty of
> >idolatry, which is worse than any heresy in the history of the Church.
>
> It's bad, alright. But he hasn't confessed that's what he's doing. As
> you say, he gives every sense he's _convinced_ the Italian 'new order'
> is entirely valid. It'll be up to a later council to discern the truth
> of his own belief, here. But he is wrong for what he does in this -
> big time wrong, apocalyptic wrong, just as you suggest. I've said this
> repeatedly, for years now, on UseNet, and you're one of the few to
> realize how serious the situation we're in - is.
>
> >Christian, it is pagan. And you apparently believe it is o.k. for the
> >Pope to lead
> >the whole Church into idolatry.
>
> No, I don't. I don't think it's okay.
Granted. But I say he is not guilty of such a thing. Do you say that he
is?
> >And it *is* a matter of faith and
> >morals, touching
> >the very substance of the faith. So the Papacy falls if the Pope himself
> >falls
> >into heresy, according to those quotations you have posted from the
> >Saints.
>
> But His Holiness could simply claim he's an ignorant old man when it
> came to the consecration and 'new order'. The 'experts' told him it
> was okay. Who was he to question them, and so on? But I just don't
> know. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know why he's so
> obsessed with 'collegiality', with 'ecumenism', and so on. I don't
> know why he thinks tradition is not so important - as an author
> suggested in a recent issue of the LM magazine.
The Pope, for me, IS tradition. The way that none of the Magisterium is
dead is
that it all lives, in the teaching office of the present Pope. And this
particular Pope is not ignorant of theology. But more than that, he has
consecrated himself, and the whole world, to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary. He
himself is docile to her wishes, who is the Seat of Wisdom.
> >since the ordinary Magisterium speaks principally through the liturgy,
> >it is the
> >"magisterium" of Pope John Paul II that you perceive to be "at odds"
> >with - what
> >Catholics believe. Thus by that logic, that magisterium is inauthentic.
>
> No Pope is above The Magisterium. He can't just simply change it to
> suit. Once a Magisterium - always a Magisterium. There are no 'dead
> Magisteriums', or else there is no Magisterium, at all. And it IS The
> Magisterium which holds against 'new order'. Paul VI was wrong to
> promulgate it. JP II is wrong for not getting rid of it, yesterday. He
> apologizes for so much. But he has yet to apologize for what he's
> really guilty of. Hopefully, we'll see him do just that. It's a grim
> business, right now, in the institutional church, thanks to his lack
> of leadership. It could be like a light shining from Heaven if he
> would just get his back up, put away his left-wing theologizing (cause
> apparently that's part of his 'thing'), and stop worrying about
> bishops threatening to 'schiz' if he ever decided to be consistently
> orthodox. Enough with ecumenism. Enough with trying to placate the
> Prot. Enough with 'new order' and the damage already done to countless
> souls. Bring on Catholicism.
The "damage" done to my soul through the New Mass, has been precisely
this: I
believe in the Real, Sacramental Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
Body, Blood,
Soul, and Divinity, in all the altars and tabernacles of the whole
Catholic
world -- and by that I mean, regardless of rite, whether it be Novus
Ordo,
Tridentine, or whatever other rites there are. According to you, that
makes me
an idolater. Funny, that is the same thing the Protestants say.
> >> >I will defend the Pope and what he does and what he says. He is doing an
> >> >excellent job. He left you in the dust.
>
> >> He _does_ travel a lot, it's true. Is that what you meant?
>
> >Nope. I meant, he left you behind when he promulgated the Novus Ordo
> >(Paul VI) because you stopped following him at that point.
>
> Paul VI stopped following Vatican II at that point, not to mention
> Pius V and Trent, and Catholicism in general. He was wrong. Don't
> defend the liturgy of Bugnini and Max Thurian and the rest.
I am defending the Catholic Mass.
> >> He's wrong. But I think he is legitimately the Pope. I wonder if your
> >> absolutist oath to a liturgy doesn't also put you at odds with the
> >> Adoremians, who like the traditionalists, consider 'new order'
> >> hopelessly flawed and at odds with conciliar documents?
>
> >Why is it always an Us vs. Them issue with you?
>
> Cause I'm Catholic, and it is us vs. the world. That's just how 'tis.
> Forget your ecumenizing. Think about Catholicism, instead. It deserves
> a lot better than indifferentism.
You are very much mistaken. Our Lord did not come into the world to make
war
against it, but to save it. So far from being us vs. the world, it is we
who are
supposed to be the leaven in the loaf of the world. I am not
indifferentist. I
do not say there is any grace to be had by practicing any other religion
besides
Catholicism. But I recognize the simple truth that if a Buddhist feeds
the
hungry, he is performing an act of charity, one of the Works of Mercy in
the
Catholic Church. Thus, if that one act of mercy saves him, he is saved
through,
not without, the Catholic Church. And I also know it is God's Will that
they all
convert to Catholicism. Not, however, that they all start questioning
the Pope
and his right to give us a New Liturgy.
> >You make all these divisions within Catholicism,
>
> Don't get confused. _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed. And I didn't
> promulgate a 'new order'. I didn't rip out Marian statuary. I didn't
> design churches 'in the round'. I didn't secret the tabernacle off to
> some room away from the altar. I didn't stick a second altar up there.
> I _found_ the divisions when I returned to The Church. The marks of
> the TRUE Church incl. unity - oneness. That's not had by heresy, by
> 'spirit of's, by what we see today parading as Catholicism. It's had
> by Catholicism.
But you do not consider me a Catholic, simply because I believe the
Eucharist is
real, whether it comes about through the Old Mass or the New Mass. How
is that
not creating divisions?
> >Adoremians are true Catholics. They have a right to appeal to the Papacy
> >for a revision of the rite, just as anyone does, you included. Where you
> >go into heresy is when you claim that any rite in the Catholic Church is
> >less than the True Mass, something the Adoremians do not claim.
>
> Of course, they don't. And they're wrong. They defend the 1969 rite.
> But it was precisely this rite that Ottaviani and Bacci questioned.
> And it was those similar which preceded this that von Hildebrand
> couldn't stomach. Vatican II didn't call for 'new order'. It's time
> the Adoremians walked out into the sunlight and saw this for
> themselves. We have The Mass. The fathers of Vatican II thought we had
> The Mass. The Latin Mass.
>From the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an
ever
increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more
suitably
to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to
change; to
foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to
strengthen
whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the
Church.
The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking
the
reform and promotion of the liturgy.
Thus you can see, one of the reasons for Vatican II was, "to call the
whole of
mankind into the household of the Church".
More from Vatican II, same document:
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the
intrinsic
nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between
them,
may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation
by the
faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being
taken to
preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came
to be
duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be
discarded;
other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history
are now
to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy
Fathers, as
may seem useful or necessary.
This document may be found in its entirety at:
http://www.cin.org/v2litur.html .
But anyone can see, the Second Vatican Council called for a revision of
the
liturgy. To assert that "the Fathers of Vatican II thought we had a
Mass," is
well beside the point. They knew we had a Mass. And they called for its
revision.
> >goal. You want to disturb the faith of faithful Catholics by telling
> >them they are idolatrously worshipping a piece of ordinary bread, which
> >is NOT an admirable goal.
>
> It most certainly is if they are idolaters. That's the issue. I'm not
> into ecumenism. Catholics aren't. If we see a pagan practice, we don't
> applaud the paganism and remain silent about the Faith. Same for Prot
> rites, which 'new order' was designed to be - by Prots. Just compare
> The Holy Mass with 'new order'. Look at the pattern of omission. Don't
> even bother with the later ICEList nonsense. Go on ebay and get a
> 1967, or 1970 missal, and compare with
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/The_Mass.htm .
