Number Of Holy Days Of Obligation Falls In UK

247 thoughts on “Number Of Holy Days Of Obligation Falls In UK”

1. “We’re trying to make the Faith easier for people” always seems to come across as “We’re trying to tell people the Faith isn’t all that important”.

2. I’m in England and I’m pretty sure the Immaculate Conception *isn’t* a Holy Day of Obligation. I’m not sure about Mary Mother of God and St Joseph either.
   According to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/Holydays.html :
   From the 1st Sunday of Advent 2006 the Holydays of Obligations for England and Wales changed. They are:
   * Every Sunday
   * Birth of the Lord (25 December)
   * St Peter & St Paul (29 June)
   * Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (15 August)
   * All Saints (1 November)
   The following celebrations have been transferred to the nearest Sunday:
   * Epiphany of the Lord
   * Ascension of the Lord
   * Body and Blood of the Lord
   

3. Perhaps — just perhaps — the Orthodox have it right on obligations. While it is true the Church can and does indeed have them, they are not a necessary component of the faith — they are an aid. They worked real well and do work real well in certain kinds of societies; capitalistic ones, however… no.

4. Bill, what you said sums it up.

5. Well, as me Irish grandmutter use to say, tis a bunch o malarchy, I tell ye.
   Lower the bar, and people will always sink even lower.

6. In the Middle Ages, the Church insisted on holy days of obligation, and even created new holy days of obligation, to prevent lords and employers from overworking their serfs and employees. Today, the Church says, “Oh, people just can’t make it to Mass because of their work schedules. Let’s abolish these holy days and move them to Sunday.”
   Quite a difference in what is important to society. Today even our bishops teach by their actions that work and money are more important than Jesus.

7. This is a result of what I believe to be one of the saddest developments in the modern Church: much of the hierarchy as lost faith in the faithful. Perhaps equally sad is how the faithful have lost faith in the hierarchy.
   Salve Regina sine originali concepta, ora pro nobis.

8. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, and
   St Joseph are not Holydays of Obligation in England and Wales.
   There has been considerable disquiet over here at the decision to tranfer Epiphany, Ascension, and Corpus Christi to the nearest Sundays. The change will not really help anyone and has only annoyed practising Catholics who put themselves out to attend Mass on the Holydays.
   The “Consultation” referred to is a joke. This consisted of the Councils of Priests in some Dioceses being asked their opinion. As these bodies are dominated by older “baby boomer” priests, the prospect of abolishing Holydays was welcomed by the majority of such bodies. The laity were not consulted nor were the majority of priests. As soon as the news of the proposed abolition was leaked in the Catholic press, with the hint of a concerted protest being organised, the decision came through immediately as a fait accompli.
   The net result will be an increase in popularity of the traditional Roman Rite since many priests will ask for permission to celebrate the old rite on the traditional holydays. Birmingham Oratory is one example of a parish that did this for the feast of the Epiphany.

9. In medieval Christendom, as was noted in a comment above, there were many more holy days and feasts which severely decreased the workload of the average peasant. Despite what “modern scholarship” wants to say about the Middle Ages, life was not so hard relatively speaking, and it would have been uncommon to work a 40-hour week as we have in America since holy days and feasts made up a significant portion of the annual calendar. Sunday also had much greater significance since work continued on Saturday, i.e. there was no “weekend.” (My apologies as an American to all good French Catholics… I’m sorry you have “le weekend.”)
   True, we no longer live in the greatest of centuries. With our society the way it is, it would be impossible to maintain a job if one got a “free day” one or more days per week. However, under the reign of Pius XII, concession was made to celebrate Mass after 1pm, thus extending the availability of assisting at Holy Mass to those who live in such non-Christendomized societies like our own (and now, regrettably, most of the world). And since this whole “we’re Saturday Mass goers” started in the 1960s along with “anticipated” Masses the evening prior to a feast, why, oh why, are our bishops and episcopal conferences removing holy days of obligation or moving them to Sunday, etc.? Many times it happens that a person has a great devotion to a certain feast of Our Lord or one of His saints but unfortunately that feast has been demoted from being of obligation. Now, what happens is that there is no extraordinary celebration of the feast and, as such, the availability of Masses celebrating this feast is diminished.
   In sum, the Mass, while being a source of immense grace and forgiveness for mankind, is also, and primarily, the means whereby man can render due homage to the Blessed Trinity and give glory to Him by a direct participation in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. When we remove obligatory feasts, we remove another time in which we can come together and give all glory and honour to Almighty God.

