I enjoy the give and take of this forum, but however I seems to me that each question ends up being more a question of pre Vatican II and post vatican II reasoning. While this a most interesting topic, I fear that it isn't the only topic most "Catholics" would wish to discuss?

How about a second forum for that line of . . . "irrelevance" . . . (you understand what I think of the matter) and a true Catholic forum for questions of faith, protocol and inquiry?

It would have to be a forum that was controlled to some extent by the powers that be. A forum in which the some questions posed were already agreed to and answered in advance.

Questions like did the Pope and Magisterium follow proceedure in the Vatican II council? The answer to that question would be . . . Yes! with no backpeddling of any sort!

Did the Pope and the magisterium do the right thing in "giving away the keys to the faith? . . . The answer again to that question is Yes! Unequivically! Most every "faith or religion" has elements in its gathering that tries to say that their way is the only true way and that it is only through them that God really resides and it is only through them that God can be found. It is only common sense . . . and also the readings from last night . . . that tells us that "Gods ways are not our ways, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. As high as the heavens are above the Earth are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts." We can not even begin to put God's ways into our way of thinking. To say that God speaks only to us Catholics or that God speaks only to Muslims or Buddhists or Jehovah's Witnesses is always going to be a short sighted line of thought and one that frankly in my way of thinking a frivolous one. My salvation does not depend upon the exclusion of the majority of the Human Race and in fact, my exclusion of the majority of the Human Race from God's salvation might, in fact, be jeopardizing my Salvation. That's a risk I'm not going to take heedlessly.

There are probably numerous other questions that come into play, but it seems that if those two questions are settled, all others loose their importance.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 20, 2003

Answers

There are probably numerous other questions that come into play, but it seems that if those two questions are settled, all others loose their importance.

Exactly!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

I seems to me that each question ends up being more a question of pre Vatican II and post vatican II reasoning.

...and it seems to me that each of these threads are started by some troll with some very definite anti-traditionalist opinions in these matters. It's a guarantee of some controversy, to which human nature isn't very resistant.

While this a most interesting topic, I fear that it isn't the only topic most "Catholics" would wish to discuss?

So why keep starting new discussions on it?

How about a second forum

How about this: If you think the thread will be uninteresting to you based on the subject line, how about just not clicking on it, and sticking to the discussions to which you feel you can contribute?

The answer to that question would be . . . Yes! with no backpeddling of any sort!

a "forum" with pre-packaged answers. Sounds great! Where do I sign?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

C'mon Jake, you can do better than that. Don't give us the ol cut and paste. Put some true thoughts together. Give me a real response, one that can win me over to your short sighted way of looking at the gift that Christ has bestowed upon the world.

Cmon win me over or quit belly aching.

Give me something I can be proud to pass on to my two and four year olds. Make me proud of your faith.

You want to respond in Latin, fine go ahead, but be aware that nobody speaks latin, it's a dead language. I refer to the example of Pentecost. Everyone heard in their own language . . . doesn't that speak anything to you.

I'll be watching

Make me proud

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 20, 2003.

Leon, I been complaining about this for awhile, and the situation looks hopeless. Asking those who are obsessed with old rituals to stop is a waste of time, as they strongly believe that their actions will save the faith. They have an emotional need to do this, and it's similar to what I went through when I was younger, but my bent was conservative Catholism. I still feel that way, but my approach is different. After years of constant condemnation, and realiziing I did not bring a single person back to the faith, I decided to change my tactics. Constant condemnation is a waste, as it's not fruitful.

btw I would refute any sinful criticism that Jake says, like his complaints against the Holy Father, but I would not get into any debates with him. He likes to argue, but not really debate the issues in any meaningful manner.

God bless you Leon!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 20, 2003.

OOOH! I'm afraid that post won't make Leon proud, Gordon. Yes; Jake wants to pitch all the innings; and he's never at a loss for an answer.

Leon-- My own feelings have always been that too many come here to get encouraged about dissolving a past marriage. Talk about a cloud over this place! Only a few folks have grounds for an annulment; but their usual argument turns out the Catholic Church is so unfair ! After 3 or 4 years of this bland diet, you want to quit in disgust. The Vatican II question is at least worth following up.

Anyway, I'm sure your thread title was addressed to many others here besides Jake. Now when Ed gets on his box, the thread will become a real bore. (Sorry, Bro Ed. Have a holy & blessed Paschal holiday. Cumbaya!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

1:

Cmon win me over or quit belly aching.

Of course it's my desire that you & all are "won over" to the real Faith, but that's ultimately up to you. You have all the evidence you need at your fingertips, but you have to cooperate with whatever amount of grace the Holy Ghost chooses to give you - and He can't help you there if you choose to remain ignorant.

Give me something I can be proud to pass on to my two and four year olds.

Try this. It's a good start - but again, I can't make you proud of the One True Faith, as much as I wish I could.

I refer to the example of Pentecost. Everyone heard in their own language . . . doesn't that speak anything to you.

Oh. You're a Charismaniac. Don't worry. As long as there's life, there's hope.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

2:

After years of constant condemnation, and realiziing I did not bring a single person back to the faith, I decided to change my tactics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

I would refute any sinful criticism that Jake says...

...but you can't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

3:

My own feelings have always been that too many come here to get encouraged about dissolving a past marriage.

I know - as if they could dissolve a marriage! Tragic. Sift through the threads. A good one in every 10 is a question asking for affirmation to live in an adulterous relationship. Doesn't say much for the new religion.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Jake:
Are you now practicing a new religion? I stated the annulment drumbeat here is a constant distraction. You are becoming just as monotonous.

It makes no difference whether or not you care for the Mass in vernacular; the Council, or this forum's perspective. You are outside. Looking in, Banjo-Eyes. Care to join us?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

Care to join us?

In the Novus Ordo?

God forbid. Never. I want to save my soul.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Jake:
I hesitate to ask, but;

Is there a history of madness in your family?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

Is there a history of madness in your family?

I think it's called Original Sin.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

I think it's called Original Sin.

Guilty. You?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 20, 2003.

Jake became irrelevant about 25 years ago, he just hasn't figured out why yet.

We've all been celebrating in a beautiful house, laughing, singing, loving and proclaiming the good news, while Jake has been wandering around outside inspecting the foundation for cracks.

He can't figure out why we aren't all outside with him, but my church isn't about looking for little cracks in rock solid wall, my church is about all the celebrations going on inside.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 20, 2003.

No, no-- Emerald--
Insanity, I meant. Never hide insanity behind the Original sin of Adam. After all, Jake is baptised in the Church; even if he caught an elitist virus. I ask if his insanity is traceable, or is it spontaneously arrived at? Can you learn insanity?

He studied hard, as the skill he demonstrates here will show.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

Come join us Jake, your Salvation is waiting!

-- Phillip (crst120@borno.com), April 20, 2003.

I'm still waiting Jake . . . but I can't wait forever.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 20, 2003.

I want to be irrelevant along with jake.

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Jake became irrelevant about 25 years ago

when I was 8?

We've all been celebrating in a beautiful house, laughing, singing, loving

Yes. I know. Time to forget about all that hogwash and get down to the business of serving God, no?

my church isn't about looking for little cracks in rock solid wall, my church is about all the celebrations going on inside.

Don't worry. All is not lost. I can send you a list of places in your area where you can practice the Real Faith, with the Real Mass, and a real priest. Just email me.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

C'mon Jake, state your case without the ol cut n paste. If you want to truely save my soul, you've got to convince me. Here I am, say something, say anything "on a positive note" to save me. My two little children are depending on you.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 21, 2003.

Jake became irrelevant about 25 years ago, he just hasn't figured out why yet.

Make no mistake, jake knows he's irrelevant. That's actually a virtue, you know.

What isn't accurate is to say he hasn't figured out just why yet.

But think long and hard about what you are saying, Leon. Think hard; you just said that the Faith of the ages was irrelevant.