That is in fact the crux of the issue, you calling the vast majority of
English-speaking Catholics, idolaters. NOT something a Catholic does.
You say,
unless it were true. Fair enough, But it is simply not true, so you
should stop
saying it.
> >are prepared to reject the Papacy. Pope John Paul II both knows about
> >George and is preparing for God's use of him in proclaiming the Dogma of
> >God's Children of Love.
>
> You CAN'T be serious. You even expect me to believe JP II has read, or
> ever will read, this George of George stuff?
No, I expect by the time he declares it dogma, you will have already
rejected
him as Pope. But you could still prove me wrong.
And there is no "George of George" except in your own mind. He is George
of
George and John Mark, or to make it mathematically clear to you, there
is the
set {George, John Mark} of which the element {George} is a subset, the
complementary subset being {John Mark}. There are two of them, and there
are
only two of them.
> >As this is true, there is no reason at all for
> >me to try to prove it to you. Once that pronouncement is made, the
> >division with finality immediately follows -- the schisms all become
> >open schism. But the final decisions are being made now, and they are
> >decisions of love vs. hate. Those are the only two choices available
> >anymore, the middle of the road, a little of both, is being eliminated
> >by God Himself, as He requires of each of His human creatures now, the
> >final exercising of their free will.
>
> I believe in Fatima. I don't believe in George of George. Free will -
> right?
No such thing as George of George, see above. And yes, free will -- you
are free
to reject Transubstantiation, salvation, God, anything you like.
More to the point: You believe in Fatima, fine. You could disbelieve in
Fatima
and still be a Catholic. You cannot disbelieve in God's two Witnesses
and still
remain Catholic, since they are Catholic Dogma. Now as to their
identity, that
is a matter of discerment. But as to their existence, it is written
about
throughout God's entire Holy Scripture, Old and New Terstaments. And
they are
NOT Enoch and Elijah, that being theological speculation and not dogma.
You may
think of them as Enoch and Elijah only in the same way you think of
Saint John
the Baptist as Elijah -- that would be accurate.
> >There, you see? More prophesying. It's not called revelatin, Mark, it is
> >called prophesying, or as you so glibly put it, speaking for God. The
> >role of a prophet is to speak the words of God to His People. And God,
> >in fact, does nothing without revealing His Plan to His servants, the
> >prophets, among whom, yours truly.
>
> You're a prophet?
Yes. And I subject myself to the discernment of Pope John Paul II as to
whether
or not that is true.
> >Yes, Peace, Mark, I really don't think there is much more for me to say
> >to you. I have my faith, and if you choose to call that faith,
> >not-Catholic, that is nothing more to me than you saying it. It does not
> >affect my faith. I think it affects your faith, however, and try to stay
> >on-topic here. The question is not whether or not I am a prophet or
> >whether or not George is authentic. The question is, whether or not the
> >Novus Ordo Missae is the True Mass. I say it is, and the Pope says it is
> >before me.
>
> So did Paul VI. His problem was with the documents of the council. JP
> II's problem is clearly that he doesn't suppress 'new order',
> yesterday if not today.
>
> >I am not leading the Pope, I am following him. So please stop
> >arguing with me about the matter. I will never follow you,
>
> I didn't write The Roman Catechism. I am not the author of the Summa
> Theologica. I did not write Gamber's study on this. I was not there
> with the Prots in committee designing the 'new order'.
>
> For a prophet, you get confused very easily.
I am not confused. None of those on your list above have had contact
with me in
this newsgoup, only you. Thus, it is "you" that I am not following. Your
mockery
of me says nothing other than that you are a mocker.
> >I will only follow the Pope.
>
> But you don't. Pius V is clear. Other Popes are, as well. But they're
> dead to you. They were not dead to the fathers of Vatican II.
Unless a Pope dies, he remains Pope. Thus, all Popes previous to John
Paull II
are in fact dead. That they are alive to God makes no difference in the
fact
that they are dead to this world. You do not understand the reality of
the
Papacy and the fact that the living Magisterium is in the Papacy, and
includes
all the Popes all the way back to Saint Peter.
> >Convince him to celebrate the Saint Pius V Mass, and I
> >will follow him there also.
>
> Better that he put an end to 'new order'. Pray he does so.
Whatever. If he were to do so, I would follow him there. But I can give
you a
small bit of advice: don't hold your breath.
Mark Johnson
>On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >No, it's a confession of the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Pope
>> Which you think means - perfection - impeccability. It's not. You
>> don't know what you're talking about.
>PROVE that it doesn't. Prove that the Pope can teach error in matters of
>faith and morals, ex cathedra.
If he were to do so, Bellarmine has answered that question. But JP II
hasn't done that. That's the point, here. 'New order' is not a point
of doctrine. It's a substitute for The Mass, designed by Prots and
freemasons, and falsely promulgated by Paul VI evoking Trent and the
documents of Vatican II. It could be in error. It is in error
precisely because is DOES depart from what Popes and councils in the
past taught infallibly. It IS The Magisterium whichs holds against
'new order'. There are no 'dead magisteriums'. If there were - there
would be no Magisterium, at all. And ICEL is very much officially
approved, whatever some putative Latin norm in a liturgy that was
literally promoted from the start as a purely vernacular exercise.
I think I've mentioned all this, before.
>PROVE, once and for all, that you are a ROMAN catholic, and not just
>another heretic calling into question the actions of the Vicar of Christ
>(like so many before you have).
Again, the Pope isn't perfect. A cultist may believe so. But a
Catholic does not.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>I disagree with the assertion that "pro multis" cannot be legitimately
>translated as "for all".
Again - read http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you
disagree - say why. And please be specific.
>consecration
>is not a magical formula, dependent on exact wording.
These are Our Lord's own words. You're sounding like just another of
the libral 'reformers' at this point. 'Spirit of' anyone.
>and restoration of the Liturgy. Thus, in the New Mass, the whole
>assembly is
>included in celebrating the Mass and offering it to God -- the People of
>God are
>instructed to offer themselves, in union with the Sacrifice of Our
>Lord's Body
>and Blood. This is reflected not only in the priest now facing the
>people, but
>also in the more active and vocal participation, in the answering of the
>prayers
>by the people. It is Catholic Doctrine that the Mass is offered, not
>only for
>those present, but for the whole world.
The 'common priesthood' is not sacerdotal. And you imply there was no
offering by the faithful, properly understood that is, in The Holy
Mass. But you don't understand The Mass, and so almost as a result,
you don't understand 'new order'. You denigrate what the faithful did,
and The Mass, in order to build up 'new order'.
>Thus the confusion of the narrow interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam
>Nulla Salus"
>(No Salvation Outside the Church) can be rightly understood to mean, No
>Salvation Without the Church. If there is a man who lived his whole life
>as a
>Muslim, and yet God brought him to Heaven, he was brought there by the
>efficacy
>of the Holy Mass being offered for him, even if he never attended one.
I'm glad you think so. Is this a common sort of thing - the invisible
rescue of the Dalai Lama, for ex.?
>long as nothing was added. You took the liberty of adding words to those
>sentences, thus falsifying those statements of mine.
I've done no such thing. But your true sense of 'charity' is starting
to emerge, I think.
Let others judge.
>holiness. And I have found, that the New Mass (not so much reading and
>studying
>but attending and participating) is the principal help God has given me.
'Born-agains' prob. say much the same of Pat Robertson. I don't see
what your point is with regard to Catholicism.
>not read so much of what attacks the New Mass for the same reason I do
>not read
>so much of what attacks Catholicism in general, from the Protestant
>crowd,
You _are_ the "Protestant crowd". I can't believe you just don't see
it.