10. Perhaps the faithful should consider hitting the bishops where it will hurt the most: in the pocketbook. Along with the lessening of contributions should go a note saying something like: “My contributions will be decreased in direct proportion to your watering-down of the Faith.”

11. Looks like the Canadian Catholic Church is following the conclusions of the historical Jesus exegetes. Or is it the winter conditions of Canada snowbounds the general population for six months?

12. Or is it the winter conditions of Canada snowbounds the general population for six months?
    It’s that our bishop is one very, very busy man.
    Thank you for posting the Winnipegstatementland list, Jimmy.

13. Tagging along with David’s ideas, when a feast is demoted in status, the opportunity for lay people to go to Mass decreases. How many parishes offer Mass before or after working hours for the solemnities of St. Joseph, Sts. Peter and Paul, or St. John the Baptist?
    In a related problem, how many churches offer additional Mass times during Advent and Lent. In my neighborhood south of Boston, Mass., almost every church offers daily Mass at 9 am only. A few have an earlier Mass, but I’d say 80% have that 9 am slot. Which is great if you’re retired or work shifts, but for the average 9 to 5 worker, Mass attendance becomes impossible. I remember when I was in high school, the convent had a 6:30 am Mass which I often served, and during Lent also held a Mass at 7 pm…which was packed. In my search for churches to attend Mass for this Lent, I found only one that added Masses to their schedule.
    Most of the pastors will probably shrug and say, “See, no one comes. Why should we have more Masses?”

14. Instead of ‘hitting the bishops where it will hurt the most: in the pocketbook’ by limiting what we give to the Lord, why don’t we begin by not spending money at businesses on Sundays? After we take Sundays back then let’s worry about the extraordinary holy days.
    *gasp* You mean don’t go out to lunch or shopping after mass?!
    Eh…yeah, that’s what I mean.

15. What’s the deal with Holy Days of Obligation anyway??? They serve no purpose at all! What???
    Are these Holy Days supposed to bring us into a greater, deeper spiritual relationship with Christ or something??? The world needs less Church than more — especially since we already live in such an awesome and perfect world as it is!

16. I was impressed by how many are left in the UK. In New Zealand we have:
    Christmas
    Assumption
    B-b-b-that’s all, folks!
    Christmas is still a public holiday; since becoming a Catholic I always try and take the 15th of August on annual leave if I can get it approved (usually can, if I ask well in advance). My understanding is that we ought to treat Holy Days of Obligation as like Sunday – avoid unnecessary work, devote the day to the Lord, etc.
    It is true that for many getting the day off is out of the question; for some, even attending an evening Mass might be very difficult.
    jj

17. Why not move ’em all to Sunday!?
    I don’t see how people can’t make it to a HDoO Mass. Those who can’t make it, as opposed to those who won’t make it, are excused from the Obligation in the first place! The people who don’t(won’t?) go to a HDoO Mass are the same people who wouldn’t show up on a regular Sunday Mass anyway! (But they would go to Ash Wednesday! :-p)
    I have a big problem with all the dummying down of the Faith and Praxis in our modern Novus Ordo Church.
    *HDoO= Holy Day of Obligation

18. (But they would go to Ash Wednesday! :-p)
    and
    I have a big problem with all the dummying down of the Faith and Praxis in our modern Novus Ordo Church.
    Dr. Eric,
    Your comments here ring so true!
    Although, with regards to the former, I would hope that the reason why the Church is so packed during the time we attend Ash Wednesday Mass is due to its limited availability; plus, on Sundays, it would actually be difficult to judge who really attends Mass since the one we’re attending at the time is but only one of a number of other Masses in the Parish schedule.

19. My question is simply how could the so called “baby boomer priests” and the church on up to the Pope, started by John XXIII and culminating in Paul VI who basically continued with the wrecking ball-who are men in charge of the deposit of faith and tradition as handed down as well as being responsible for the salvation of 1B Catholics-take it upon themselves to change everything, change customs (can someone please show me where receiving our Lord in the hand is documented in the original document on the liturgy and why it is allowed? (not talking about the GIRM)and basically reinvent the church as they saw fit?
    My aunt refuses to abstain or follow most church teachings, believes in woman priests, birth control, you name it, goes to church every sunday, does not observe fasting or meat on Fridays during lent-Because she says over and over how when she was growing up all she was told from the priests and nuns that doing “______” was going to make you go to hell and then overnight everything changed after Vatican II and now all of the things she was told she could not do is now OK. Would anyone ever expect the Cardinal of England and Wales to approve of homosexual adoption and hold “gay” masses as is now being promulgated?
    A return to sound teachings and unwavering tradition and reverence is the only answer

20. Tim J.:
    Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?
    I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent…

21. *sigh* when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith?
    WE have lowered the bar so many times we should’ve hit the molten core of the earth by now.

