Leftist assault on Rome
crusad...@my-deja.com
prayers of the "New Mass" by the the leftists who are destroying the
Church of Rome from the inside out.
The following concepts have been removed from the Roman Liturgy:
"enemies," "reparation," "hell," "the gravity of sin," "snares of
wickedness," "the burden of evil," "adversities," "afflictions,"
"unworthiness," "true faith," "temptations," "grave offenses," "loss of
heaven," "wicked thoughts," "infirmities of soul," "sacrifice," "eternal
punishment," "fires of hell," "everlasting death," "heavenly
fellowship," etc, etc.
Some examples of various prayers and orations:
Old Text
O God, who for the overthrowing of the enemies of Thy Church...
New Text
O God, who raised up in Thy Church...
Old Text
desire only heavenly things.
New Text
eagerly seek Thy kingdom
Old Text
to despise earthly things and to love heavenly things.
New Text
to consider wisely earthly things and cleave to heavenly things.
Old Text
and be to us the support of our weakness.
New Text
and be to us an increase of charity.
This oration for the feast of St. Nicholas was completely abolished by
the leftist clergy:
O God, who hast adorned the blessed Bishop Nicholas with numberless
miracles: grant, we beseech Thee, that by his merits and prayers we may
be saved from the fires of hell.
This oration was abolished by the leftist clergy because it mentions
miracles, merit, and hell fire. Evidently, such concepts are anathema to
the New Heterodox Marxist Church of Rome. This new church is the church
of the likes of Thomas Mohr-on and other Marxists.
My Church is the Old Church of Rome, the Church of St. Thomas Aquinas,
and Pope St. Pius V. The Church that forbade mixing with Jews, and the
Church that launched the Crusades against Islam.
I challenge Mohr-on to show me _one_ Church decree prior to A.D. 1900
that condemns "racism." Of course, Mohr-on won't be able to do so
because "racism" is merely a term invented by leftists to stigmatize
normal people who oppose racial suicide and miscegenation. The term
"racism" didn't even exist at the turn of the century! So I ask, how can
something that doesn't even exist exept in the minds of leftists and
brainwashed liberal lemmings be a sin?
For God, Race, and Nation,
Crusader
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lisa Gardner
Perhaps you would do better to worship Mars, the roman god of war, then.
He seems to have jumped on the christian bandwagon pretty early on what
with all the crusades and whatnot. Since it seems to be him that you're interested
in more than anything else, why not just drop the christian baggage once and
for all and worship your god Mars without all of the burdensome talk about
love and everything, you know?
What is most truthful to the spirit of the earliest hebrew and greek christian
writings? The old that you are so fond of, or the new? I don't know, I'm asking
you.
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
>On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:15:00 -0800, "Lisa Gardner" <lgar...@mbay.net>
[...]
>>What is most truthful to the spirit of the earliest hebrew and greek christian
>>writings? The old that you are so fond of, or the new? I don't know, I'm asking
>>you.
>>
>>Lisa
>>
>
>
>The "Word of God" may be periodically subject to human revision to
>make it more palatable to the times and to the uninitiated. [...]
You bet.
This is why when you base your religion on the letter of the law, you'd better
carefully ask yourself: who has been messing around with those letters, and
for what reasons?
Lisa
Thomas Mohr
> that condemns "racism." Of course, Mohr-on won't be able to do so
> because "racism" is merely a term invented by leftists to stigmatize
> normal people who oppose racial suicide and miscegenation.
Crusader, your very own priest told you that YOUR racism is evil. Also, the
Bible is *full* of condemnations of your racism. You call non-white
catholics "apes", "animals" and other derogative names, i.o.w. you hate them
- and this is evil, even in pre-1900 church.
crusad...@my-deja.com
> What is most truthful to the spirit of the earliest hebrew and greek
christian
> writings? The old that you are so fond of, or the new? I don't know,
I'm asking
> you.
>
> Lisa
Lisa, Love for God and hatred for the world is the true Christian
spirit, nothing else.
Also, we don't need to pray to Mars when in battle, we have St. Michael
the Archangel for that.
crusad...@my-deja.com
Mohr, the word "racism" is not to be found _anywhere_ in the Bible nor
is it to be found in any pre-1900 Catholic writings. Why?
Because there is no such thing as "racism", that's why. It's a 20th
century Marxist invention.