>I began to think you were right about the Novus Ordo not being valid. I
>actually
>believed that, for a day, and I began making plans in my mind to move to
>Fall
>River, MA, just to be close to Saint Benedict Center, where the have the
>Latin
>Mass daily. God revealed to me, through more research, and through the
>words of
>three priests who I talked to,
I can only imagine what they said. Let me guess - if 'new order' is in
any way irrevent, if it were ever designed by Prots and masons, if it
in any way ever contradicted a doc from Vatican II, then all of The
Church is in error - all you ever knew was wrong - Trent was wrong,
Pius V, Pius X, and so on.
Some argument? Was that it?
>Mass, there are others, for example the rite of Saint John Chrysostom,
You forgot all the other eastern rites, which do not use the exact
same consecration as The Mass. But none say, for all. They say - for .
. . many. Read them - on-line. New advent, for the problems with it's
on-line CE, also has various of the eastern liturgies on-line. Read
them for yourself.
>linked to, I will. The issue for me comes down to Papal Obedience,
I was just following orders?
So . . tell me . . where did Nuremberg go wrong?
You seem to think so many people are wrong, except Bugnini. What makes
him so special, in your eyes?
>indefectablity of the Pope, as Ted Seeber pointed out.
Indefectibility goes to doctrine, not to a contradiction of doctrine.
And it's not the same as impeccability.
>> >Christian, it is pagan. And you apparently believe it is o.k. for the
>> >Pope to lead
>> >the whole Church into idolatry.
>> No, I don't. I don't think it's okay.
>Granted. But I say he is not guilty of such a thing. Do you say that he
>is?
I say he's obv guilty of NOT leading. The institutional church is
rudderless. The 'lay catechists' run the parishes, with the aid of
bishops who've clearly lost the Faith, if they ever had it, preferring
to be functionaries in whatever church, whatever is taught. This is
all so needless. But then so was Paul VI promulgation of 'new order'.
These are unique times. There have always been widespread heresies,
eventually put down (turns out, only for a while). But never before
did the 'reformers' ever get to The Mass, itself. This is different.
We haven't seen this, before. And ducking your head in the sand . .
>> But His Holiness could simply claim he's an ignorant old man when it
>> came to the consecration and 'new order'. The 'experts' told him it
>> was okay. Who was he to question them, and so on? But I just don't
>> know. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know why he's so
>> obsessed with 'collegiality', with 'ecumenism', and so on. I don't
>> know why he thinks tradition is not so important - as an author
>> suggested in a recent issue of the LM magazine.
>The Pope, for me, IS tradition.
Even Popes long gone - or is the papacy just a temporized thing of the
moment?
Actually, it's what Catholics used to say of the heathen, and the
Prot. And they had reason to do so. No ecumenism, here. Just a call to
conversion. And if you really do believe in The Eucharist at a 'new
order', then what do you say of Our Lord being handled by 'EM's, even
at the altar, of people receiving in the hand which Mother Teresa
despised for good reason, of passing by the chalice in those cases as
if it were only wine, of not fasting beforehand, of not having gone to
Confession because they weren't encouraged to do so, and so on. The
whole reception of the host at 'new order' is basically blasphemous.
If you believe that to be Our Lord, how do you explain your allowing
such things to be done? How do you stand before God, Himself, and
explain - this is how we treated You?
>> >> He _does_ travel a lot, it's true. Is that what you meant?
>> >Nope. I meant, he left you behind when he promulgated the Novus Ordo
>> >(Paul VI) because you stopped following him at that point.
>> Paul VI stopped following Vatican II at that point, not to mention
>> Pius V and Trent, and Catholicism in general. He was wrong. Don't
>> defend the liturgy of Bugnini and Max Thurian and the rest.
>I am defending the Catholic Mass.
Bugnini and Thurian weren't Catholic.
>> >Why is it always an Us vs. Them issue with you?
>> Cause I'm Catholic, and it is us vs. the world. That's just how 'tis.
>> Forget your ecumenizing. Think about Catholicism, instead. It deserves
>> a lot better than indifferentism.
>You are very much mistaken. Our Lord did not come into the world to make
>war against it, but to save it.
In doing so, He brought a sword. There is a right. There is a wrong.
God tells us which is which, through His Church. It IS The Magisterium
which holds against 'new order'.
>So far from being us vs. the world, it is we
>who are supposed to be the leaven in the loaf of the world.
We are opposed to the world. That's why The Church is called the
pilgrim church. We don't belong to this world. And our hope is not in
this world. Be as you suggest, neither should we hide and try not to
let anyone see Catholicism. Thus, some people post to UseNet, in the
hope of trying to help.
>Catholicism. But I recognize the simple truth that if a Buddhist feeds
>the
>hungry, he is performing an act of charity, one of the Works of Mercy in
>the
>Catholic Church.
But it's not. Natural charity is not the same as that of the Saints.
>Thus, if that one act of mercy saves him, he is saved
>through,
>not without, the Catholic Church.
So all the Buddhist need do is give a man a loaf of bread, and he goes
to a Heaven he doesn't even believe in?
And you think this is Catholic doctrine?
>> Don't get confused. _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed. And I didn't
>> promulgate a 'new order'. I didn't rip out Marian statuary. I didn't
>> design churches 'in the round'. I didn't secret the tabernacle off to
>> some room away from the altar. I didn't stick a second altar up there.
>> I _found_ the divisions when I returned to The Church. The marks of
>> the TRUE Church incl. unity - oneness. That's not had by heresy, by
>> 'spirit of's, by what we see today parading as Catholicism. It's had
>> by Catholicism.
>But you do not consider me a Catholic, simply because I believe the
>Eucharist
No, because you denigrate The Mass, the councils, the Popes, and now
suggest heresy with this Buddhist comment, above.
>That is in fact the crux of the issue, you calling the vast majority of
>English-speaking Catholics, idolaters. NOT something a Catholic does.
Sure it is. Look at the polls - the magical polls. Most Catholics
don't even confess Catholicism. Some call them 'cafeteria catholics'.
It's a fairly old term.
Just think about it.
>And there is no "George of George" except in your own mind.
I know - "there's two of 'em".
>He is George of George and John Mark,
There ya go.
>There are two of them, and there are
>only two of them.
Sounds like plenty.
>No such thing as George of George, see above. And yes, free will -- you
>are free
>to reject Transubstantiation, salvation, God, anything you like.
But _I_ don't. That's your quarrel with me. In order to defend the
'new order', you've denigrated the past, where Catholics talked of
transubstantiation, and defined it, of salvation within The Church
(and not for Buddhists living a 'good life'), about God (and not the
'goddess within') - anything you like.
Right?
>More to the point: You believe in Fatima, fine. You could disbelieve in
>Fatima and still be a Catholic.
Don't know any Catholics who do.
>You cannot disbelieve in God's two Witnesses
>and still
>remain Catholic, since they are Catholic Dogma.
Enoch and Elias - that is. Not George of George.
>Now as to their identity, that
>is a matter of discerment.
Enoch and Elias.
>they are
>NOT Enoch and Elijah,
Are too.
>that being theological speculation and not dogma.
>You may
>think of them as Enoch and Elijah only in the same way you think of
>Saint John
>the Baptist as Elijah -- that would be accurate.
It ain't George of George, however many of them there are. It's Enoch
and Elias.
>> You're a prophet?
>Yes. And I subject myself to the discernment of Pope John Paul II as to
>whether or not that is true.
I see.
>> I didn't write The Roman Catechism. I am not the author of the Summa
>> Theologica. I did not write Gamber's study on this. I was not there
>> with the Prots in committee designing the 'new order'.