22. *sigh* when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith?
    WE have lowered the bar so many times we should’ve hit the molten core of the earth by now.
    Now, THAT is a TRUE STATEMENT!
    EVERYBODY is GUILTY of this — TOO MANY COMPROMISES!
    Heck, instead of Lent, for the CONVENIENCE of everybody in the Church, let’s just have “SELF-IMPROVEMENT” Month and place the SPOTLIGHT on US and NOT CHRIST!
    Also, I think SUNDAY MASS itself is an INCONVENIENCE &, above all, OPPRESSIVE!
    We should only attend Mass on CHRISTMAS ONLY!
    Most people come to Church only ONCE a year anyway and that’s on Christmas!
    Who Does God think He is anyway???? Just because He’s God, Sent His Only Son to Save Humanity by SUFFERING & DYING FOR US; that doesn’t mean HE should mean ANYTHING to US!!

23. Oh yeah, while we’re at it, since people do whatever they want in church anyway, let’s upgrade them:
    1. For the convenience of people who actually chew gum in church; let’s be accomodating and install gum vending machines on each entrance to the church. Actually, we might want to distribute a stick of gum in addition to the Eucharist. Perhaps some day, we might get it right and distribute a stick of gum instead of the Eucharist since the Eucharist is only a symbol anyway!!
    2. For those who love talking in church; we who are so inconsiderate that we actually pray in church instead would like to take this time now to sincerely apologize to y’all.
    To make up for our rudeness, let’s propose we install live chatrooms in church so that during the Mass, we don’t have to be bothered with the empty ritual that’s happening there and spend our time doing something more worthwhile like engaging in deep conversation regarding something profound like talking about the television show Desparate Housewives!
    3. For those who love blasting their cellphones in church; we’ll provide you with speakers so that during the Mass, you can play all your ringtones in surround sound so that everybody in church and also outside can hear it!
    4. For those who love to race out of the church even before the Mass ends; we’ll have NASCAR-like competitions to see who’s out of the church in split-second timing before the priest even pronounces the blessing!
    5. For those church choirs who love to embellish the Novus Ordo Mass by providing such spectacular groovy music; we’ll be certain to provide you with a concert stage along with all tambourines and drums and bass you want!
    6. For more entertaining liturgies, we’ll be certain to get all the acrobat performers and other such acts to perform at Mass so that we can groove to the funky beat!
    7. For all rogue clergies out there who want to be cool and hip, we’ll hand you out some Fonzie leather jackets and some cool shades for you to wear at Mass so that your parishoners know how cool you really are!
    8. In place of the Eucharist, since it’s a symbol to certain Catholics anyway; we’ll instead hand out Oreo cookies since people much prefer those over stale bread anyway!
    Have I missed anything?

24. So you think the Orthodox have no faith because they have none of these obligations? They really lowered the ball?

25. Esau – totally awesome!!
    There is an old expression for those who sneak out of church early (your #4) – the Judas Shuffle, in memory of Judas’s early departure from the Last Supper. Maybe if the church bulletins noted this fact every week, people would be embarrassed to do it.
    And that reminds me of one you missed –
    9. Since so many people prefer to read the bulletin during Mass instead of taking it home afterward – and probably only read it because there is nothing else (cereal box, whatever!) – there should be one of those things like they have at airports so as you come in you can pick out a newspaper or magazine of your choice to read!

26. Esau Once again could not resist taking a personal swipe instead of addressing my posts content when he stated
    “Tim J.:
    Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?
    I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent”
    Esau-when curing someone with a disease such as cancer, one can not cure them without going back to the root problem, in the case of cancer possibly a tumor
    The same goes for the church and her problems that have escalated into a complete loss of faith, morals , customs and belief. Inthis case, one simply needs to go back to 1962 and the reforms that were basically something never seen in chuch history. I still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to “hold it in high esteem”.
    And as far as you assertion of “Rad Trad”-if those that worship in the Traditional Faith before Holy Days were done away with or combined with Sunday Mass as fullfillment of ones obligation-then you and others here are saying that the church was “Radical” before 1962 when it was just plain old Catholic, and today it is something quite possibly else