Johnny Yen
crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7vqdbm$imi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Lisa wrote:
>
>
> > What is most truthful to the spirit of the earliest hebrew and greek
> christian
> > writings? The old that you are so fond of, or the new? I don't know,
> I'm asking
> > you.
> >
> > Lisa
>
>
> Lisa, Love for God and hatred for the world is the true Christian
> spirit, nothing else
" Hatred for the world " is against the spirit of European civilization.
It is more in line with the thought of India than Europe. So call
yourself a Hinayana Buddhist...
.
>
> Also, we don't need to pray to Mars when in battle, we have St. Michael
> the Archangel for that.
According to Federico Garcia Lorca, the saint that those incapable
of forming heterosexual relationships pray to.
He was a constant visitor to the monastery of San Miguel in Granada's
Sacromonte district.
FGL - one of the true martyrs of the 20th century and its greatest evil,
totalitarianism.
> For God, Race, and Nation,
Miguel O'Pastel
is a very competitive world, tithe-wise.
M
crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7vnqon$n05$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|I challenge Mohr-on to show me _one_ Church decree prior to A.D. 1900
|that condemns "racism." Of course, Mohr-on won't be able to do so
|because "racism" is merely a term invented by leftists to stigmatize
|normal people who oppose racial suicide and miscegenation. The term
|"racism" didn't even exist at the turn of the century! So I ask, how can
|something that doesn't even exist exept in the minds of leftists and
|brainwashed liberal lemmings be a sin?
|
crusad...@my-deja.com
"Miguel O'Pastel" <hereslooking@youkid> wrote:
> If these things had not been removed, the church would no longer
exist. It
> is a very competitive world, tithe-wise.
> M
>
O'Pastel, the Roman Catholic Church has more wealth and power than the
Sicilian Mafia. The Church could drive the Jews and their leftist
Mobocracies into the ground if it wanted to. But it can't and it won't
because the Church has been infiltrated and subverted by the enemy.
Johnny Yen
crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7vvek0$77g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <OtniGMwJ$GA.340@cpmsnbbsa05>,
> "Miguel O'Pastel" <hereslooking@youkid> wrote:
> > If these things had not been removed, the church would no longer
> exist.
True, the church needs to stay abreast of the modern world. It is a
near certainty that the next pope will OK birth control. At least two
of the main candidates for succeeding JP2 are in favour of OK'ing
rubbers...its about time.
It
> > is a very competitive world, tithe-wise.
> > M
> >
>
> O'Pastel, the Roman Catholic Church has more wealth and power than the
> Sicilian Mafia.
Funny you say this, because the church has used the Sicilian mafia -
and other mafie around the world - to advance its interests over the
years. The ties between church and mafia are very interwoven. Know
anything about the Vatican banking scandals, or the death of Toto
Riina ? The alleged capo di tutti capi whose name escapes me
right now - his nickname was " u signorinu ", meaning " the young
gentleman " in Sicilian dialect, for being highly educated and
well mannered - who got busted about a year ago, had studied
to be a priest in the same seminary in Monreale whose head had
gotten in trouble for embezzling EU funds which were supposed
to go to rebuilding the landmark cathedral there. And of course
there is the whole history of the DC, the party of the status quo
in Italy which was long the party of not only the church but also
the CIA and the Mafia. Andreotti may have gotten off, but much
of what he was involved in revealed a close intertwinement
between church, politics, and mafie...
The Church could drive the Jews and their leftist
> Mobocracies into the ground if it wanted to. But it can't and it won't
> because the Church has been infiltrated and subverted by the enemy.
The excuse of an heretic.
crusad...@my-deja.com
"Johnny Yen " <beat...@loop.com> wrote:
>
>
> crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in article
<7vvek0$77g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > In article <OtniGMwJ$GA.340@cpmsnbbsa05>,
> > "Miguel O'Pastel" <hereslooking@youkid> wrote:
> > > If these things had not been removed, the church would no longer
> > exist.
>
> True, the church needs to stay abreast of the modern world. It is a
> near certainty that the next pope will OK birth control. At least two
> of the main candidates for succeeding JP2 are in favour of OK'ing
> rubbers...its about time.
>
Pope St. Pius X attempted to keep the Liberal virus
out of the Roman Catholic Church by
publishing the following oath on September 1, 1910:
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM, 1910
I . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every
definition that has been set forth and declared by
the unerring teaching authority of the Church,
especially those principal truths which are directly
opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all,
I profess that God, the origin and end of all
things, can be known with certainty by the natural
light of reason from the created world (see Rom.