>> For a prophet, you get confused very easily.
>I am not confused. None of those on your list above have had contact
>with me in this newsgoup, only you.
It's not surprizing, if you'd think about it.
>> >I will only follow the Pope.
>> But you don't. Pius V is clear. Other Popes are, as well. But they're
>> dead to you. They were not dead to the fathers of Vatican II.
>Unless a Pope dies, he remains Pope. Thus, all Popes previous to John
>Paull II are in fact dead.
What they taught is not. The Magisterium, doesn't die. That's true for
Catholics, at any rate.
Think on it.
>that they are dead to this world. You do not understand the reality of
>the Papacy and the fact that the living Magisterium is in the Papacy, and
>includes all the Popes all the way back to Saint Peter.
So, what of Trent, Pius V, the Syllabus of Errors, and so much more?
What of the very docs of Trent, itself? There are no 'dead
Magisteriums'. And The Magisterium holds against 'new order'.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> >No, it's a confession of the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Pope
>
> >> Which you think means - perfection - impeccability. It's not. You
> >> don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >PROVE that it doesn't. Prove that the Pope can teach error in matters of
> >faith and morals, ex cathedra.
>
> If he were to do so, Bellarmine has answered that question.
Correct.
> But JP II
> hasn't done that. That's the point, here. 'New order' is not a point
> of doctrine.
It has become so, in your argument. You're telling us that Popes can
teach error. Serious error.
> It's a substitute for The Mass, designed by Prots and
> freemasons, and falsely promulgated by Paul VI evoking Trent and the
> documents of Vatican II. It could be in error. It is in error
> precisely because is DOES depart from what Popes and councils in the
> past taught infallibly.
Or at least, it appears so to you who haven't had one lick of schooling in
21st century English.
> It IS The Magisterium whichs holds against
> 'new order'. There are no 'dead magisteriums'. If there were - there
> would be no Magisterium, at all. And ICEL is very much officially
> approved, whatever some putative Latin norm in a liturgy that was
> literally promoted from the start as a purely vernacular exercise.
The question is why do YOU not believe in the power of the Popes, in the
Chair of Peter?
> I think I've mentioned all this, before.
Yes. And it's about as convinceing now as it was then. None at all.
> >PROVE, once and for all, that you are a ROMAN catholic, and not just
> >another heretic calling into question the actions of the Vicar of Christ
> >(like so many before you have).
>
> Again, the Pope isn't perfect. A cultist may believe so. But a
> Catholic does not.
Catholicism is now, and has always been a cult. That's why the first 26
Popes were Martyred.
Just as you'd LOVE to kill off the memory of Paul VI.
Ted
On this, the Feast of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
Theodore M. Seeber
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I disagree with the assertion that "pro multis" cannot be legitimately
> >translated as "for all".
>
> Again - read http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you
> disagree - say why. And please be specific.
Because the English Language has changed in the last 50 years. Get a
clue.
Mark Johnson
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >PROVE that it doesn't. Prove that the Pope can teach error in matters of
>> >faith and morals, ex cathedra.
>> If he were to do so, Bellarmine has answered that question.
>Correct.
And JP II has not crossed that formal line. He flirts with it in the
name of ecumenism. But I could see some way to argue him out of error,
as it were - basically along the lines of claiming ignorance on his
part of what others have done (maybe there's another tack that would
work, as well).
>> It IS The Magisterium whichs holds against
>> 'new order'. There are no 'dead magisteriums'. If there were - there
>> would be no Magisterium, at all. And ICEL is very much officially
>> approved, whatever some putative Latin norm in a liturgy that was
>> literally promoted from the start as a purely vernacular exercise.
>The question is why do YOU not believe in the power of the Popes, in the
>Chair of Peter?
You don't. To you, the old councils and Popes are dead. But _I_ don't
believe in 'dead Magisteriums'. The people die. What they taught,
remains and constrains the actions of those who follow. In your sect,
the Pope is above the law, and 'new order' is matter of dogma to you.
In Catholicism, no Pope is above The Magisterium. He cannot change de
fide dogma. If he tried - well . . we both agree (perhaps), as
Bellarmine suggested.
>Catholicism is now, and has always been a cult.
No - it's not a cult, like that. What you suggests of your
denomination is cult-like, reducing the papacy to a cult of
personality, ignoring all Popes who came before.
Mark Johnson
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Again - read http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you
>> disagree - say why. And please be specific.
>Because the English Language has changed in the last 50 years. Get a
>clue.
Explain what you mean. Don't hit and run like some ignorant troll.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Again - read http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . If you
> >> disagree - say why. And please be specific.
>
> >Because the English Language has changed in the last 50 years. Get a
> >clue.
>
> Explain what you mean. Don't hit and run like some ignorant troll.
I have, many times.
Many= >5
All= < everyone, but more than 51%.
Most = 51%.
So, Mark, are only 5 people saved? That seems to be what you're wanting
Christ to say here.
Ted
On this, the Feast of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
mailto:see...@teleport.com
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com-emergency Only 100 char limit
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> >PROVE that it doesn't. Prove that the Pope can teach error in matters of
> >> >faith and morals, ex cathedra.
>
> >> If he were to do so, Bellarmine has answered that question.
>
> >Correct.
>
> And JP II has not crossed that formal line.
Except, in your insistance, in teaching the Novus Ordo.
> He flirts with it in the
> name of ecumenism. But I could see some way to argue him out of error,
> as it were - basically along the lines of claiming ignorance on his
> part of what others have done (maybe there's another tack that would
> work, as well).
Ah, but you see, that line isn't due to his knowledge. It's due to the
Holy Spirit's control over the Chair of Peter.
> >The question is why do YOU not believe in the power of the Popes, in the
> >Chair of Peter?
>
> You don't.
I do. It's a temporal power, sure, but the Pope is always correct for his
day.
> To you, the old councils and Popes are dead. But _I_ don't
> believe in 'dead Magisteriums'.
If you don't believe in 'dead Magisteriums' then how come they're the ONLY
ones you quote, ever?
> The people die. What they taught,
> remains and constrains the actions of those who follow. In your sect,
> the Pope is above the law, and 'new order' is matter of dogma to you.
Not at all. In my "sect" which is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church (that's in the creed), The Pope has only temporal power, not
eternal.
> In Catholicism, no Pope is above The Magisterium. He cannot change de
> fide dogma. If he tried - well . . we both agree (perhaps), as
> Bellarmine suggested.
I certainly do agree with what Belarmine suggested.
> >Catholicism is now, and has always been a cult.
>
> No - it's not a cult, like that.
So why were the first 26 Popes Matyred, if Catholicism is not a cult?
Mark Johnson
>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> And JP II has not crossed that formal line.
>Except, in your insistance, in teaching the Novus Ordo.
I just said he hadn't. Read what I write. Better for you. You'll see.
>> He flirts with it in the
>> name of ecumenism. But I could see some way to argue him out of error,
>> as it were - basically along the lines of claiming ignorance on his
>> part of what others have done (maybe there's another tack that would
>> work, as well).
>Ah, but you see, that line isn't due to his knowledge. It's due to the
>Holy Spirit's control over the Chair of Peter.
So you would blame God, The Holy Spirit for ecumenism? I wouldn't go
down that road, Ted, if I were you.
>I do. It's a temporal power, sure, but the Pope is always correct for his
>day.
He's correct even after he dies. This is what you won't confess, I
think.
>> To you, the old councils and Popes are dead. But _I_ don't
>> believe in 'dead Magisteriums'.
>If you don't believe in 'dead Magisteriums' then how come they're the ONLY
>ones you quote, ever?
Because they aren't dead. I wouldn't bother if they were. But if they
were, then there is no Magisterium, ever.