To which I would respond, by default, this way:

Nunquam draco sit mihi dux. Vade retro Satana. Nunquam suade mihi vana... Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas.

Give them the symbol, jake... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

Dear Emerald:
I'm not sure if Jake is irrelevant. But irreverent he is. The faith of the ages, God knows, is in the Church visible on earth & under the guidance of John Paul II. No other Catholic Church is relevant. By rebellion against the teaching of the Holy Father, Jake has forsaken the true faith.

He isn't yet lost. But it's important he finally persevere in the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Huh?

And that's supposed to save my soul?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 21, 2003.

God Bless

Thanks Eugene

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 21, 2003.

Well jake, all I can say is, soak up the insults while you can and call them blessings.

The walls and ceilings are not fireproof in the joint where all this dancing is taking place.

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

One more time . . . say one thing in a positive note that would leave me to believe in your way of faith.

Criticisms and sarcasm are cop outs. What do you guys talk about when you come to worship together that we don't. Share it with me so that I can become inspired as you are inspired.

I'm not insulting you, but I am most certainly challenging you.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 21, 2003.

Criticisms and sarcasm are cop outs.

Jake is well aware of this... that's the greater portion of what he has been the target of on this forum.

For that, I thank Almighty God. God be praised for inflicting us with those things which are necessary for our salvation. I would personally like to thank God for the dung that has been heaped upon His servant jake's head, as a worthy and respectable way of picking- up the cross of Christ for the sake of others who fiddle and dance and fritter away precious golden moments of opportunity while a war rages between heaven and hell for the ultimate possession of the immortal souls of all the intoxicated party-goers.

Cheers! Eat, drink and be merry.

There's a party goin' on right here... a celebration to last throughout the years. So bring your good times, and your laughter too We gonna celebrate your party with you. Come on now... celebration! Let's all celebrate and have a good time. It's time to come together It's up to you, what's your pleasure?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

I've asked you five times to tell my what you are doing that we aren't. Five times I've gotten a cut n paste sarcastic quip.

Is there any substance to your faith that can be shared. I've never talked to a "Latin Mass" Catholic before and I am offering you a chance to state why you believe as you do and all you want to do is belittle me.

Go ahead, tell me what's so important about your beliefs that prevent you from worshiping with me in my Catholic church.

My Salvation is of utmost importance to me and I'd hate to think that I failed to examine it from every angle. My days are numbered as are yours.

If I'm not drinking from the right cup, I need to know why?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 21, 2003.

Emerald, My Friend:
Thank God for your good sense, and put away the nonsense. If Jake is a martyr, it isn't because he wasn't tolerated (for much too much) in this forum. The controversy you think is ''dung'' on his innocent head is necessary to arrive at truth. He is not partial to truth; but he gets his rations here. You make me wonder now if the truth is important to you, too.

I find it hard to forget Jake perceived a Catholic soul at Holy Mass as a ''moron'', because he addressed the congregation in a cheerful way. About to begin the Mass, a man just like you, Emerald, leading the musical group at Mass. You appear to have musical tastes. But what would lead me regard you as a moron? Jake said he got up and left the celebration, because the Moron had exhausted his patience. Christian, indeed!

And the celebration went on without Jake, but was God happy to see this?>Come ON now-- Celebration! ''All the Catholic Morons!'' Is that your song?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Eugene...

You know what I'm getting at, my friend.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

My two little children are depending on you.

No, they're depending on you. You'll either teach them the Faith, or you won't. My suspicion is the latter, but I'll pray for them, and you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Nunquam draco sit mihi dux. Vade retro Satana. Nunquam suade mihi vana... Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas.

Give them the symbol, jake... lol!

Ipse venna bibas, indeed!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By rebellion against the teaching of the Holy Father

We're still waiting for the how & why behind that allegation. I'd even take a little un-researched personal opinion at this point.

He isn't yet lost. But it's important he finally persevere in the faith.

It's important for all of us to perservere in the Faith, and for you Novus Ordos to find It.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Well jake, all I can say is, soak up the insults while you can and call them blessings.

Our Lord said to "rejoice and be glad" in these circumstances, and these folks are giving me a lot to be happy about!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------

Cheers! Eat, drink and be merry.

Ipse venna bibas!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I've asked you five times to tell my what you are doing that we aren't. Five times I've gotten a cut n paste sarcastic quip.

Did not. Is there any substance to your faith that can be shared. I've never talked to a "Latin Mass" Catholic before and I am offering you a chance to state why you believe as you do and all you want to do is belittle me.

My first post told you that you have all the means of salvation at your fingertips. It's SO out there, Leon, but it won't land in your lap like a winning lottery ticket. I offered to send you a list of places in your area where the True Mass is offered. That still stands. If you need cab fare, I'll throw that in, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I find it hard to forget Jake perceived a Catholic soul at Holy Mass as a ''moron'', because he addressed the congregation in a cheerful way. About to begin the Mass, a man just like you, Emerald, leading the musical group at Mass.

Yeah. I'll never be able to stamp that out of my memory either:

him: "Is everybody hahin' a good time?"

them: [silence]

him: "I saaaaaiiiid: Is everybody havin a good TIME?"

them: [muffled conversation]

me: [rolls eyes, looks at watch]

Jake said he got up and left the celebration,

starring some snake oil salesman. I'm still doing pennance for that fiasco.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

You traditionalists have just one"boring mass" going for you. We N.O. folks get a playbill from our bishops. "What show would you folks like to see this week? "We have tickets for Sunday, or Saturday evening if you prefer". We have Nightclub masses, or maybe you would like to take the kids to see Superman, a clown perhaps, how about football,maybe witches, or many more?. Maybe a celebrity, like the pope may be there. He is open minded you know".

-- Ed Richards (loztrt@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Sorry for the caustic satire, but sometimes it brings out the truth like no other way can.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Hi, Jake and Ed,
The flame of elitism hasn't died down, I gather.

Jake the comedian: ''. . .for all of us to perservere in the Faith, and for YOU Novus Ordos to find It.'' Oh?-- Jake must be hiding the faith? We need to find out which door the tiger's behind? Yeah, And Jake gets to hang with the ''lady''. (In his dreams.)

''Rejoice and be glad" in these circumstances, (pride and presumption?) [''It seems to give me a lot to be happy about!'' (I'm very happy in God's grace. Need no help from the proud.)

''. . .places in YOUR area where the True Mass is offered.'' I can take you to the Mass, Jake. True Mass for just about all types; even a wannabee comic. / Our pastor is duly ordained and in union with the Holy See. We have all the sacraments, and (surprise!) we adore Our Savior. (No patents or copyrights at our Church, however. Just Apostolic succession and GRACE.)

''. . .starring some snake oil salesman.'' First he's called Moron; then a Snake-oil Pusher. (''Should never have been baptised, the creep.'') Jake looks down on that type. Ho-hum --

-- -- -- --

And Ed, the Whole Other Guru of elitism:

'' . . . What show would you folks like to see this week? --tickets for Sunday, or maybe Saturday evening. --A celebrity like the Pope may be there.'' Hardy har-har.

You kill me, Ed. Come back later, OK? Much later . . .

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

There Ed goes again, trying to associate every liberal abuse with Conservative Catholics who have no problems with the Novus Ordo.

Ed, I can say it a thousands times to you, and it just does not sink in, I reject the liberals in the Church, who are heretics, as much as I reject the so called traditionalist like you who are schismatic, outside of God's Holy Church, as started by Christ himself.

The Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated throughout the world, and yet liberalism is largely a problem in the West!!! So is the vast majority of schismatics! People in the West have too much time in their hands and are exposed to too much idealism from other people, that each side has their own sizable following. Quite sad!

Guys debating with Jake is a waste of time. The guy is simply not interested in any meaningful discussion. He is the same guy who has no problem PROMOTING the lie against the Holy Father, that he was given a pagan sign on his forhead with dung!!! How anyone can believe that nonsense about the Holy Father, just because a picture shows an East Indian woman touching the Holy Father's forehead is beyond belief!