1:20), that is, from the visible works of creation,
as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his
existence can also be demonstrated. Secondly, I
accept and acknowledge the external proofs of
revelation, that is, divine acts and especially
miracles and prophesies as the surest sign of the divine
origin of the Christian religion and I hold that
these same proofs are well adapted to the
understanding of all eras and all men, even of this
time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith
that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the
revealed word, was personally instituted by the
real and historical Christ, when he lived among us,
and that the Church was built upon Peter, the
prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his
successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely
hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to
us from the apostles through the orthodox
Fathers IN EXACTLY THE SAME MEANING AND ALWAYS IN
THE SAME PURPORT.
THEREFORE, I ENTIRELY REJECT THE HERETICAL
MISREPRESENTATION THAT
DOGMAS EVOLVE AND CHANGE FROM ONE MEANING TO ANOTHER
DIFFERENT
FROM THE ONE WHICH THE CHURCH HELD PREVIOUSLY. I
also condemn every error
according to which, in place of the divine deposit
which has been given to the spouse of Christ to
be carefully guarded by her, there is put a
philosophical figment or product of a human conscience
that has
gradually been developed by human effort and will
continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold
with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is
not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from
the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of
the heart and the motion of a will trained to
morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the
intellect to truth received by hearing from an external
source. By this assent, because of the authority of
the supremely truthful God, we believe to be
true that which has been revealed and attested to by
a personal God, our creator and lord.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Furthermore,
with due reverence, I submit
and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations,
declarations, and all the prescripts contained in
the ENCYCLICAL PASCENDI and in the decree
LAMENTABILI, especially those concerning what is
known as the history of dogmas. I also reject
the error of those who say that the faith held by
the Church can contradict history, and that
Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now
understood, are irreconciable with a more
realistic view of the origins of the Christian
religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those
who say that a well educated Christian assumes a
dual personality - that of a believer and at the
same time of a historian; as if it were permissible
for a historian to hold things that contradict the
faith of the believer, or to establish premises
which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas,
would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either
false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method
of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which
departing from the tradition of the Church, the
analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic
See, embraces the misrepresentations of the
rationalists and with no prudence or restraint
adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold
that a professor lecturing or writing on a
historico-theological subject should first put aside
any preconceived opinion about the supernatural
origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine
promise of help to preserve all revealed truth
forever; and that they should then interpret the
writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific
principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with
the same liberty of judgement that is common in
the
investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Finally,
I declare that I am completely opposed to the error
of the modernists who hold that there is
nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far
worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense,
with the result that there would remain nothing but
this plain simple fact - one to be put on par
with the ordinary facts of history - the fact,
namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill
and talent have continued through subsequent ages a
school begun by Christ and his apostles. I
firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath
the belief of the Fathers in the charism of
truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be
in the succession of the episcopacy from the
apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that
dogma may be tailored according to what seems
better and more suited to the culture of each age;
rather, that the absolute and immutable truth
preached by the apostles from the beginning may
never be different, may never be understood in
any other way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I promise that I shall keep
all these articles faithfully, entirely,
and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way
deviating from them in word or in writing. Thus
I promise, thus I swear, so help me God. . .
(Pope St. Pius X)
For White Unity,
J. Johnson
"Sine auctoritate nulla vita."
(Without authority there is no life)
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
-------------------------------------------------------
"The people have heard quite enough about what are
called the rights of man. Let them hear about
the rights of God for once." (Encyclical Tametsi
futura, Pope Leo XIII)
-------------------------------------------------------
JJ Lipari
rape of the Sabine women, so I expect they will survive this.
JJ
Lisa Gardner <lgar...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:s1v049...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Perhaps you would do better to worship Mars, the roman god of war, then.
> He seems to have jumped on the christian bandwagon pretty early on what
> with all the crusades and whatnot. Since it seems to be him that you're
interested
> in more than anything else, why not just drop the christian baggage once
and
> for all and worship your god Mars without all of the burdensome talk about
> love and everything, you know?
>
crusad...@my-deja.com
In article <7vnqon$n05$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> I challenge Mohr-on to show me _one_ Church decree prior to A.D. 1900
> that condemns "racism." Of course, Mohr-on won't be able to do so
> because "racism" is merely a term invented by leftists to stigmatize
> normal people who oppose racial suicide and miscegenation. The term
> "racism" didn't even exist at the turn of the century! So I ask, how
can
> something that doesn't even exist exept in the minds of leftists and
> brainwashed liberal lemmings be a sin?