27. “Have I missed anything?”
    We might want to change the wine to “Buds”. Wine is way too formal, and we don’t want to appear ‘square’, ‘uppity’ or ‘offensive’ in anyway!
    And you know everyone loves ‘Bud’.. so this should be the perfect ‘inclusive’ choice for a liturgical beverage! Go’s well with the dancing also!
    Furthermore, the beer mugs and pitchers they currently use in the diocese of LA should be a model for all other parishes…with little adaptations. It’s perfect for the buds and now only needs to be made a church ‘norm’.
    And the Vatican could harness Sheryl Crow as a papal envoy.(kinda like a modern St. Catherine of Siena!)She’s a woman, she likes Bud ‘early in the morning’ which is good for 6:00a.m. masses, and I think she might be a Catholic. However, if she’s not a Catholic it shouldn’t matter, due to all the possible ecumenical benefits it should provide. It might even attract Tom Cruise and Katie Holms back to the Church, with such totally ‘updated’ and ‘cool’ modifications!?
    But you should not use Oreo’s…but rather ‘Tostito’s'(white corn). Also, maybe be an indult can be aquired to use ‘Corona’s’…and maybe even ‘guacamole’… on certain feast (ie.,BBQ) days!
    Otherwise, Esau, I think you are on the right ‘liturgical’ track, and these are excellent proposals in keeping with our ever changing modern times!!

28. On a more serious note….
    I think everyone should be interested in this Catholic News Update:
    Vatican official acknowledges liturgical crisis
    Feb. 23, 2007 (CWNews.com) – In an unusually candid conversation with the monthly Inside the Vatican, the secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship concedes that liturgical reform after Vatican II “has not been able to achieve the expected goals,” and indicates that Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) is determined to address the crisis in Catholic liturgy.
    In a lengthy interview, Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don told the Inside the Vatican that a revival of the Catholic liturgy is essential to counteract the decline in practice among the faithful, particularly in the Western world.
    [The full text of the interview is available on the CWN site, courtesy of Inside the Vatican]
    “Undoubtedly there have been positive results” from the post-concilar liturgical renewal, the Sri Lankan prelate told interview Anthony Valle. But he quickly added that “the negative effects seem to have been greater, causing much disorientation in our ranks.”
    Pope Benedict fully recognizes the crisis in the liturgy, the archbishop says, and the time has now come “with the help of the Lord to make the necessary corrections.”
    Questioned about the prospects for a motu proprio in which Pope Benedict XVI would allow wider use of the pre-conciliar Latin liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith indicated that the document should be expected, although he would not predict when it would appear or exactly what it would say. “With regard to the timing and nature of the motu proprio,” he said, “nothing yet is known. It is the Holy Father who will decide.’
    The challenge that the Pontiff faces, Archbishop Ranjith said, is “not so much a matter of the Tridentine Mass or of the Novus Ordo. It is just a question of pastoral responsibility and sensitivity.” He added that “if the Holy Father so desires, both could co-exist.” Wide use of the old Mass, he said, would not require abandoning the post-conciliar liturgy. “But in the interaction of the two Roman traditions, it is possible that the one may influence the other eventually.”
    The fundamental challenge, the archbishop said, is stop what he called “freewheeling” liturgical innovation, and to recover the sense of the sacred. Steps in that direction, he said, would bring Catholics back into more active practice of the faith.
    Archbishop Ranjith was unsparing in his analysis of the crisis facing Catholicism today. Noting the decline in active Mass attendance, he said: “We have to ask ourselves what happened in these churches and then take corrective steps as may be necessary.”
    The archbishop refused to accept some common explanations for the decline in Catholic practice. “I do not think that this situation is attributable to secularization only,” he said. “A deep crisis of faith coupled with a drive for meaningless liturgical experimentation and novelty have had their own impact in this matter.”

29. John, the comment about stench was not a personal swipe. There is an unpleasant odor to your comments. Your comments are distinctly malodorous when you repeatedly smear the Pope and the Magesterium.
    a complete loss of faith, morals , customs and belief
    Talking about taking a personal swipe. A “complete loss” would include every single person who attends a Novus Ordo Mass. Are you saying that I have a loss of faith, morals and belief?
    I still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to “hold it in high esteem”.
    John, please, please, please cite a source when you make comments such as this one. Then it would be possible to actually have a discussion with you.

30. Anonymous said: “So you think the Orthodox have no faith because they have none of these obligations?”
    The Orthodox don’t have OUR obligations. They have their own obligations, and they are far more numerous and extensive than Catholic obligations.

31. “The laity were not consulted nor were the majority of priests.”
    The laity always have a say by means their priest. If one doesn’t have a close personal relationship with their pastor that actualy includes a spiritual aspect, and avoids telling him what is going wrong, then there is issue. Plus last time I checked the Church still isn’t a democracy. Also occasional “good job” or “thank you Father” just for basic encouragement
    wouldn’t hurt either.
    Post Scriptum: as for complaint of less work without HDoO, pastors still have to Daily Mass regardless.