By the way, the woman touching the Holy Father's forehead, was a married Catholic woman, and not a pagan priestess, like they claim, and there was no dung on her hand. She was performing a greeting similar to a handshake.

The guy is obsessed with showing pictures of various Novus Ordo Masses, that are different somehow. He thinks that anything different from the ritualistic norm, is AUTOMATICALLY an offense to God. He does not question the setting, the intentions, or anything else.

I think it's funny that he never posts a typical Novus Ordo Mass, as if that is somehow acceptable to him.

A lover of ritual beyond the point of reason. No reason is needed, as any change of ritual is a great offense to him.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Gordon, I suppose thos Anamists that the Pope helped in feeding the snakes, were really closet Catholics.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Main Entry: an·i·mism Pronunciation: 'a-n&-"mi-z&m Function: noun Etymology: German Animismus, from Latin anima soul Date: 1832 1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit 2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects 3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies - an·i·mist /-mist/ noun - an·i·mis·tic /"a-n&-'mis-tik/ adjectiveGordon, they surely are odd Catholics, maybe a little schismaatic. But then again they can't be or the pope would have nothing to do with them, like he does to our guys.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

My; I threw some bread into the Koi fishes pool at Churchill's estate, Chartwell some years ago. You could call me an Englishman and subject of her Majesty the Queen for such behavior! (It was right by a large sign which said: ''Do Not Feed the Fish!'')

Ed, Maybe our Holy Father went to confession that evening, (He does, you know) and told his Father Confessor, ''I fed a bad creature today; I couldn't resist the temptation.''

Confessor might reply: My son; it was not a mortal sin. But never take those chances again. Not with cameramen around. It's the impression, you see. Now, just say a hundred Hail Marys, and go in peace.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

I was surprised to see the mention that a "pagan priestess" used some kind of a dung ritual to welcome the pope. I was born and raised in India, and I know what happened. I am an Indian and American at the same time. Like one of the previous person said, there was no dung or no paganism or priestess. It is a country with a 5000 year old civilization and has lots of traditional methods of formal welcome. The western handshake is not practiced there and many other methods are used, which some pro-anti-pope people say as pagan rituals. People, regardless of their religion use their own methods of welcoming and greeting, and I wouldn't say the US president used satanist ritual of handshaking with the pope, because a few brainless people are worshipping satan, who uses the method of handshake for greeting. I suspect these claims are made by people who pretend to be christians and whose sole purpose is to preach false things and lies about the catholic church and the pope, which is the exact purpose of satan. I guess there is no more explanation needed. Also, some people think India is a land of paganism. Because the land is secualar and all sorts of religion is welcome, doesn't mean the land is pagan. This is a country, where a non chrisitan man named Gandhi used non violence to win freedom even against brutal methods of the then british rulers. It is an example for christian leaders today, who bless bombs in the name of God, proclaims that their war is holy and it is justified etc. Also, that non christian man Gandhi, who humbled himself a lot, openly stated that he loves christ. To those who doubt about the catholics there, St Thomas the apostle is the one who came here, and this is also his resting place. I have made a pilgrimage there, and many people and bishops and priests make pilgrimages every year. I think the pope has also came there to pray at the resting place of St Thomas. Don't forget St Francis Xavier, whose body is still there like he was alive and the many pilgrims come to visit the relic and pay respects and honour to the saint and also don't forget Mother Teresa.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Jake must be hiding the faith? We need to find out which door the tiger's behind?

Not at all. It's there, whever you should go looking for it, but you won't find it between the altar girls and the greeters. If you want to know where you can find it, email me, and I'll send you a list of traditional chapels in your area.

I can take you to the Mass, Jake.

Only if you drop me off at the nearest traditional chapel on the way to your "Novus Ordo liturgical service" (your words).

First he's called Moron; then a Snake-oil Pusher.

No, no. The "misister of song" was the moron. The snake oil salesman was Fr. Zlatko Sudac.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

He is the same guy who has no problem PROMOTING the lie against the Holy Father, that he was given a pagan sign on his forhead with dung!!!

The scandal that the Holy Father causes is his problem, not mine. I need only pray for the grace not to get sucked in by it.

She was performing a greeting similar to a handshake.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

I think it's funny that he never posts a typical Novus Ordo Mass, as if that is somehow acceptable to him.

What? The Novus Ordo is NOT accaptable to me; and just what is a "typical" Novus Ordo?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Confessor might reply: My son; it was not a mortal sin. But never take those chances again. Not with cameramen around. It's the impression, you see. Now, just say a hundred Hail Marys, and go in peace.''

Not bad advice, if you ask me!

Non Draco sit mihi dux!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

No, it's heresy to you, Saint Jake. I like your logotype. It's cool. Ultra elite.

MMMihi dux to you too!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Maybe the pope had a "bad snake" day and maybe he did go to confession, and maybe thousands of Catholics saw that photo, and maybe they thought it was ok to feed pagan snakes, and maybe they did not go to confession that night, or any other night. Giving scandal and cleaning your own soul, does not undo all the damage that you have done. A public abjuraation would be in order, don't you think?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

No, I don't think so. You are a scandal in your own right. Public adjuration your butt. You are nothing but a muckraker and a Pharisee.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

> "I was surprised to see the mention that a "pagan priestess" used some kind of a dung ritual to welcome the pope. I was born and raised in India, and I know what happened. I am an Indian and American at the same time. Like one of the previous person said, there was no dung or no paganism or priestess. It is a country with a 5000 year old civilization and has lots of traditional methods of formal welcome. The western handshake is not practiced there and many other methods are used, which some pro-anti-pope people say as pagan rituals."

Thank you for that Abraham T, but these guys are not interested in such opinions. No matter how people say otherwise, as long as one website has a caption saying the Pope was given a pagan sign with dung, they are all over it. That's all they proof they need. I wonder if God will judge them accordingly on judgment day, and I wonder how good the excuse is of saying "Well I just believed it was true, so I cannot be faulted for my ignorance". That's quite funny, as these are the same people who say ALL non-Catholics are going to hell, for their is no such thing as invincible ignorance. In other words, they are saying, no one can be excused for not believing in the Catholic faith, no matter what their circumstances are in life.

Jake good post there. I mean, you are the king of one liners. Can you actually form two sentences in a row?

> "Gordon, I suppose thos Anamists that the Pope helped in feeding the snakes, were really closet Catholics."

Ed, what the hell are you talking about now? I mean, where do you get this from? The things that come out of your mouth is amazing!

Ed, funny thing is that you are such a lover of the old Church, but that very same Church would have burnt you at the stake for being a schismatic.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Nope they wouldn't John Paul maybe but not me.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

You see what happened when you said " Catholic Forum" Leon? Are the traditionalists like Ed, jake, or Emerald the true catholics or is the Novus Ordo like Eugene, Joh G, Chris B, Anna, Abraham, Mateo, Enrique,.. the true Catholics? Or is it people like Theresa and Attila who are into the Charisnmatic movement?

People like Kiwi, Jean Bouchard, or myself, A Christian catholic Yahwist are on the fringes.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.

Jake good post there. I mean, you are the king of one liners.

Take my wife. Please.

Can you actually form two sentences in a row?

Take my wife. Please. I take my wife everywhere but she finds her way home.

Ed, what the hell are you talking about now?

Ed, ever notice that all Neos talk like this?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

I like your logotype. It's cool. Ultra elite.

Thanks. I'm not surprised you find it repulsive, so I went ahead & found something muchmore your speed, and I even made it a clickable link.

...and you think I'm not a nice guy. Feh.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

If you say so, Jake. I said your logo was cool and elitist. Fits you at least in that way. This red one is found on box- tops everywhere. I seem to recall General Mills? Fine traditional logotype and so relevant. You flakes are ubiquitous. But expensive. Upscale religion, even. Ho-hum.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Just what we need. One-click schism.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

Upscale religion, even. Ho-hum.