>
> For God, Race, and Nation,
> Crusader
>
Theodore M. Seeber
> Pope St. Pius X attempted to keep the Liberal virus
> out of the Roman Catholic Church by
> publishing the following oath on September 1, 1910:
snipping down to the part I have a question about:
> THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM, 1910
> I . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every
> definition that has been set forth and declared by
> the unerring teaching authority of the Church,
snip
We all know that the word "Liberal" has two definitions, depending upon
whether you are in the U.S. or England. From the English Point of view,
there are no "Liberals" anywhere in the U.S. political system; only 2
equally conservative political parties, for instance.
Which definition do you think Pius X was REALLY writing against? An
English or a US liberal? Personally, considering the fact that the Church
itself is just about halfway in between the U.S. standards of Liberal and
Conservative, and has problems with them both, I'd have to say he was
using the English Standard, which equates Liberal with Labour Party (we'd
say Socialist in the United States).
"Modernism" on the other hand, likewise has many meanings. It can mean
anything from Secular Humanism to the type of technology based advancement
that the Republican Party Favors.
We need to go back to 1910 and ask St Pius X to clarify his meanings.
Either that, or give us the original (Latin? Italian?) to work with,
rather than some modern traditional schismatic version.
Ted
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
Very few hate the Catholic Church, but many hate what they think the
Catholic Church is.
deto...@my-deja.com
apostle? Now is your chance!
Vote for you least favorite Apostle or Beatle
http://www.effenheimer.com/cgi-bin/vote.cgi
Then you can check out these offerings.
Four out of five cliff-jumpers prefer El Capitan
http://www.effenheimer.com/00611081999/sports/
Federal scholarship program strikes a blow for whitey
http://www.effenheimer.com/00611081999/news/scholarship.shtml
Everything i know about being a good host I learned from playing D and D
http://www.effenheimer.com/00611081999/editorial/dd.shtml
EgyptAir flight 990 flight recorder transcript
http://www.effenheimer.com/00611081999/news/flight990.shtml
In article <807lrs$ovk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Mark Johnson
>> THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM, 1910
>> I . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every
>> definition that has been set forth and declared by
>> the unerring teaching authority of the Church,
>snip
>We all know that the word "Liberal" has two definitions, depending upon
>whether you are in the U.S. or England.
Umm . . gosh, honestly - Ted. _You're_ convinced. Just given that, you
think anyone else is?
Honestly.
>From the English Point of view,
>there are no "Liberals" anywhere in the U.S. political system; only 2
>equally conservative political parties, for instance.
>Which definition do you think Pius X was REALLY writing against?
Just read it, Ted. Just read it.
Read it.
I know - I know . . he coulda meant . .
just . . .
Read it.
>"Modernism" on the other hand, likewise has many meanings.
Just - - - . . . .
Please, just . . . . . . . . .
Read it.
>anything from Secular Humanism to the type of technology based advancement
>that the Republican Party Favors.
Yeah - you're convinced.
>We need to go back to 1910 and ask St Pius X to clarify his meanings.
>Either that, or give us the original (Latin? Italian?) to work with,
A little dig at that Latin you hate, Ted?
>rather than some modern traditional schismatic version.
Look in the mirror, guy.
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
Douglas Long
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>We all know that the word "Liberal" has two definitions, depending upon
>whether you are in the U.S. or England. From the English Point of view,
>there are no "Liberals" anywhere in the U.S. political system; only 2
>equally conservative political parties, for instance.
The word *liberal* has meaning beyond any particular
national political context. Pius X simply meant by *liberal*
a willingness to change. He, evidently, was against it.
>"Modernism" on the other hand, likewise has many meanings. It can mean
>anything from Secular Humanism to the type of technology based advancement
>that the Republican Party Favors.
*Modernism* meant something specific in 1910. It was
the application of critical methods to the study of the Bible
and the history of dogma and resulted in the placing of
less emphasis on historic dogmas and creeds. In 1910,
that approach to the Bible was all the rage in various
Protestant denominations. Pius X condemned modernism
as the substituting of purely subjective criteria in matters of faith
and morals for the authority of the Church. The Pope had
a point; but then he also had his own interests to protect.
Given, however, the evolution-revolution-devolution of
rhetorical analysis among scholars in the 20th Century,
and given that religion is founded on *belief* rather than
on tangible, scientific *proof*, the Pope was probably
correct in his assessment and judgement of *modernism*.