32. Jordon,
    Do you really know about the Orthodox? They do not have obligations. In fact, they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with.

33. Anonymous ignorance speaks. Jordan, of course, was right.

34. Regarding John’s frequent complaint about the orthodoxy of the present Church, of which his ideology is only one of the many varieties that can be found amongst the various modern movements in the Church, whether they be those of the far right, or the far left, I thought I would point you folks to a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI,made yesterday on this very topic. That is, on how to deal with and try to reconcile the many varying charisms, ideologies and movements– some authentically inspired by the Holy Spirit, and some erroneous, sinful and damaging to the Church — currently affecting and influencing the Church today. Here’s what he says:
    Pope Lists 2 Rules for Movements to Grow
    Respect Charisms, Remember That Church Is One
    VATICAN CITY, FEB. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- For ecclesial movements to flourish, new charisms and the unity of the Church must be respected, says Benedict XVI.
    The Holy Father made this comment Thursday, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, during a question-and-answer session with the Roman clergy in the Hall of Blessings.
    Father Gerardo Raúl Carcar of the Schoenstatt Fathers, a native of Argentina working in a parish in Rome, asked the Holy Father how movements can work together with the hierarchy of the Church.
    In his answer, Benedict XVI presented two rules for a successful relationship between the two. First, quoting St. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he said: “Do not extinguish charisms.”
    The Holy Father said: “If the Lord gives us new gifts we must give thanks…. And it is something beautiful that, without an initiative of the hierarchy … new forms of life are born in the Church, as they were born in all the centuries.”
    “Movements have been born in all the centuries,” the Pope said. “They integrate in the life of the Church, though at times there is no lack of sufferings and difficulties.” As an example, he said that when the Franciscans and the Benedictines were founded, they were also new movements.
    “Thus, also in our century, the Lord, the Holy Spirit, has given us new initiatives with new aspects of Christian life: On being lived by human persons with their limitations, they also create difficulties,” the Holy Father added.
    Born to serve
    Commenting on the unity of the Church, the Pontiff said: “If the movements are really gifts of the Holy Spirit, they integrate and serve the Church, and in the patient dialogue between pastors and movements a fruitful form is born, in which these elements become edifying elements for the Church of today and tomorrow.”
    Benedict XVI continued: “This dialogue takes place at all levels. Beginning with the parish priest, the bishop, the Successor of Peter, the search takes place for the appropriate structures: In many cases, this search has already borne fruits. In other cases, it is still being studied.”
    The Holy Father gave as an example the process of approving the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way: “It has been a long way, with many complications which are still occurring today, but we have found an ecclesial way which has much improved the relationship between the pastor and the Way. And so we go ahead!”
    “The same is true for the other movements,” he added.
    On summarizing the two fundamental rules, the Pope suggested that both the movements and parish communities continue with “gratitude, patience, and acceptance of sufferings, which are inevitable.”
    Benedict XVI continued: “Also in a marriage there are sufferings and tensions. And yet, they continue, and thus true love matures. The same happens in the community of the Church: Together, let’s have patience.”
    “Let us be obedient to the voice of the Spirit,” the Pope added, “but let us also be clear when it comes to integrating these elements in life: This criterion serves, in the end, the concrete Church and in this way, with patience, courage and generosity, the Lord will guide and help us.”

35. “…they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with.”
    What is legalism, Anonymous? Please define your terms.
    And if the West is too “legalistic” in your view, what is the East? More “spiritual”? Perhaps we in the West might criticize Eastern spirituality as too amorphous and insubstantial.
    I once spoke with a lady who writes Icons. She carefully explained the deep meaning of every step in the process of Icon writing, which she learned from a Russian Orthodox gentleman. She gushed about the depth of Orthodox spirituality… which is fine, except that she is not a Christian, at all (by any meaningful definition of the word) but a New Ager, and she saw nothing necessarily Christian about the meaning of Icons, and furthermore thought that belief in Christ had no impact whatsoever on a person’s capacity to grasp the deep symbolism of both Icons and Orthodox spirituality.
    Now, we see our share of kookiness in the West, but don’t start criticizing the spirituality of others unless you are willing to look hard at the pitfalls of your own idiom.