Remember? It was your religion before they dumbed it down, and replaced it with its Nuvo substitute. I need no further proof that the Novus Disorder is a new, false religion.

Gimme some o' that "Upscale religion!"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

Say; You came clean. You admit it's the only religion; and you are ''upscaling'' it for the lumpenproletariat. How decent of you, Ayatollah. Now we have the straight- skinny from a Real Pal.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Jake, they don't have facts, just whacks!

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Whatever some in the SSPX might do, you can be sure that the Traditional Catholic Movement will continue, perhaps even stronger than in the past when the Novus Ordo sympathizers are removed. This is truly the last gasp of the New Order, which, as Pope Paul VI said, is auto-destructing. That auto-destruction is clearly evident around us, as we see Novus Ordo bishops and presbyters fornicating their way to perdition, and a do-nothing pope sitting back and having tea in his library with them, instead of disrobing them and submitting them to the strictest penalties.

No, Traditional Catholics just need to remain firm in the Faith and not sell out to the Novus Ordo goats.

Then, again, all this may be a story planted to destablize the SSPX. The Vatican has been known to engage in just such deceptions to further its plans for a Oecumenicalized, Bastardized, Popeless, One- World Church that stoops to kiss the damnable Koran as its "Holy Book." The handwriting on the wall is much clearer even than that given to King Nebucodonosor!

-- Ed Richards (loza@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Then, again, all this may be a story planted to destablize the SSPX. The Vatican has been known to engage in just such deceptions to further its plans

Ed, not to worry. Rumors of the fall of the SSPX ("reconcilliation" with Rome) are, thanks be to God, utterly false. The real story can be read here, and confirmed on the SSPX's own website.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 21, 2003.

I should say I am getting surprised day by day. I am hearing the term Novus Ordo for the first time. Back where I came from, when we say catholic, there is only one defenition. It is the first time I am hearing that there are seperations within the catholics. If traditional means literally, I consider myself a tradition catholic because whoever respects and follows christ and his church is a catholic and that has been our tradition. I stand by the pope and the cardinals and bishops and the priests, because they are called by God and even if they make mistakes, it is God who will ask them and it is not my place to judge anyone. Mistakes are made and will be made. After all, if satan was in heaven in the midst of all angels, in the presence of God, is is surprising to know that there are bad people in the catholic church? I like to follow the path of St Francis and St Antony, who respected and obeyed their leaders and those in command. For example, when St Francis went to the then pope for approval for his new order of minors, the pope being so busy and because of the inferior nature of the saint, told him to go to a pig dump full of mud. The saint just smiled and went again and in full obedience and respect, asked him again. This is the lords' wish and he honoured it as should we. That pope later almost made Francis a saint as soon as he died, but did it after 2 years because that was too fast and unheard of at that time. I don't know how we could try to create further divisions among ourselves because isn't it so simple to understand? There is no theology or vast knowledge to understand that. Remeber what God said, we should do wat our superiors and religious teachers tell us to do, but if they do bad things, just don't practice that in our life. The meaning of obedience is very deep and it is very hard to do at times, but it is our lord's will that we be, and we should follow the path shown by those before us who are with God now.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Our proof of orthodoxy is merely the fact we don't whine. Poor souls like Ed are born to cry. If they obey something it's their own sensibility. Jake is colder and less passionate. He is calm and collected, because it's only a game of wits to him. Sorry to have to make these observations. The remedy is to please only God. Let them please themselves; and forgive them. They'll come around with time. Trust in God . . .

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Gene, I'll take you on... weeknights only, though.

Let's put this thing to the test, know what I mean? Let's see if there is reason behind it.

In or out?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Oh, Emerald,

You feel a need to challenge us? I admit it's valiant; why do you start by setting conditions ''Take me on,'' -- I must be part of a video game.

Would you like for me to say ''I'm out''?

Do I get a choice of discussions? We ought to know what we're getting into, no? You may choose to debate the Iraqi war; and support Bush and Blair. I would be left with Saddam & France. Don't do us any favors.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Would you like for me to say ''I'm out''?

No.

Do I get a choice of discussions?

No.

We ought to know what we're getting into, no?

Yes.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Jake is colder and less passionate.

...and that's the polite version!

it's only a game of wits to him

This is no game, old man.

They'll come around with time.

If by "come around", you mean reapsorbed into the Neochurch, you are very, very mistaken.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

itlaics off.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

There is no ''neochurch'' YOUNG man. You invented the ''trad'' church too. It is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are bound by the faith --Yes, you as well. But you have a weak faith. That's why I'd be willing to stake my life you will someday realise how you failed to understand. Time will tell, dux.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

I'd be willing to stake my life you will someday realise how you failed to understand. Time will tell.

Ah, but how would I collect on this wager when you, at your age, will not be around to see "someday?"

I would soner die than relapse into the Neochurch madness. Be secure in that knowledge, compadre. I will be witnessing (to borrow a Neo- term) to my beliefs in a more formal way in the near future. More on that later.

"Dux" is a Latin word meaning "guide" or "leader." I can't think of why you use it to apparently mock me, unless it's because that, being Latin, it sounds silly to you?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Oh ye of little faith;
I said dux on account of your apparent love of Latin. I could have said pax vobicum, or Ciao. --You are upset with old Gene?

If you don't expect to be reabsorbed into the Catholic faith, what is it brings you back here to the Catholic forum? Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to accomodate you as well as Ed & Regina. All of us catholics appreciate the opportunity to pitch to you. You are batting .02 thus far. In articulo mortis.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

You are upset with old Gene?

Not at all! If I were upset, I'd have sunk to personal attacks or some such nonsense. It takes a lot more than this to upset me.

what is it brings you back here to the Catholic forum?

You mean this forum? I'll have to reflect on that for a while; but off hand, I realy think it's because: 1) I like the interaction, 2) It affirms me in my own convictions, and 3) someone needs to be telling the truth.

pitch to you.

Is that what you call it?

: D

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

I also like the ''interaction''. That's pitching and batting. I sometimes refer to our ''serve and volley''.

In a matchup between equals, the harder the serve, the more need to send it back hard. Now, whenever this old man picks up the tempo, he's accused of ad hominem or offensive replies.

I only mean to keep the ball in play; and I like to play for keeps. Not ''sink to personal attacks''. Serve and volley with energy; and let you fire or tire.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Jake--
Let me correct your term: You have yet to affirm any conviction. You only asserted them. To affirm is as if it were confirmed. Try harder.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

In a matchup between equals, the harder the serve, the more need to send it back hard.

That's how I like to play, too.

Now, whenever this old man picks up the tempo, he's accused of ad hominem or offensive replies.

I think even you could admit that you've made some rplies in the past that could be deemed "offensive," not to say that I may not have offended someone here, too, but I think I do a pretty fair job of staying away from name-calling. (I'm glad you use the term "old man" referring to yourself, as I do not use it in a derrogatory way toward you at all - I use it with my own father often).

I only mean to keep the ball in play;

better send the outfield back to the fence.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

+

Say; the names are part of the repertory. If they're not obscene or repulsive, they're merely a device, not offensive per se (a little Latin lingo--)

So I make Ed see he's muckraking. I should say, ''Don't play with that offal, Child--'' -->???

No-- call him muckraker. Call you Elitist. Both men are proud and condescending. One lady distorts the truth.

But with all that, I must state it isn't personal. If I meet you at a party, the conversation would be amicable. I play on the court.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Eugene, you see it as muckraking, I see it as enriching the soil. That old fruit tree thay you Neo's are feeding, looks pretty awful right now. The leaves are falling fast. About 70% at last count...and some of the leaves that are left don't even know why they are still clinging.

Our Lord said "Bear no fruit, cut it down". The fruit is spoiling at a faster rate than ever.