>We need to go back to 1910 and ask St Pius X to clarify his meanings.
>Either that, or give us the original (Latin? Italian?) to work with,
>rather than some modern traditional schismatic version.
>Ted
No, you just need to understand the terms as they
were defined in 1910 and the intellectual context of
their use. Your giving those terms current rather than
historical (1910) meanings actually supports the position
of Pius X on the issue of modernism.
Douglas Long
JJ Lipari wrote in message <807eih$bvq$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>An assault on Rome??? Well, they survived Hannibal, the Visigoths, and the
>rape of the Sabine women, so I expect they will survive this.
>JJ
Those were assaults from the outside, not from
the inside.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>
> >We all know that the word "Liberal" has two definitions, depending upon
> >whether you are in the U.S. or England. From the English Point of view,
> >there are no "Liberals" anywhere in the U.S. political system; only 2
> >equally conservative political parties, for instance.
>
> The word *liberal* has meaning beyond any particular
> national political context. Pius X simply meant by *liberal*
> a willingness to change. He, evidently, was against it.
This is a new meaning to me. How do you get from "a person for liberty"
(the root meaning of the word liberal) to "a willingness to change"?
> >"Modernism" on the other hand, likewise has many meanings. It can mean
> >anything from Secular Humanism to the type of technology based advancement
> >that the Republican Party Favors.
>
> *Modernism* meant something specific in 1910. It was
> the application of critical methods to the study of the Bible
> and the history of dogma and resulted in the placing of
> less emphasis on historic dogmas and creeds. In 1910,
> that approach to the Bible was all the rage in various
> Protestant denominations. Pius X condemned modernism
> as the substituting of purely subjective criteria in matters of faith
> and morals for the authority of the Church. The Pope had
> a point; but then he also had his own interests to protect.
> Given, however, the evolution-revolution-devolution of
> rhetorical analysis among scholars in the 20th Century,
> and given that religion is founded on *belief* rather than
> on tangible, scientific *proof*, the Pope was probably
> correct in his assessment and judgement of *modernism*.
Sounds right to me.
> >We need to go back to 1910 and ask St Pius X to clarify his meanings.
> >Either that, or give us the original (Latin? Italian?) to work with,
> >rather than some modern traditional schismatic version.
> >Ted
>
> No, you just need to understand the terms as they
> were defined in 1910 and the intellectual context of
> their use. Your giving those terms current rather than
> historical (1910) meanings actually supports the position
> of Pius X on the issue of modernism.
Which is my point. I've seen several neo-conservative Americans use this
encyclical to beat their "liberal Catholic" and "Reformed Catholic"
oponents over the head with, and it seems to me that this is an incorrect
use of the encyclical. Especially since all of the so-called "changes" to
the liturgy of the Holy Mass are not new at all, are conservative leanings
back to before the Council of Trent, and in some cases, from before the
Council of Nicea.
And thus to me, simply aren't changes, but rather clarifications.
It's entirely possible that Pius X would have been against such
clarifications, but from what you've written here, it looks to me that the
Modernism he was writing against would have been against Vatican II as
well (since it was returning to a *more* historical version of
Catholicism, not a less historical one).
Miguel O'Pastel
M
crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in message <807lrs$ovk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Miguel O'Pastel
Churches are not democracies. From time to time, the Catholics have tried
taking power, but are steadily losing due to their old fashioned positions.
Like I say, it is real competitive in the religious hustle.
M
crusad...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7vvek0$77g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <OtniGMwJ$GA.340@cpmsnbbsa05>,
| "Miguel O'Pastel" <hereslooking@youkid> wrote:
|> If these things had not been removed, the church would no longer
|exist. It
|> is a very competitive world, tithe-wise.
|> M
|>
|
|O'Pastel, the Roman Catholic Church has more wealth and power than the
|Sicilian Mafia. The Church could drive the Jews and their leftist
|Mobocracies into the ground if it wanted to. But it can't and it won't
|because the Church has been infiltrated and subverted by the enemy.
|
|For God, Race, and Nation,
|Crusader
|
|
Douglas Long
Theodore M. Seeber wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Douglas Long wrote:
>
>> Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>>
>> >We all know that the word "Liberal" has two definitions, depending upon
>> >whether you are in the U.S. or England. From the English Point of view,
>> >there are no "Liberals" anywhere in the U.S. political system; only 2
>> >equally conservative political parties, for instance.