36. Mary Kay asked:
    ” still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to “hold it in high esteem”.
    John, please, please, please cite a source when you make comments such as this one. Then it would be possible to actually have a discussion with you.”
    http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet
    [NOSTRA AETATE]
    DECLARATION
    ON THE RELATION OF THE
    CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
    RELIGIONS
    “3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful,
    the Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.
    Since when does the Catholic Church have high esteem for those who worship false gods and practice false religions? This statement alone is blasphemy and idolatry.
    The Catechism of the Catholic [Conciliar] Church, 1992: “841. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’
    Very confusing to one as myself Mary Kay
    Can we have a discussion now?

37. Who is the liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” (1Jn. 2:22-23)
    The Catholic Church who is the interpreter of God’s Word teaches the following:
    Pope Sixtus III, Council of Ephesus, 432: “5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth… let him be anathema [which means condemned].”
    So I am confused about this departure from scripture, from past teachings and beliefs about those that clearly deny Jesus, is questionable if they adore the same God as we do (they consider calling him the Father blaspheme-go ask Scott Hahn on that one) and now the new catechism is teaching that they can be saved? I am not judge by anymeans, just a confused student who was taught no pope or council can reteach or redefine anything that was clear and part of church teaching and belief. The purpose of a council is only to clear up a matter of confusion, such as Vatican I in Papal Infallibility and so on. If something is retaught it is pastoral in nature only

38. You mean, should we allow this combox to turn into yet another “debate” (and I use that term loosely) on whether the post-conciliar Church has gone apostate?
    Oh, I can hardly wait.
    On second thought, I think I’ll go perform an unnecessary root-canal on myself without benefit of anaesthesia.
    While listening to an old Barney tape.

39. John, your quotation contradicts you. There is a difference between “holding Islam in high esteem” (what you claimed Vatican II said) and “regarding Muslims with esteem” (what Vatican II really said). Catholics should ‘esteem’ Muslims insofar as faithful Muslims love God deeply, are very dedicated to prayer, etc. Obviously, Vatican II is not here approving the teachings of Islam which contradict those of the Church, as the context (i.e. the whole document & the other VII documents) make abundantly clear. How saying that we should esteem the many good qualities that many Muslims have amounts to “idolatry and blasphemy” is a mystery to me.
    The Ephesus canon you cite is not relevant, as this was imposing an ecclesiastical sanction on Christians who departed from the true faith. It was not addressing the question of other religions.

40. John,
    I think when dealing with ‘ecumenical’ issues with the Moslem religion we should proceed even as Pope Benedict teaches. In such teachings we are not trying to ‘condemn’ the Moslems…but rather to help convert them to the Sacred and Most Loving Heart of Jesus Christ.
    I can only highlight the fact that Jesus came “not to condemn but to save”..and yes, this includes all the Moslems, and all other pagans, sinners, idolators, athiests etc..out there too. And if the Church says it ‘esteems’ the Moslems in any way..it is because it esteems ALL creatures of God, and animals also (read St. Francis on this, who called all things ‘brother’). We are all made in “the image of God” and ALL are to be respected in this general, universal and very holy, sense.
    That the Moslems also believe in God, and further yet..in the God of Abraham..this is really a great thing. It is a place to begin talking to them!
    But you might say: No!! We MUST condemn them!! They’re wrong!! They are sinners! They are heretics!! They teach WRONG things!!!
    And, of course we know that they are wrong! Even as the prodigal son was wrong! But do we condemn them and shove them off as you would have us do…or do we wait for them…looking to the horizon for a change of heart? Even as is said in the same mentioned parable…the Good Father waiting for the return of his errant son.
    The Holy Church is a representative of this same Loving Father, and likewise (as sons of such a Father) should be extremely loving and patient with all who are in error. And then when one of these comes back..it should “slaughter the fatted calf” in thanksgiving! Even as Jesus teaches in the Gosple! This is the TRUE heart of Our Religion, and the true spirit of the ONE TEACHER of us all…JESUS CHRIST!
    The Church must never assume to be more than Jesus Himself…of which we are the Body of Christ! We must therefore study the humanity of Christ, all of his actions, all of his dealings with others… sinners, pharisees, samaritans, traitors, adulterers,the ignorant, the Romans….all that He met in this life! We must study Jesus and all of His techniques, aspirations and ways!
    The other option is to follow the zeal of James and John, who were truly zealous for the Lord! They said ” Lord, should we call down ‘fire from heaven’ to destroy them?? Being so hateful that anyone would think of ‘denying’ or respecting, their beloved Master?
    But how does our Lord and Teacher respond to these his beloved and fiery – but misguided – disciples?:
    “55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.” Luke 9
    Furthermore, the disciples met others, preaching and doing “wonders’ in the name of Jesus and were scandlized by these things! They thought..”Hey, what on earth are these idiots doing…they have NO authority to preach anything! We are THE APOSTLES!!STOP! In the name of Jesus OUR LORD…we command you to stop doing what you are doing!
    Do you not think these zealous and loving apostles were startled by unauthorized preachers, that were copying them, in their works and mission…and doing so without any mandate or ‘call’ from their beloved Master??
    But how does “the Teacher”..yes ‘OUR Teacher’ respond?:
    “38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me.” Mark 9
    So John, in all things we need to listen to and study the teachings of Our ONE Teacher and Master..our Lord Jesus Christ. We can see that He did not condemn His enemies, or unauthorized disciples to Hell!..at least NOT in THIS WORLD! In this world, we can only see His tolerance, love and incredible patience…in all things.
    Now..is this Liberal? Am I being too soft? Am I not defending the severe truths proposed by the Church of Christ, and neglecting all of it’s condemnations?? No. On the contrary I am supporting the Church, who is teaching in the manner that Jesus taught…and that is with Wisdom, Love, Compassion, Patience and True Desire for Conversion!The Church in all ages has had the ability to react even as the Lord readted in this world..and according to the specisfic ‘pastoral’ needs of the times. Yes…to loose sometimes, and to bind..sometimes, also! However, it does all with the wisdom and guidence of the Holy Spirit, and also with much charity and patience! In this it always tries to faithfully follow the ways of our Lord and Master especially when he teaches:
    “47 And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12
    And also:
    “36 Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? 37 But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.” Luke 10:36-37