Come over and take a look at our garden sometime.

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

The fruit is spoiling at a faster rate than ever.

And with no young farmhands coming in to till the soil, it's only a matter of time before the harvest comes and the Master gathers the trees bearing no fruit into bundles, good for nothing except to be thrown into the fire.

With their muscles made weak through decades of following their appetites and inactivity, the Neos haven't the energy to make the trees fruitful again. Better to let them stick to what they can do very well: spreading the manure.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Good metaphor, Lads and you shovel it well.

Jake; you speak Latin. Know what is meant by ''fides Punica''-???

You ''trads'' have fallen into it. You betray the faith of the Apostles, you see ''traditor' is for traitor. Instead of giving your loyalty to the Pope, you work by treachery to undermine his authority. Trads is a fitting name, Traditori, in Italian. No harm intended; somebody has to tell the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Instead of giving your loyalty to the Pope, you work by treachery to undermine his authority.

Right. How'd I do that again?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Jake,
''Trads'' like Ed & yourself favor disobedience to the pope. Attempt to make dissent attractive by holding His Holiness up to scorn. You pose as ultra-religious with your attachment to ''True Mass'' as opposed to ''false mass'', and dispute the Catholicity of your neighbors. Purely on snobbish grounds.

You have gone as far as to bait me here. You insinuated I had as much as confessed the churches here being discussed were two, not the same Church. You may think that repeated glib references to Neo vs. Trad Catholicism is acceptable to the forum. I countered that assertion saying there is One Church; Holy Catholic & Apostolic; and that division is not feasible to the faithful. The very idea of ecumenism (for what it's worth) is Unity, Communion. You would prefer to add to the already divided faithful by cutting the Novus Ordo worshippers away from the ''True Church'' arbitrarily. Thank God you are in fact powerless. The Trad so-called is a fringe community. It is connected to the See of Rome; but rebelling daily (at least in here.) That's phony faith, fides Punica. We are the Church. not the Neos.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Jake,
''Trads'' like Ed & yourself favor disobedience to the Pope. Attempt to make dissent attractive by holding His Holiness up to scorn. You pose as ultra-religious with your attachment to ''True Mass'' as opposed to ''false mass'', and dispute the Catholicity of your neighbors. Purely on snobbish grounds.

You have gone as far as to bait me here. You insinuated I had as much as confessed the churches here being discussed were two, not the same Church. You may think that repeated glib references to Neo vs. Trad Catholicism is acceptable to the forum. I countered that assertion saying there is One Church; Holy Catholic & Apostolic; and that division is not feasible to the faithful. The very idea of ecumenism (for what it's worth) is Unity, Communion. You would prefer to add to the already divided faithful by cutting the Novus Ordo worshippers away from the ''True Church'' arbitrarily. Thank God you are in fact powerless. The Trad so-called is a fringe community. It is connected to the See of Rome; but rebelling daily (at least in here.) That's phony faith, fides Punica. We are the Church. not the Neos.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

''Trads'' like Ed & yourself favor disobedience to the Pope.

Not disobedience for its own sake, Gene. We resist all that is not in keeping with what the Church has always taught, and when the Vicar of Christ goes into a mosque and kisses the Koran, or allows himself to be anointed by priestesses, incensed by sufis, exorcised by Aztecs; we find all these things scandalous and alarming. By feeling thus, we offer no disobedience at all.

and dispute the Catholicity of your neighbors.

But you dispute our "Catholicity," no? Have not you yourself called me a "non-Catholic," an "anti-Catholic bigot," and a "danger to the Faith?"

You have gone as far as to bait me here.

What? You left in a huff; then reappeared suddenly and wasted no time starting in on the Traditionalists. Things were going along just fine without you - not that I'm not glad to see you. I'm happy you're back.

The Trad so-called is a fringe community. It is connected to the See of Rome

How can that be if we are "schismatics?"

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
all that is not in keeping with what the Church has always taught, and when the Vicar of Christ goes into a mosque and kisses the Koran, or allows himself to be anointed by priestesses, incensed by sufis, exorcised by Aztecs; we find all these things scandalous and alarming. By feeling thus, we offer no disobedience

Reply: To tell the truth, I wouldn't be bothered by a superficial meeting with odd visitors/companions. It was obviously arranged as an act of openness and tolerance. My gut feeling is the Pope was bored to death. You read disaster into the scheme. Henny Penny with Chicken Little & ''The Sky is falling!'' Alarming indeed. I'll tell you what's alarming. My hair is falling out.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

My gut feeling is the Pope was bored to death.

So why not chip a few golf balls, catch a flick, or watch football on TV?

I'll tell you what's alarming. My hair is falling out.

I'll tell YOU what's alarming: So's mine; and I'm half your age.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I'm starting to get a small idea of what Saint Thomas More went through when he stood up against Henry VIII by refusing to bend to the king's whims on the matter of the Church and her teachings in regard to divorce and all. He did not compromise at all. I think this is more than applicable to what's going on in the Church now. We're not dealing with a king this time...we're dealing with a pope who has unfortunately lost his way, but nevertheless, we should follow St. Thomas More's example in not bending to every whim and novelty that's conjured up by the Vatican to make the new "mass" more acceptable to the world (it's a shame that they're not in the least worried about making the Mass acceptable to the Creator of the world.).Not my words but right on the money.

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

> "we're dealing with a pope who has unfortunately lost his way,"

In your opinion, and handful of others. There will always be opposition to the Pope no matter how good he is. Christ himself, who harmed no one, and loved everyone was crucified by the very people he loved. He was accused of being a sinner, when he was as pure as can be.

> "but nevertheless, we should follow St. Thomas More's example in not bending to every whim and novelty that's conjured up by the Vatican to make the new "mass" more acceptable to the world (it's a shame that they're not in the least worried about making the Mass acceptable to the Creator of the world.)."

And you are the authority of what goes on in God's mind! Truly amazing Ed! We should not have a Church founded by Christ, but we should have a Church founded by you!

All your complaints against the Pope will gain you nothing in heaven and nothing on earth. You will bring not a single soul over to your "cause" with all your complaints. I figure it will take 10 years or more for you to learn that. You sound exactly like I did 10 years ago, when I criticized everything.

Humility of heart! Ponder that!

I know your response will be, that you feel you have a "duty" to criticize the Pope, and I know exactly where you are coming from, as that is how I justified my constant complaining.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh! St. Thomas More. There's a good one. My youngest son just got "A Man for All Seasons" for Easter. Wonderful movie. I hope and pray God gives me the strenghth He gave St. Thomas, if I should ever need it.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

[PM: A new visitor, Leon, quickly perceived what is wrong here. If this thread does not convince you to take action, nothing will. This has got to be approaching the nadir of all threads in forum history. There was nothing even remotely like this dung smearing the forum in 1998, 1999, 2000, and most of 2001. As any fair-minded person can see, expulsions are 'way, 'way overdue. I beg you, in the name of almighty God, to take action today.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

I beg you, in the name of almighty God, to take action today.

...so that if you don't take action today, JFG can say that you refused to act when impored to do so in God's name, thereby commiting grave sin & incurring eternal hellfire and the wrath of the Holy Apostles Peter & Paul.

See how silly that sounds?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

If John wants to ask, let him. ''Ask and you shall sometimes receive.''

You have some gall, saying what sounds silly, Jake. You have perfected that one art. I stopped counting your posts, and half of them were silly.

I know; your quick reply is sure to be: ''WERE NOT''--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

A whiff or Ed's logic:

''we should follow St. Thomas More's example in not bending to every whim and novelty that's conjured up by the Vatican to make the new "mass" more acceptable to the world

it's a shame that they're not in the least worried about making the Mass acceptable to the Creator of the world.''If that's your opinion, Ed, keep it.

St. Thomas More resisted an English tyrant, not the Pope. In fact, he supported the Pope's authority at the cost of his martyrdom.