I don't see how you are so DENSE that you can't understand something
so obv.
>Not at all. In my "sect" which is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
>Church (that's in the creed), The Pope has only temporal power, not
>eternal.
More troll words, Ted. Explain yourself. You NEVER do. About time you
started.
>> >Catholicism is now, and has always been a cult.
>> No - it's not a cult, like that.
>So why were the first 26 Popes Matyred, if Catholicism is not a cult?
It's not a cult which acts as if there were 'dead magisteriums', and
yet insists upon a 'live magisterium', and so on. It's not a cult
which denigrates the past, and misrepresents The Mass in order to
build up a 'new order'. It's not one to reduce the entire papacy to a
cult of personality.
Mark Johnson
>Many= >5
I say it's greater than . . . . some. We're talking qualitative
definitions, here, Ted, not quantitative metrics.
Please . . don't be so dense.
>So, Mark, are only 5 people saved?
You sound like an idiot. Just wanted to make mention.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Many= >5
>
> I say it's greater than . . . . some. We're talking qualitative
> definitions, here, Ted, not quantitative metrics.
In that case, don't use a word like "many" that has a quantitative metric.
> Please . . don't be so dense.
Please stop lying about Catholicism Mark.
> >So, Mark, are only 5 people saved?
>
> You sound like an idiot. Just wanted to make mention.
Words mean things Mark. To many post 1970 people in the United States,
the numbering system in common everyday use is 1,2,3,4, MANY.
So your insinuation when you use the word "many" can be misunderstood as
5.
Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
Ted
On this, the Feast of St. John Newman
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> And JP II has not crossed that formal line.
>
> >Except, in your insistance, in teaching the Novus Ordo.
>
> I just said he hadn't. Read what I write. Better for you. You'll see.
And by your web page, that is a lie.
Mark, please don't make your lies so easy to expose.
> >Ah, but you see, that line isn't due to his knowledge. It's due to the
> >Holy Spirit's control over the Chair of Peter.
>
> So you would blame God, The Holy Spirit for ecumenism? I wouldn't go
> down that road, Ted, if I were you.
Yes, I would. I even have a Bible verse to prove it, if you want to play
fundamentalist on me.
> >I do. It's a temporal power, sure, but the Pope is always correct for his
> >day.
>
> He's correct even after he dies. This is what you won't confess, I
> think.
Nope, I confess that too. He's correct for his day. Even after the day
is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
insisting that they're correct for that day too?
> >> To you, the old councils and Popes are dead. But _I_ don't
> >> believe in 'dead Magisteriums'.
>
> >If you don't believe in 'dead Magisteriums' then how come they're the ONLY
> >ones you quote, ever?
>
> Because they aren't dead. I wouldn't bother if they were. But if they
> were, then there is no Magisterium, ever.
Huh? We have a living Magisterium all around us. John Paul II exists,
Mark. So does Cardinal Ratzinger. Why don't you quote what they have
written about Novus Ordo, which at least happened in their time?
> I don't see how you are so DENSE that you can't understand something
> so obv.
What is obvious to me is that you want to deny the Church.
> >Not at all. In my "sect" which is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
> >Church (that's in the creed), The Pope has only temporal power, not
> >eternal.
>
> More troll words, Ted. Explain yourself. You NEVER do. About time you
> started.
I thought I was. It's in the creed. Go and read it. In the Latin.
> >> >Catholicism is now, and has always been a cult.
>
> >> No - it's not a cult, like that.
>
> >So why were the first 26 Popes Matyred, if Catholicism is not a cult?
>
> It's not a cult which acts as if there were 'dead magisteriums',
Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
> and
> yet insists upon a 'live magisterium', and so on.
So you think John Paul II is not alive?
> It's not a cult
> which denigrates the past,
You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
> and misrepresents The Mass in order to
> build up a 'new order'. It's not one to reduce the entire papacy to a
> cult of personality.
Yet that's what you've done, in your preference of quoting Pius V but NOT
quoting Paul VI.
Ted
Mark Johnson
>Mark, please don't make your lies so easy to expose.
Only a fool would write something like that without saying anything
more. If you have something to complain about - say what it is. I'm
not a mind reader.
>> >I do. It's a temporal power, sure, but the Pope is always correct for his
>> >day.
>> He's correct even after he dies. This is what you won't confess, I
>> think.
>Nope, I confess that too.
No you don't. What you believe is:
>He's correct for his day. Even after the day
>is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
>commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
>insisting that they're correct for that day too?
You've GOT to be kidding? That's what you think modernism is?
You really should stop getting advice and counsel from your parish
priest. It ain't helping.
>> It's not a cult which acts as if there were 'dead magisteriums',
>Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
Your Catholic Reformed 'charity' betrays - yet again.
>> It's not a cult
>> which denigrates the past,
>You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
I haven't mistranslated, or translated, the Summa. You are SO
desperate to defend your Protestant heresy, that you've gone over the
edge.
Peace (really).
----------------------------------------
jul...@cco.caltech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Mark Johnson
>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >Many= >5
>> I say it's greater than . . . . some. We're talking qualitative
>> definitions, here, Ted, not quantitative metrics.
>In that case, don't use a word like "many" that has a quantitative metric.
As usual, this makes sense to you - doesn't it? You're starting to
literally create your own language, here. And no one else has a
dictionary.
>> Please . . don't be so dense.
>Please stop lying about Catholicism Mark.
Remember, Ted - _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed.
>Words mean things Mark. To many post 1970 people in the United States,
>the numbering system in common everyday use is 1,2,3,4, MANY.
You're way out there, alright.
>So your insinuation when you use the word "many" can be misunderstood as
>5.
Uh-huh.
>Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
>and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
So . . .
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark, please don't make your lies so easy to expose.
>
> Only a fool would write something like that without saying anything
> more.
I did say more. You snipped it.
> If you have something to complain about - say what it is. I'm
> not a mind reader.
No, just a selective reader who apparently can't see what is against him.
> >> >I do. It's a temporal power, sure, but the Pope is always correct for his
> >> >day.
>
> >> He's correct even after he dies. This is what you won't confess, I
> >> think.
>
> >Nope, I confess that too.
>
> No you don't. What you believe is:
>
> >He's correct for his day. Even after the day
> >is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
> >commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
> >insisting that they're correct for that day too?
>
> You've GOT to be kidding? That's what you think modernism is?
It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
> You really should stop getting advice and counsel from your parish
> priest. It ain't helping.
And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
> >> It's not a cult which acts as if there were 'dead magisteriums',
>
> >Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
>
> Your Catholic Reformed 'charity' betrays - yet again.
Every time you use the word "Catholic Reformed" you show that you neither
have nor deserve anything resembling the word "charity".
> >> It's not a cult
> >> which denigrates the past,
>
> >You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
>
> I haven't mistranslated, or translated, the Summa.
So why do you insist on having the English on your webpage instead of the
Latin?
Ted
On this, the Feast of Blessed Andre Bessette
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Many= >5
>
> >> I say it's greater than . . . . some. We're talking qualitative
> >> definitions, here, Ted, not quantitative metrics.
>
> >In that case, don't use a word like "many" that has a quantitative metric.
>
> As usual, this makes sense to you - doesn't it?
In 21st century American (as opposed to your outmoded 1950 usage), many
has an alternate meaning of "more than can be counted easily". Since the
human eye sees in quarters, that's five distinct parts or more.
> You're starting to
> literally create your own language, here. And no one else has a
> dictionary.
Not a bit. Well established, for those of us who actually grew up after
the insanity of the anit-communist days.
> >> Please . . don't be so dense.
>
> >Please stop lying about Catholicism Mark.