41. Tim
    One must, when looking at the problems that confront the church of today look at the root cause of the problem and not run away from it. Trying to discuss the problems within the church on blogs such as this without discussing the most divisive council not to mention the council that reformed and changed everything that Catholics took for centuries as being Catholic and then were told they were mistaken is like trying to discuss the cause of cancer without knowing ones biology.
    Now if you would rather go get a root canal feel free to do so. There have been thousands of words written on the subject from clerics and theologians ranging from the council being heretical to just implemented wrong but for the most part most agree something was not done correct here
    And Bernard
    Your reply is sort of like Bill Clinton and asking what the real meaning of the word “is” is
    It is quite clear in Nostre Aetate what is said, that though the Moslems deny Jesus we are to hold them in high esteem, and the word high is right in the council documents
    Church fathers for centuries denounced them, yet today we are told otherwise. This is a clear departure from scripture.
    Whether we are to hold them in “esteem” or “high esteem”, can we even hold a discussion or meet with those in good faith knowing they are taught in their Koran:
    Koran, Book V, verse 19/17: “Infidels are those for sure who say: Allah is the Messiah, Son of Mary.”
    Koran, Book IX, par. 30: “The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before, may Allah destroy them, how they have turned away.”
    I have a hard time totally believing that the Holy spirit, the third part of the Holy Trinity, being blasphemed in this way by the Koran, would guide men to write Nostre Aetate while it is being blasphemed

42. John,
    Here are some current answers to questions relating to ecumenism, as posted on Zenit as of yesterday.
    The Ecumenical Adventure
    Interview With Expert on Interreligious Affairs
    WASHINTON, D.C., FEB. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).-
    Ecumenical and interreligious dialogue doesn’t mean that Catholics have to compromise their beliefs, actually, quite the opposite is true, says Father James Massa.
    Father Massa is the executive director of the U.S. episcopal conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.
    In this interview with ZENIT, he discusses the particular challenges and benefits of ecumenical dialogue in the United States.
    (selections)
    Q: Is apologetics a key element of ecumenism? Do Catholics have to be better formed in their own faith before engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Protestants? Or does ecumenism come “from the top down,” for example, through agreements made among Church leaders like the document on justification signed some years ago by Lutherans and Catholics?
    Father Massa: That’s a very interesting question. Let me refer you to my answer to the second question. I would also say, however, that while being informed about and committed to one’s own faith is essential for participation in ecumenical work, apologetics is not the same as ecumenical dialogue.
    If the Catholic’s contribution were to be cast in overly polemical terms, then the dialogue breaks down. John Paul II said that ecumenism is about “the sharing of gifts,” and unless we are prepared to receive a “gift” from the other-whatever that might be — we are not suited for this type of engagement. ..
    …Then there is dialogue, which requires that all the participants be knowledgeable and fully committed to the tenets of their own religious tradition.
    If the Catholic participant is conflicted about this or that particular teaching of the Catholic Church, then he or she is not an adequate representative of the tradition. Dialogue becomes a farce. I have been in attendance at such meetings, and they are not terribly edifying.
    I keep in mind no. 36 of the John Paul II’s encyclical: “With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters.
    …”Certainly it is possible to profess one’s faith and to explain its teaching in a way that is correct, fair and understandable, and which at the same time takes into account both the way of thinking and the actual historical experiences of the other party.”