What's MORE; (pun intended) the Vatican (The Holy See) is under guidance of the Holy Spirit, Whom you equate with whim & novelty. So much for your deep thoughts. I pray your inflated pride will not offend God so much that He will deny you grace to learn something in our forum. It's an opportunity for you, if you just try waking up.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

I know; your quick reply is sure to be: ''WERE NOT''--

Is not.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 23, 2003.

Eugene; Let me just keep dreaming of the wonderful past....Instead of waking up to the current nightmare.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Dear Ed:
You certainly do dream. If you learn anything dreaming, please don't come here and try to teach. As for living in the past, I wouldn't be so anxious to return. You will be dust eventually, a part of the past. Me too, and the Pope as well. God will judge justly what you call nightmare and heresy. Don't put that burden on yourself; with your depth of wisdom. (Superficial.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Eugene; Who Elected you to be God? Taking care of your own soul is a full time job

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Another non sequitur for whatever message. You seem to dream at the keyboard, too, Ed. I was not judging, just stating something obvious.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Obvious to who, Eugene? If yo were cognizent of the obvious.... you would run, not walk, out of that pseudo-environment.

-- Ed Richards (loza@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

It's obvious to me you can't handle the truth. You make yourself equal to God and dismiss the Holy Spirit. Them's harsh words, but why don't you examine your conscience? You have no respect for the Vicar of Christ on earth. That's been obvious all along. You blaspheme against the Holiness of the Church. You are a pseudo-Pope.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

I say in all modesty that I preach the true faith better than the current genuine article, so do the other trads. We are not mingling with real heretics, protestants etc. Is JP allergic to Catholics trying to hold to tradition. Is he afraid that some might rub off on him if he gets too close. Those converts that he has made in his millions of miles of travel are just breaking down the doors of the Vatican to get in.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

Those are pretty strong words. Paul had been there and had himself taught those people the Gospel. This is what it is all about. Either the saints and the 260 prior popes to V2 are correct or JP2 is correct. There is no possible way that the teachings can both be correct.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

In matters of faith, the line of succession is unbroken, up and through John Paul II.

You are trying to say that side issues to matters of faith have sacred value and should not be touched. Your arguements for these issues are baseless and as such you are wrong. Name a list of sacred traditions which are not being adhered to and I would be happy to follow you.

The issue as I see it can be summed up in my first two questions. The Council was valid and they did the right thing in giving away the "keys to the faith."

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 23, 2003.

Ecumania, is not a breach of faith?... "Separated brethren" is not a betrayal of long dead popes?...Changes the very words and meaning of Our Lord at the Last Supper, is not Apostacy, and Sacrilege?...just a few things thats all.

The Church has always taught that "Those who are not of Christ, are then of the Devil". Do those Muslims, Shinto,s Jews, and all the other "favored ones" meeting at Assissi meet that criteria?

Indeed they do! But John Paul lets them leave without so much as a pamphlet... "Go out and preach what I have taught you, to all men" Sure!

-- Ed Richards (loz@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Dear Ed:
This betrays your slack grasp on sanity:

''Ecumania, is not a breach of faith?... "Separated brethren" is not a betrayal of long dead popes?...Changes the very words and meaning of Our Lord at the Last Supper, is not Apostacy, and Sacrilege?''

We call the concept ecumanism, not mania. You are the only person I know who froths at the lips when the concept of ONE faith led by Christ's Vicar on earth is discussed.

Separated brethren stands for lost sheep, all belonging to Our Good Shepherd. It is faith in Him making us strive as well as we can, with HIS GRACE, to recover them. And we will, eventually.

What your fanaticism deplores as ''apostacy'' & ''sacrilege'', is a new vernacular Missal. Nothing contained in or meant by it is sacrilege, much less apostacy. The words are glorious & HOLY>My advice to you trads today is, Get a life; as our dead Popes would command you; in the One Church. There is NO ''trad'' partner to John Paul II, Ed, except our Paraclete.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

Eugene the Paraclete must be whispering something else into JP"s ear than Pius 10th, for instance.

You are not a loyalist to the Church as much as you are a "Hero Worshipper", to this pope. He has not made one even tiny mistake since 1978.

Eugene, I too was a hero worshipper of the pope. I blamed all the people around him, the laiety and on and on... but the alarm clock woke me up to the hard cold fact, that who was the one that could stop this, or at least mitigate it. The only person that could was JP, and he did absolutely nothing! Even heros sometimes have feet of clay. .

.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Your point of view is, they must be heroes or they can't be Popes. Not convincing, Ed. I bow to all the Popes, and love the Catholic faith. Some faithful ones are certainly undeserving of hero worship; but they are called by the Holy Spirit. Not by man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

No. no Eugene. I did not say that. I point to one specific pope..This one. Of course we have had scoundrel popes.. they were scoundrels in their persoal lives, but they did not mess with doctrine. This pope looks like a saint in his pesonal life, and maybe he is. He shows a love for humanity. Very good, but my argument with him is the faith, and not humanity. In plain English, he has diluted the faith, and caused great indifference to the faithful. Maybe not in your parish, but in many,many parishes... mine included. How you say? By not ruling with firmness.Bishops are running wild, destroying precious artifacts, allowing ridiculous masses... and nothing but silence from Rome. Is this a pope to be admired? There is sin by omission, you know.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Ed,
Don't go all over the map on this. You aren't any authority on doctrinal issues. You just cling to what you call traditional teachings /

You say, ''--But my argument with him is the faith, and not humanity. In plain English, he has diluted the faith, and caused great indifference to the faithful.''

This statement is merely personal opinion. How does ''indifference to the faithful'' fall into your realm of expertise? You speak of ''My argument with him,'' as if you were qualified by right to correct a Pope with human argument. Plainly not with God's help!

You aren't on a theological level from which to argue ''dilution of the faith'' with a theologian; which Pope John Paul IS by definition!

Just think about this: If next week our Holy Father speaks in favor of abolishing the rule of celibacy for Catholic priests-- it would be officially permitted. He is the only authority in the world to act with Christ's license. That's a fact for you. With the exception of the collegial apparatus in Rome, anyone that refuses the authority of the pope is a heretic or schismatic. --Not a ''traditional Catholic'' with other options.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

Sorry-- I didn't mean the Collegial side could correct a Pope. I just meant as everyone knows, they share some of the authority with him. But He is the Vicar of Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

Eugene; I can argue with anyone I like...They don't have to pay attention though.

Pope can change very words of Our Lord. Many to all... makes a difference , holy or not.

Commandment says "Do not steal. presumably means All cannot steal.

Pope says it is now not all, but many cannot steal. OK right?

If pope can change meaning of God incarnate, he surely can change meaning of other words of God.. Logic? I don't think you will agree... It is called "Selective morality" according, of course if the pope decides to change it. God Bless

-- Ed Richards (lora@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Eugene, I will never agree with you, nor you with me. As the pope said “we must all follow our own conscience.”..So that’s the way it must be.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Ed,
I've contemplated this for days. You and I are poles apart, so be it. My posting is ordinarily whatever gets a rise out of me. Our Church is a sheepfold represented in this forum (for the while.) I'm in Christ's sheepfold somewhere in cyberspace. Except, my daily posts here assume more than one character. I'm either a lamb, trailing the shepherd; or on some days I'm his sheepdog; nipping at some of the sheep's heels.

They need help these days, with Jake and you constantly trying to spook the little lambs. If me & the other sheepdogs don't react, you'll damage what the shepherd works for. You're disturbing the peace in Christs's cyber-sheepranch. So now you know why I bark so much at you. You mean well, but all you do every day is tempt others to head for the hills.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.

Are you sure you are doing God's work, Eugene? John also lauds himself as a tireless warrior in the army of God.

You guys take some pretty big risks. I thought I was a risktaker, but you guys have got it all over me.

Sure hope you're right.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 25, 2003.