>
> Remember, Ted - _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed.
But you're lying about Catholicism just the same.
> >Words mean things Mark. To many post 1970 people in the United States,
> >the numbering system in common everyday use is 1,2,3,4, MANY.
>
> You're way out there, alright.
Not a bit. I'm just pointing out the problem with you using 1950s
language with people born after 1970.
> >So your insinuation when you use the word "many" can be misunderstood as
> >5.
>
> Uh-huh.
Well, it's your insistance on using a messy language to begin with that's
the problem.
> >Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
> >and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
>
> So . . .
So if you want qualitative instead of quanitative, use "all", not "many".
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >Nope, I confess that too.
>> No you don't. What you believe is:
>> >He's correct for his day. Even after the day
>> >is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
>> >commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
>> >insisting that they're correct for that day too?
>> You've GOT to be kidding? That's what you think modernism is?
>It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
First, you just confess to 'dead Magisteriums'. Then you utterly
invent a definition of modernism and lay it on Pius IX.
Who do you think you're kidding with this?
>> You really should stop getting advice and counsel from your parish
>> priest. It ain't helping.
>And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
You should stop hanging out with bad influences, if your parish priest
is one. A man who makes compromises probably wants to drag you down to
his level, too. I've seen it all over, and even traditionalist priests
encouraged to embrace heresy because - everyone else does. A Saint
would resist, but perhaps not all trad priests are that Saintly, as
yet. And as for autoexcommunication - well . . . you do have some
nasty things to say about Catholicism, The Mass, and you do insist Our
Lord said for all, and not for many. You think about it.
>> >Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
>> Your Catholic Reformed 'charity' betrays - yet again.
>Every time you use the word "Catholic Reformed" you show
Only to point out your obv. sense of charity, Ted. Helps explain where
it comes from. It's ain't Catholicism.
>> >You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
>> I haven't mistranslated, or translated, the Summa.
>So why do you insist on having the English on your webpage instead of the
>Latin?
Back to earth, Ted. Come join us here on planet earth. Those cloud
vapors aren't helping any more than your parish priest obv is.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> You're starting to
>> literally create your own language, here. And no one else has a
>> dictionary.
>Well established, for those of us who actually grew up after
>the insanity of the anit-communist days.
Again, you'll have to send me your Tedictionary. Cause, you can't
expect me to understand your meaning here, otherwise.
>> >> Please . . don't be so dense.
>> >Please stop lying about Catholicism Mark.
>> Remember, Ted - _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed.
>But you're lying about Catholicism just the same.
Reformed Catholicism is the lie. And you know it. You just defend it,
is all - as do all the true believing Prots on these ngs defend
_their_ denomination.
>> >Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
>> >and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
>So if you want qualitative instead of quanitative, use "all", not "many".
Many believe that some times a few is not quite the equal of all, and
then some. But if all believed that a few could be the equal of the
many, then some might think they would resign from everyone.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Nope, I confess that too.
>
> >> No you don't. What you believe is:
>
> >> >He's correct for his day. Even after the day
> >> >is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
> >> >commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
> >> >insisting that they're correct for that day too?
>
> >> You've GOT to be kidding? That's what you think modernism is?
>
> >It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
>
> First, you just confess to 'dead Magisteriums'.
I confess to all "Magisterium", unlike you, who would cut out a few Popes
and Bishops along the way (including, apparently, the same ones you
quote).
> Then you utterly
> invent a definition of modernism and lay it on Pius IX.
No invention. I actually asked several priests about this one. They all
claimed the same thing: to interpret written words outside of the time
context in which they were written is modernism.
Oddly enough, it's a sin you share with Biblical Fundamentalists.
> Who do you think you're kidding with this?
Nobody. Why you think I'm kidding when I NEVER joke without emoticons is
beyond me.
> >> You really should stop getting advice and counsel from your parish
> >> priest. It ain't helping.
>
> >And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
>
> You should stop hanging out with bad influences, if your parish priest
> is one.
And thus, autoexcomunication.
> A man who makes compromises probably wants to drag you down to
> his level, too. I've seen it all over, and even traditionalist priests
> encouraged to embrace heresy because - everyone else does. A Saint
> would resist, but perhaps not all trad priests are that Saintly, as
> yet. And as for autoexcommunication - well . . . you do have some
> nasty things to say about Catholicism, The Mass, and you do insist Our
> Lord said for all, and not for many. You think about it.
I'm not the one who left the church then came back trying to reinterpret
the Popes to say something they didn't.
> >> >Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
>
> >> Your Catholic Reformed 'charity' betrays - yet again.
>
> >Every time you use the word "Catholic Reformed" you show
>
> Only to point out your obv. sense of charity, Ted.
You have no charity in you at all.
> >> >You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
>
> >> I haven't mistranslated, or translated, the Summa.
>
> >So why do you insist on having the English on your webpage instead of the
> >Latin?
>
> Back to earth, Ted. Come join us here on planet earth. Those cloud
> vapors aren't helping any more than your parish priest obv is.
Why did you avoid the question? What in short are you trying to hide?
Are you really just another Protestant in disguise?
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're starting to
> >> literally create your own language, here. And no one else has a
> >> dictionary.
>
> >Well established, for those of us who actually grew up after
> >the insanity of the anit-communist days.
>
> Again, you'll have to send me your Tedictionary. Cause, you can't
> expect me to understand your meaning here, otherwise.
Go get a Webster's with a publication date after 1970. Better yet, read
the Catechism.
> >But you're lying about Catholicism just the same.
>
> Reformed Catholicism is the lie.
And thus you did it again. Why are you being a PROTESTANT Mark? Why did
you go away from the Church?
> >> >Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
> >> >and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
>
> >So if you want qualitative instead of quanitative, use "all", not "many".
>
> Many believe that some times a few is not quite the equal of all, and
> then some.
And the Many are WRONG and are not CATHOLIC.
> But if all believed that a few could be the equal of the
> many, then some might think they would resign from everyone.
Like you.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> You're starting to
>> literally create your own language, here. And no one else has a
>> dictionary.
>Well established, for those of us who actually grew up after
>the insanity of the anit-communist days.
Again, you'll have to send me your Tedictionary. Cause, you can't
expect me to understand your meaning here, otherwise.
>> >> Please . . don't be so dense.
>> >Please stop lying about Catholicism Mark.
>> Remember, Ted - _I'm_ not Catholic Reformed.
>But you're lying about Catholicism just the same.
Reformed Catholicism is the lie. And you know it. You just defend it,
is all - as do all the true believing Prots on these ngs defend
_their_ denomination.
>> >Likewise, since you were born, "all" has been replaced with "everything",
>> >and "all" has taken on a qualitative metric meaning.
>So if you want qualitative instead of quanitative, use "all", not "many".
Many believe that some times a few is not quite the equal of all, and
then some. But if all believed that a few could be the equal of the
many, then some might think they would resign from everyone.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >Nope, I confess that too.
>> No you don't. What you believe is:
>> >He's correct for his day. Even after the day
>> >is long past, he's still correct for his day. You're the one who tries to
>> >commit the sin of modernism, taking his words forward in time and
>> >insisting that they're correct for that day too?
>> You've GOT to be kidding? That's what you think modernism is?
>It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
First, you just confess to 'dead Magisteriums'. Then you utterly
invent a definition of modernism and lay it on Pius IX.
Who do you think you're kidding with this?
>> You really should stop getting advice and counsel from your parish
>> priest. It ain't helping.