>>
>> The word *liberal* has meaning beyond any particular
>> national political context. Pius X simply meant by *liberal*
>> a willingness to change. He, evidently, was against it.
>
>This is a new meaning to me. How do you get from "a person for liberty"
>(the root meaning of the word liberal) to "a willingness to change"?
In religious philosophy, a *liberal* is anyone not bound by orthodox
tenets or established forms. Such views inescapably imply "a
willingness to change."
>> >We need to go back to 1910 and ask St Pius X to clarify his meanings.
>> >Either that, or give us the original (Latin? Italian?) to work with,
>> >rather than some modern traditional schismatic version.
>> >Ted
>> No, you just need to understand the terms as they
>> were defined in 1910 and the intellectual context of
>> their use. Your giving those terms current rather than
>> historical (1910) meanings actually supports the position
>> of Pius X on the issue of modernism.
>Which is my point. I've seen several neo-conservative Americans use this
>encyclical to beat their "liberal Catholic" and "Reformed Catholic"
>oponents over the head with, and it seems to me that this is an incorrect
>use of the encyclical.
You seem fond of labels - "neo-conservative," etc ... I grew up
in the Church and never heard those labels applied to Catholics
as such. The use of such labels suggests that Pius X was
accurate in his observations.
> Especially since all of the so-called "changes" to
>the liturgy of the Holy Mass are not new at all, are conservative leanings
>back to before the Council of Trent, and in some cases, from before the
>Council of Nicea.
You could make some kind of argument to support your assertion
about the councils, but the general effect of both was to consolidate
rather than to disperse. Vatican II essentially abandoned the culture
of the Church - its language, its mysticism, its art and beauty - in favor
of local vulgarities. Before Vatican II, the Mass looked and sounded
the same everywhere, in every country; after Vatican II the Mass became
unfamiliar everywhere but home. That is *new*, at least to those who
recall the Church before Vatican II.
>And thus to me, simply aren't changes, but rather clarifications.
The Mass in English isn't a clarification; it's definately a
change. So are the guitars. The Church has changed its
culture from the sublime to the ridiculous.
>It's entirely possible that Pius X would have been against such
>clarifications, but from what you've written here, it looks to me that the
>Modernism he was writing against would have been against Vatican II as
>well (since it was returning to a *more* historical version of
>Catholicism, not a less historical one).
>Ted
Vatican II was devolution, unless you believe that the culture of
the Church and its unifying influence needed to be abandoned.
Returning the Church to the era before Trent isn't progress at all,
as before Trent the Church endured all kinds of chaos.
Niamh O'Sullivan
<dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> You could make some kind of argument to support your assertion
>about the councils, but the general effect of both was to consolidate
>rather than to disperse. Vatican II essentially abandoned the culture
>of the Church - its language, its mysticism, its art and beauty - in favor
>of local vulgarities.
Actually VII documents call for pastors to make sure their parishoners can
respond in Latin and Gregorian Chant takes primacy of place in the music.
As for local vulgarities, isn't that what happende when the Mass was
changed to Latin from Greek?
> The Mass in English isn't a clarification; it's definately a
>change. So are the guitars. The Church has changed its
>culture from the sublime to the ridiculous.
In your personal opinion.
Niamh
Douglas Long
Niamh O'Sullivan wrote:
>> You could make some kind of argument to support your assertion
>>about the councils, but the general effect of both was to consolidate
>>rather than to disperse. Vatican II essentially abandoned the culture
>>of the Church - its language, its mysticism, its art and beauty - in favor
>>of local vulgarities.
>Actually VII documents call for pastors to make sure their parishoners can
>respond in Latin and Gregorian Chant takes primacy of place in the music.
>As for local vulgarities, isn't that what happende when the Mass was
>changed to Latin from Greek?
The point is that the Church used one language, until Vatican II.
>> The Mass in English isn't a clarification; it's definately a
>>change. So are the guitars. The Church has changed its
>>culture from the sublime to the ridiculous.
>In your personal opinion.
Right. I'm inclined to favor beauty and refinement.
Johnny Yen
Douglas Long <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<80i9q0$9go$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> Right. I'm inclined to favor beauty and refinement.
>
ROTFLMAO ! The joke of the millenium !
Douglas Long
Johnny Yen wrote:
>> Right. I'm inclined to favor beauty and refinement.
>ROTFLMAO ! The joke of the millenium !
Having read many, many of your posts, I understand
your position completely.