God's work is never-ending, Emerald. All I try to do is respond earnestly to His grace. Each and every statement made in this forum must be backed by God's grace, or it bears no fruit.

If I transgress vs. the teaching of the Church, I fail in grace. If I hate another man, I fail in grace. If I invent pretexts for argument, I fail in grace.

So do Jake, Ed & you. I know probably none of you harbor hatred for us.

But judging your neighbor who worships next to you in Mass; or cursing the Pope, belittling Holy Mass because it's not ''trad''-- these are symptoms of coldness & hatred. They aren't grace working in you.

BTW, John DOESN'T ''laud'' himself. He defends himself from slurs (or perceived slurs, sometimes.) In fact, John lauds other people very often; just open your eyes. I never thought you took risks here at all, Emerald. I'm no risktaker; I begin each day with PRAYER. I guard myself well.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.

Eugene, I never challenged your sincerity, only your correctness.I believe we all have the good of the faith in mind... What Catholic would want to harm the faith? The papacy is very precious to me. However, when, even a pope strays from that narrow road, I must take issue with him.. Who am I? Nobody, but I was given discernment to know right from wrong. Who told me? 260 popes.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

Ed--
All roads lead to Rome. You are strayed from off that one. Now, go to God again, and ask Him to send you wisdom. I will do so myself. Fair enough?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.

OK Eugene; let's both pray, and not be afraid of the answer.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

BTW, John DOESN'T ''laud'' himself. He defends himself from slurs (or perceived slurs, sometimes.) In fact, John lauds other people very often; just open your eyes.

Laud stinks; a little laud and a cup of coffee will buy you two cents.

Speaking of slurs, John says in another thread:

The problem (which I think you have missed) is that the schismatic folks here [Jake-1, Emerald, and Isabel] are mistaken in one of two ways...

John, get in here and defend your claim.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 25, 2003.

John says you're falling. Without a leg to stand on, you object; ''No-- Why are you slurring me?'' -- PLOP! On your butt. Don't blame the messenger, Son.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

Uh huh.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

John says you're falling. Without a leg to stand on, you object; ''No-- Why are you slurring me?'' -- PLOP! On your butt. Don't blame the messenger, Son.

Gene: By this statement, do you mean to say that you disagree with John's words or tactics? Are you his messenger, or do you subscribe to his notion he is the mouthpiece of the Almighty?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.

Gene can't make a case for me being a schismatic in any sense of the word.

John can't either. It's impossible because it's a lie.

Look, Gene and John, I call your silly little bogus bluff. Stand up and make your case like a man; John, you say you've had enough of all this, that and the other thing.

Well, I've finally had enough of the lies. Take off your jacket, man, and make your case.

Tell my why I'm a schismatic.

Enough of this grievous failure of basic charity on your part, and enough of your complicity with it, Eugene.

Stand and deliver.

I can handle being falsely accused, but this incessant lying and denegration of truth has to stop.

But what makes you people think I don't have the right to self- defense, or that I can defend myself? I have had enough of your slanders against decent people of good faith.

Even if you were to be completed vindicated in all your nonsense, you would have gotten there by completely disregarding every tennant of your own ecumenical principles.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

Ru t-Roh.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.

Is there a tennant of some kind I never heard of?

You come to the point of accusing Catholics of LYING?

Jake: ''Do you subscribe to his notion, blah-blah?'' What's a matter with you boys? This is not the opera house. Speak English.

I subscribe to FAITH in GOD. It doesn't cost a thing except be humble, accept His Will. If He gives me a Vatican Council with new things for our understanding, I want His Will done, so I give it understanding. You fellows want to make God a silent partner, with no say in the matter.

That and the undermining of our Holy Father --for your own pleasure, is schism.

I have no reason to lie. I am a Church member with no axe to grind. You ''trads'' look for trouble as if it made you saintly. Simple sophistry and elitism. God sees through you, Jake.

After all these years of faith and fortitude, in good times and in bad times, here is the word of our neighbor Emerald: '. . . this grievous failure of basic charity on your part, and enough of your complicity with it, Eugene. --Stand and deliver.''

If a delivery is what you want, Emerald; go to the maternity hospital nearest you. Meet the family, take a video; just beat it!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

Jake: ''Do you subscribe to his notion, blah-blah?'' What's a matter with you boys? This is not the opera house. Speak English.

I subscribe to FAITH in GOD.

Yeah, but you're dodging the question. Again. Are you John's messenger, or is John God's messenger? You said "Don't shoot the messenger" referring to John. What did you mean?

That and the undermining of our Holy Father --for your own pleasure, is schism.

1. We don't "undermine the Holy Father." That's pure bull. Explain yourself or get off that soapbox already.

2. Criticism of the Pope is not schismatic. You're going to have to do a lot better than this.

If a delivery is what you want, Emerald; go to the maternity hospital nearest you. Meet the family, take a video; just beat it!

Breaking a sweat, Gene?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.

Jake,
Look out for yourself. You came, you met the Catholics, you didn't conquer. Are your feelings hurt?

My love for God will not ''break a sweat''. You're not hot anyway; sophistry is proof of lukewarmness.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

OK, so you're just not going to answer the question. It's OK. Your silence is speaking a lot louder now, anyway.

This is Emerald's trial. He stands accused of schism. Go ahead & make some opening remarks, counselor. I'm gonna be sitting back here in the last row, in case I need to run out & puke.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.

You can do anything you please, Jake. Am I fired?

Does this mean Emerald won't sign my paycheck? Shucks.

Could I borrow a hundred bucks from you, Jake--? I'll surely pay you as soon as my brother straightens up. (The Hunchback of Mt Helix. Emerald knows where that is, ask him.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

I know where Mt. Helix is, but the rest of what you said...

I'm a little lost on what you're getting at. Is there any way you could, you know, just get to the point of how it is that I'm a schismatic?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

OK, well--
I wish to confess, my final posts on the 26th were actually being written at about 1AM and are nothing to be proud of. My fatigue made me act foolish, it was at the end of a long, tiresome day, after a long, unhappy week. Please realize; only about 12 hours before I was saying, if I contribute bad things in this forum, I fail in the grace God lends me. If Any post gets contentious because of pride, or self-aggrandisement, I failed in His grace, and of course, in charity. Yes, I'm not a saint.

But my week was mostly spent warding off many cruel things you & Jake & Ed were directing at the Catholic faith of our day and at our Holy Father. Nothing in them serving God; my own remarks not serving Him very well at all.

I have contended sometimes that Ed is without credibility because he calls our Pope a heretic. Then he denies saying that, and I more or less accuse him of saying at the least that John Paul II is de facto a heretical Pope. Then, if I call one of you a de facto schismatic I must be guilty of the identical error. Probably I meant to say only that. I wish to remain credible; so I confess.

John said ''formal'' schism. I'm not a theologian, so I can't really say if it's true. But, I didn't appreciate the way he was ridiculed. So, I played the clown to ridicule others.

When am I going to stop it? I guess today. So-- to bring us back up to date; what's your question, Emerald? Don't read me a whole anthology, just one question at a time, and I'll answer if I can. You told us it would only be ''nights''--? OK, Nightowl. Forget the Mt Helix megillah. I was joking.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

John said ''formal'' schism. I'm not a theologian, so I can't really say if it's true.

John isn't a theologian, either...

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 26, 2003.

If I am on the Jury, Emerald and Jake are both guilty of schism. The testimony of the two greatest theologans of the century is enough for me. Burn them at the stake!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 26, 2003.

Hurry up before they outlaw outdoor barbequeing in California. In the form of the Smoke of Satan, I would be bad for the environment; I wouldn't be wanted alive or dead...

Gecik, what are you doing, painting the house or what? Hurry up.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

It seems your prayer for wisdom is being ignored, Ed.

I would call you to serious matters for your own good. Comedy is not an option for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Eugene, I will be the first to admit that I have been difficult to most on this forum. The other traditionals and myself have tried to show the truth as we believe it. The Church is in great crisis, and we try to do what bit we can to make things better.