>And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
You should stop hanging out with bad influences, if your parish priest
is one. A man who makes compromises probably wants to drag you down to
his level, too. I've seen it all over, and even traditionalist priests
encouraged to embrace heresy because - everyone else does. A Saint
would resist, but perhaps not all trad priests are that Saintly, as
yet. And as for autoexcommunication - well . . . you do have some
nasty things to say about Catholicism, The Mass, and you do insist Our
Lord said for all, and not for many. You think about it.
>> >Bullshit. That's exactly how you're acting.
>> Your Catholic Reformed 'charity' betrays - yet again.
>Every time you use the word "Catholic Reformed" you show
Only to point out your obv. sense of charity, Ted. Helps explain where
it comes from. It's ain't Catholicism.
>> >You've already denigerated the past by mistranslating the Summa.
>> I haven't mistranslated, or translated, the Summa.
>So why do you insist on having the English on your webpage instead of the
>Latin?
Back to earth, Ted. Come join us here on planet earth. Those cloud
vapors aren't helping any more than your parish priest obv is.
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
>> First, you just confess to 'dead Magisteriums'.
>I confess to all "Magisterium", unlike you, who would cut out a few Popes
>and Bishops along the way (including, apparently, the same ones you
>quote).
Make sense. I quote from those who _you_ reject because you don't like
what they wrote. Don't get confused here.
>> Then you utterly
>> invent a definition of modernism and lay it on Pius IX.
>No invention. I actually asked several priests about this one. They all
>claimed the same thing: to interpret written words outside of the time
>context in which they were written is modernism.
That's not modernism. Modernism is the ridiculous notion that The
Church is somehow 'behind the times', and needs getting up to date.
That's essentially modernism.
>> Who do you think you're kidding with this?
>Why you think I'm kidding when I NEVER joke without emoticons is
>beyond me.
Cause you must be kidding with this stuff. You ignore the evidence,
and make up anything else out of thin air. You gotta be kidding.
>> >And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
>> You should stop hanging out with bad influences, if your parish priest
>> is one.
>And thus, autoexcomunication.
Yeah, or you and he - right? We can know what Catholics believe. Don't
imply we can't.
>I'm not the one who left the church then came back trying to reinterpret
>the Popes to say something they didn't.
Well, if you disagree with something at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, you've had plenty of
opportunity to say what, exactly. And this is the best you can do,
apparently. Name calling.
>You have no charity in you at all.
Well, that's true of somebody here. As always, others can judge.
>Why did you avoid the question? What in short are you trying to hide?
Not area 52, that's fer sure.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> >It's what Pius IX was dealing with when he condemned it.
>
> >> First, you just confess to 'dead Magisteriums'.
>
> >I confess to all "Magisterium", unlike you, who would cut out a few Popes
> >and Bishops along the way (including, apparently, the same ones you
> >quote).
>
> Make sense. I quote from those who _you_ reject because you don't like
> what they wrote. Don't get confused here.
I no longer dislike what they wrote, because as
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/indefect.html proves, they agree with me
that you are a heretic.
> >No invention. I actually asked several priests about this one. They all
> >claimed the same thing: to interpret written words outside of the time
> >context in which they were written is modernism.
>
> That's not modernism. Modernism is the ridiculous notion that The
> Church is somehow 'behind the times', and needs getting up to date.
> That's essentially modernism.
Nah, that movement didn't exist in the 1920s. Remember what I said about
the importance of interpreting things WITHIN historical context, as
opposed to ripping them out of historical context?
> >> Who do you think you're kidding with this?
>
> >Why you think I'm kidding when I NEVER joke without emoticons is
> >beyond me.
>
> Cause you must be kidding with this stuff.
Not a bit. http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/indefect.html proves that you
are a heretic.
> You ignore the evidence,
> and make up anything else out of thin air.
You're the one who's been ignoring part of the evidence.
> You gotta be kidding.
Here's a bit more on the temporal vs the eternal realms of the Church:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2LAITY.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/J23MATER.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/09016B.TXT
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/SYLVESTR.TXT
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
Interestingly enough, here's a heresy that supports your point of view:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/CEGALLIC.TXT
> >> >And now, you want me to autoexcommunicate myself, like you did.
>
> >> You should stop hanging out with bad influences, if your parish priest
> >> is one.
>
> >And thus, autoexcomunication.
>
> Yeah, or you and he - right? We can know what Catholics believe. Don't
> imply we can't.
We can. If we don't pervert the texts to our own purposes.
> >I'm not the one who left the church then came back trying to reinterpret
> >the Popes to say something they didn't.
>
> Well, if you disagree with something at
> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, you've had plenty of
> opportunity to say what, exactly. And this is the best you can do,
> apparently. Name calling.
Not a bit. This is about you, not the tripe you've posted to the net.
> >You have no charity in you at all.
>
> Well, that's true of somebody here. As always, others can judge.
And they have, haven't they?
> >Why did you avoid the question? What in short are you trying to hide?
>
> Not area 52, that's fer sure.
That's true enough. So why are you trying to hide the Latin version of
the texts you cite?
Ted
On this, the Feast of St. Raymond of Penyafort
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saints/raymondpennafort.html
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> >> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I no longer dislike what they wrote, because as
>http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/indefect.html proves, they agree with me
>that you are a heretic.
But look, Ted, you've been writing so much nonsense on these ngs, that
to prefer indefectibility as your defense seems - a little
unconvincing. Michael Davies, _he_ knows what he's talking about on
this. You don't. I just think he's wrong. You look at the etiology of
'new order', and you don't find any reason to call it Catholic.
>> That's not modernism. Modernism is the ridiculous notion that The
>> Church is somehow 'behind the times', and needs getting up to date.
>> That's essentially modernism.
>Nah, that movement didn't exist in the 1920s. Remember what I said about
>the importance of interpreting things WITHIN historical context, as
>opposed to ripping them out of historical context?
Well, from new advent, under Modernism:
"says M. Loisy, 'form a fairly definite group of thinking men united
in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral
and social needs of today'
And as for ecumenism, under Modernism, again:
"A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the
heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an
understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even
between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of
agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences."
Oh, well. I just read it as written, Ted.
>> Cause you must be kidding with this stuff.
>Not a bit. http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/indefect.html proves that you
>are a heretic.
It proves you're very confused.
>Here's a bit more on the temporal vs the eternal realms of the Church:
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2LAITY.HTM
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/J23MATER.HTM
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/09016B.TXT
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/SYLVESTR.TXT
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
You imagine that this somehow defends your idea of what I've described
as a 'dead Magisterium'? Popes die, and what they taught infallibly -
dies with them?
>If we don't pervert the texts to our own purposes.
Don't project, Ted.
>> Well, if you disagree with something at
>> http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm, you've had plenty of
>> opportunity to say what, exactly. And this is the best you can do,
>> apparently. Name calling.
>Not a bit. This is about you, not the tripe you've posted to the net.
Name calling. Like I said - now I'm convinced.
>> >You have no charity in you at all.
>> Well, that's true of somebody here. As always, others can judge.
>And they have, haven't they?
It's for reasonable people to judge.
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> >>Modernism is the ridiculous notion that The
> >> Church is somehow 'behind the times', and needs getting up to date.
> >> That's essentially modernism.
>
> >Nah, that movement didn't exist in the 1920s. Remember what I said about
> >the importance of interpreting things WITHIN historical context, as
> >opposed to ripping them out of historical context?
>
> Well, from new advent, under Modernism:
>
> "says M. Loisy, 'form a fairly definite group of thinking men united
> in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral
> and social needs of today'
>
> And as for ecumenism, under Modernism, again:
>
> "A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the
> heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an
> understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even
> between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of
> agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences."
>
> Oh, well. I just read it as written, Ted.
You may read what is written there, but you owe it to yourself to read Saint
Pius X's Encyclical. There is quite a bit more to Modernism than what you say.