Obviously you’re side and our’s do not agree on the problem, or methods of solving it. You see little or no problem while we see a great crisis being enacted. One side or the other is wrong.

We will all find out at the last roundup, won’t we. Get along little doggie, get along.

Can’t stay serious for too long a time. God bless you Eugene.

Ed

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 27, 2003.

"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus: if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed..." -Second Council of Nicea "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true church of Jesus Christ." -St. Athanasius St. Athanasius, to whom it was objected, "You have the bishops against you," answered with Faith, "that proves that they are all against the Church." "The true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor the innovators, but the traditionalists" -Pope St. Pius X , Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910. "Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 27, 2003.

Ed,
I have neither claimed we are without many problems at the present, nor acted as if tradional ways are extinct. I do not deem any of that a ''crisis''; since all through history the Church had to protect our faith from error. Many fanatics and heretics have come and gone. Christ clearly prophesied the future would bring trials and tribulations; and comforted his followers. He told His Church would prevail, He would be with her all days.

We act by faith, telling all of you to trust in God. We shall not fall into different camps and thereby stay faithful to one camp and abandon the other. That is schism.

We follow our Pope. Only then are we assured of safe conduct out of this and other ''crises''.

O ye of little faith. The bark of Peter is never at peace; but she sails and carries us over great storms. Outside is confusion and doom.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Comment and Analysis: Revolutionaries desire to change everything. The French and Bolshevik Revolutionaries attempted to change the dating of time according to the start of their respective revolutions against all existing social order in their countries. The liturgical revolutionaries must change the terminology used to refer to the prayers in the Mass. The Introit is now the Entrance Antiphon (which can be replaced with a "liturgical song"). The Collect is now the Opening Prayer. The Offertory and the Secret have been replaced by the Prayer Over the Gifts, which is recited audibly just before the Preface. The Canon of the Mass is now the Eucharistic Prayer (of which there are many variations, up to nine here in the United States of America). The Communion Prayer, like the Introit, can be replaced by a song, and the Postcommunion is now called the Prayer After Communion. Even the dating of the liturgical year is different: Ordinary Time has replaced the Sundays after the Epiphany and the Sundays after Pentecost. Gone altogether are the Sundays in preparation for Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent (Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima). The ranking of feasts has been changed, too. Doubles of the First Class, Doubles of the Second Class, Double Majors, Double Minors, Semi-doubles, and Simples have been replaced with Solemnities, Feasts, Memorials, and Optional Memorials. What had been the tradition of the Roman Rite for centuries and centuries was done away with, the past being flushed down the Orwellian memory hole.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

You poor man! (Sniff!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

That's good, Eugene. That kind of answer, you know, just really really addresses to root causes of Ed's supposed error, now doesn't it? It's brilliant.

And you've explained exactly how it is that Ed is amiss in his thinking because...

Because...

Uhhh...

?

Ed, keep spouting off. I love it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Eugene, perhaps you could explain exactly, and I do mean exactly, how Ed is a schismatic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Emmy, and Eddie, et al:
For the record, I can't truly say anybody is schismatic; or wicked, or stupid.

I just dole out rope; and these characters keep on hanging themselves.

I have said; and no one can dispute it, that all are elitists and Pharisees. Nothing they quote from any encyclical or foist upon the Pope is going to hide that. I do have the suspicion that these so-called traditionals will become outright schismatics as time goes by. --This is almost as probable as the good chance Ed will soon be confined in a mental ward. He looms very WACKO around our neighborhood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Gene; MacGyver showed me how to get out of that strait jacket.. so I can post a few things until they again throw the net over me... Gene how are things at the zombie school these days?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Oh, fine, Ed. Poor but not complaining; and not worried for you. You won't be running the asylum as long as Regina & Jake have anything to say about it. --Both are counting on your help, but mainly just help.

Did you ever read about Savonarola? He made many trips to the well, to get cold water. He liked to pour it on the Catholics all over Italy. It was during a decadent period, to be fair. But, I shouldn't tell you the best parts of the story. Look it up, and give him a reading. Unless he is all tucked away in your memories already. Might've been your hero -- /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Poor Savonarola... i suppose he should have kept his mouth shut... same with Joan of arc. If you are telling me that the old church had problems, of course it did. We are in the here and now, and today's problems are the only things that we can deal with.

Problem is we look at each other as the problem. You say that this church has little or no problems. I say, it has enormous problems. The true faith will survive in spite of you, me, the clergy and anyone else. Eugene, we will both be judged some day. Maybe we are both wrong. Then what? I wll not place my soul with such scandalizing behaviour that is going on right now. The horse you bet on is your choice. Win, place or show. We can't hedge these bets. They are all on the nose.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Hey this just in.....

"Great physicists 'had Asperger's By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent(Filed: 01/05/2003)

The eccentric behaviour of Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton could have been caused by a mild form of autism, claims a leading specialist in the disease.

Prof Simon Cohen-Baron, of Cambridge University, believes that the two greatest physicists of all time showed classic signs of Asperger syndrome.

Both had problems communicating, had obsessive interests and experienced difficulties in social relationships - all signs of the condition....Einstein started to speak only after his third birthday.

Newton cut an even more eccentric figure than Einstein. According to contemporary accounts, he barely spoke, became so engrossed in his work that he often forgot to eat, and was said to be grumpy with his friends. He had a nervous breakdown at 50, triggered by paranoia and depression."

So a WACKO may be just what the doctor ordered....hmmmmm

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

Yes. but all Cambridge profs know that a dead man can't defend himself. His own signs point to the old academic rule: Publish or Perish.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Dear Ed:
Try as you might, your every remark is a tribute to the scribes and Pharisees. Why can't you emulate Our Lord, instead of His persecutors?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

I have said; and no one can dispute it, that all are elitists and Pharisees.

But that's so easy to refute. Watch.

They are not elitists and Pharisees.

There. I just disputed it, which means that someone can in fact dispute it. This, in turn, makes your statement false, i.e., and no one can dispute it

Q.E.D.

Gene... it just doesn't work to prove anything. And by and large, being a pharisee is true of you, me, and most people.

No one is going to be able to escape this label. It's universally applicable.

Realize that people want to believe this is true, regardless of whether it is or isn't.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Yes, Master. Only I'm not pushing a palace revolt against the Pope & the Curia. It's the hardliners of Olden Times who give everybody a pain.

Jesus knew the type; now they're all dust, and He's sitting at the right hand of His Almighty Father.

My, but Emerald says it doesn't prove anything. I try never to prove anything. I leave it up to Our Lord. --Pharisees always give you proof positive. Ed has all the data. The encyclicals, the marble altar & the hymns. Because Pharisees are the last word on everything. Does that label stick to you, too?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Who Cares?

Who these days, cares if someone lapses or leaves the parish? Where is the thirst for souls that should fire us and our clergy? Converts are down too of course. False ecumenism over 30 years, preaching indifferentism and wholly erroneous "sameness" has seen to that, and where, one asks, did it get us? Look at the statistics.

How many priests still visit their parishioners? – Overworked as they are and bogged down in bureaucracy and endless committees. Some few cannot be bothered, of course, whilst others run themselves ragged daily trying to be good pastors to their flock.

Does anyone still go to Confession? There alone is a whole sacrament in neglect – who could ever have foreseen that - the very one we all need most! This is not a catalogue of my own prejudices. I believe that these very things have materially contributed to the mess we are now in after 30 largely wasted years. It is high time we took stock and acted.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

The label stuck, but the address was illegible and it couldn't get delivered.

The whole envelope got stamped "postage due" and was returned to the sender.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

''This is not a catalogue of my own prejudices. I believe that these very things have materially etc., etc.''

Prejudices? A catalogue, Ed??? No, a skin you wear; a habitual tic in your eyelash; a mood you can't shake. The Savonarola mood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.