Modernism is essentially a naturalistic philosophy infiltrated into the Church.
It has as one of its premises, the idea of a "religious sense", some
"psychological" need of man's to invent religions, and proceeds to explain
everything according to human understanding. That is essentially Modernism, but
you really should read Saint Pius X.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >>Modernism is the ridiculous notion that The
>> >> Church is somehow 'behind the times', and needs getting up to date.
>> >> That's essentially modernism.
>> >Nah, that movement didn't exist in the 1920s. Remember what I said about
>> >the importance of interpreting things WITHIN historical context, as
>> >opposed to ripping them out of historical context?
>> Well, from new advent, under Modernism:
>> "says M. Loisy, 'form a fairly definite group of thinking men united
>> in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral
>> and social needs of today'
>> And as for ecumenism, under Modernism, again:
>> "A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the
>> heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an
>> understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even
>> between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of
>> agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences."
>> Oh, well. I just read it as written, Ted.
>You may read what is written there, but you owe it to yourself to read Saint
>Pius X's Encyclical. There is quite a bit more to Modernism than what you say.
People can go to the new advent on-line CE, with reservations as to
the accuracy of the copying, of course, and read for themselves that
it's just as you say. They say exactly that. That's prob. where you
read it. But fundamentally, modernism is the notion that the Church
needs 'getting up to date'. On the other hand, it's described there as
almost the synthesis of all heresies (which is pretty darned broad).
>Modernism is essentially a naturalistic philosophy infiltrated into the Church.
>It has as one of its premises, the idea of a "religious sense", some
>"psychological" need of man's to invent religions, and proceeds to explain
>everything according to human understanding. That is essentially Modernism, but
>you really should read Saint Pius X.
Modernism, again, just so you don't lose your own thread, is variously
described as quite a constellation of heresies. But the modern, in
modernism, refers to the general notion that Church teaching is
somehow outmoded, behind the times, needing what's getting up to date,
as some might say.
Sooo . . anyhow.
Mark Johnson
Joseph Geloso
Mark Johnson wrote:
> People can go to the new advent on-line CE, with reservations as to
> the accuracy of the copying, of course, and read for themselves that
> it's just as you say. They say exactly that. That's prob. where you
> read it. But fundamentally, modernism is the notion that the Church
> needs 'getting up to date'. On the other hand, it's described there as
> almost the synthesis of all heresies (which is pretty darned broad).
>
> >Modernism is essentially a naturalistic philosophy infiltrated into the Church.
> >It has as one of its premises, the idea of a "religious sense", some
> >"psychological" need of man's to invent religions, and proceeds to explain
> >everything according to human understanding. That is essentially Modernism, but
> >you really should read Saint Pius X.
Just for the record, I read it in Saint Pius X's encyclical, NOT in the online,
whatever. I read it in print, in the little yellow book -- familiar with those? Why
do you think I recommended the encyclical, if I hadn't read it myself?
Alice Gless
at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~agless/Medjugorje.htm
And Medjugorje matters now because truth always matters.
Mark Johnson wrote:
> "FTT" <f...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >> No they don't. They have their twisted 'Bible only', descended from
> >> other twisted Bibles-only, many of which The Church
>
> >And then there is Mark Johnson and his own twisted "whatever"
> >who sees an enemy behind every Holy Water Stoop.
> >FTT
>
> I'm just saying that Medjugorje isn't perhaps what it seems to be -
> beware. And I'm saying ecumenism is not good for people, and people
> from all different faiths seems to agree. If that's the 'holy water
> stoop', then hope to find you there, someday. Till such a time . . .
>
> Peace.
Alice Gless
What about t? You say a equals b and that all numbers are equal.
Furthermore you say t equals a plus b. Isn't t a number, too? Now if a
equals zero and b equals zero, then a plus b equals zero so then t equals
zero. So I hold that the only way all numbers are equal is if all numbers
equal zero. That is a little absurd.
Just a little musing on the definitions of SOME, MANY, ALL, etc in a
different context.
Joseph Geloso
Alice Gless wrote:
> Sorry I haven't been able to follow all this discussion/argument.
>
> What about t? You say a equals b and that all numbers are equal.
> Furthermore you say t equals a plus b. Isn't t a number, too? Now if a
> equals zero and b equals zero, then a plus b equals zero so then t equals
> zero. So I hold that the only way all numbers are equal is if all numbers
> equal zero. That is a little absurd.
>
I think the "theorem" below is not stated so well as "all numbers are equal."
A better statement of it would be, "any two numbers are equal". Can you refute
the theorem on mathematical grounds?
Alice Gless
problems, I gave it up. Too rusty. After I posted my little analysis, I picked
up this subject further along. Some noted, correctly I believe, that adding a
square to both sides of the equation falsifies the premise since the square root
of any given number (not counting negative numbers which bring in imaginary
numbers which gets over my head) can be plus or minus.
But further along the square is again squared so and the result of either a
negative or positive number is always positive when you square it - not so cube or
any uneven power. Now I can't remember the rule for squaring polynomials
something like a^2 plus 2ab plus b^2 but your test case won't expand thataway so
I'm kinda lost and rather strain my brain any further on this, I'll look and see
who gets the last word on this, if any. I don't have any problem with the last
line as adding t/2 to both sides of the equation yields a equal to b.
I think someone since I went to school invented some more numbers and theories.
Must be another conspiracy.
Joseph Geloso
Alice Gless wrote:
> Some noted, correctly I believe, that adding a
> square to both sides of the equation falsifies the premise since the square root
> of any given number (not counting negative numbers which bring in imaginary
> numbers which gets over my head) can be plus or minus.
Adding any quantity to both sides of the equation is always valid, so adding a square
to both sides is valid. The problem comes when taking the square root, which, as you
said, can be either positive or negative.
> But further along the square is again squared so and the result of either a
> negative or positive number is always positive when you square it - not so cube or
> any uneven power. Now I can't remember the rule for squaring polynomials
> something like a^2 plus 2ab plus b^2 but your test case won't expand thataway so
> I'm kinda lost and rather strain my brain any further on this, I'll look and see
> who gets the last word on this, if any.
Unlike some of the theological discussions here, a mathematical proof is based on
solid, irrefutable logic. The "last word" is had by the one who demonstrates
conclusively the proof or disproof of the theorem. Now in point of fact, the little
exercise below was given as "proof" of the theorem, any two arbitrary numbers are
equal. That means that either the theorem is true, or the proof is flawed. If the
theorem is true, mathematics goes out the window. Any two arbitrary numbers always
being equal is preposterous. Therefore, the proof must have a flaw in it.
> I don't have any problem with the last
> line as adding t/2 to both sides of the equation yields a equal to b.
>
> I think someone since I went to school invented some more numbers and theories.
> Must be another conspiracy.
Nope, it is the same old numbers you grew up with. The proof *does* have a flaw, and I
have proven where the flaw is. If you want to figure it out for yourself, stop reading
now.
To make it clear just exactly where the flaw is, take any two numbers. For this
discussion I will take 4 and 20. Now find the arithmetical average of those two. (4 +
20) ÷ 2 = 12. Now subtract this average from each of the two numbers. 4 - 12 = (- 8),
and 20 - 12 = 8. Now, square both results. (- 8)² = 64, and 8² = 64. Obviously, 64 =
64. So obviously, (- 8)² = 8². Can we then conclude that (- 8) = 8? Obviously not.
That is precisely where the flaw is found in the proof below. t = a + b. Therefore, t
/ 2 is the arithmetical average of a and b. And, (a - t/2)² = (b - t/2)². But a - t/2
does not equal b - t/2.