43. Can we have a discussion now?
    Yes! Thanks for the citing your source, John.
    Bernard and A. Williams beat me to it, so I’ll probably repeat some of what they said. Bernard
    was right that the quote from Ephesus was addressing a different situation. For one thing, Islam didn’t even exist in 431.
    As someone said in an earlier thread, ecumenism refers to non-Catholic Christians, “separated brethren” who “invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior.” The quote is from the first paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio, which was the Vatican II decree on ecumenism.
    To address non-Christians, those who don’t believe in the Trinity, was Nostra Aetate, the “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.”
    Since I think in sections, I’ll continue this in a new box.

44. Mary Kay
    To say that Islam didnt exist in 431 is all wonderful, but I do think that as Catholics we can take the leap of faith and apply what was said at this council to all Faiths that deny Christ-but I do need a clarification as I am confused as to your thought process and beliefs:
    Are you then saying that we should then hold all faiths who deny Christ “in high esteem”? And also do you feel and belive as as Catholic that those who deny Christ, where scripture is clear on this subject-can be saved? I await your answer
    “Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.” St. Peter Canisius

45. John,
    I think you might have missed this phrase above:
    …”I keep in mind no. 36 of the John Paul II’s encyclical: “With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented.
    (THAT BEING THE WHOLE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC TEACHING BEING DISCUSSED AND DEBATED)
    ..At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters.”
    I really feel that you want the Cathlic Church to imitate the worldly and impious methods that most of the radical Moslem groups use ( and ancient Jews also!..ie. Pharisees, etc.. of Jesus’ times)…which is to blanketly condemn everyone that doesn’t agree with our faith as an unworthy and immediately damnable heretic, with no further study or commentary needed. Lets just start the war and kill, or crucify them all!( recognize the unconverted St. Paul anywhere here?) Let’s call down that fire from heaven, as Sts. John and James so eagarly wanted!
    John, I repeat, I think you might have the same spirit as John and James…but the Lord corrected them in the Gospel, as noted above. The Lord’s way was different! He met with the Jews, Romans, Adultresses, Samaritans and other “Sinners”…and peaceably and lovingly taught His “Gospel”.
    Haven’t you read the Gospels??
    “52 And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. 53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? 55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
    56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.”
    Or….don’t these sayings of the Lord have any meaning?..or spiritual significance??
    And as for a further emphasis on the role of true and charitable methods of preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ, as compared to just condemning everyone who doesn’t believe in the first moment of preaching….take another look, and read carefully what St. Anthony Mary Claret said about this topic:
    THE VIRTUE OF LOVE OF GOD AND NEIGHBOR
    438. Love is the most necessary of all the virtues. Yes, I say it and will say it a thousand times: the virtue an apostolic missionary needs most of all is love. He must love God, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and his neighbors. If he lacks this love, all his talents, however fine in themselves, are for nothing. But if, together with his natural endowments, he has much love, he has everything.273
    439. Love in a man who preaches the Word of God is like fire in a musket. If a man were to throw a bullet with his hands, he would hardly make a dent in anything; but if he takes this same bullet and ignites some gunpowder behind it, it can kill. It is much the same with the Word of God. If God’s Word is spoken only naturally, it does very little; but if it is spoken by a priest who is filled with the fire of charity– the fire of love of God and neighbor–it will wound vices, kill sins, convert sinners, and work wonders. We can see this in the case of St. Peter, who walked out of the upper room afire with the love he had received from the Holy Spirit, with the result that through just two sermons he converted 8,000 people, three in the first sermon and five in the second.274
    440. The same Holy Spirit, by appearing in the form of tongues of fire above the Apostles on Pentecost, showed us this truth quite clearly: an apostolic missionary must have both heart and tongue ablaze with charity. One day the Venerable Avila was asked by a young priest what he should do to become a good preacher. His ready answer was, “Love much.”275 And both experience and the history of the Church teach us that the greatest preachers have always been the most fervent lovers.
    441. In truth, the fire of love acts in a minister of the Lord in much the same way that material fire acts in the engine of a locomotive or a ship: it enables them to move the heaviest cargo with the greatest of ease.276 What good would either of these two huge machines be without fire and steam to move them? None at all. What good is a priest who has finished all his studies and holds degrees in theology and canon and civil law if he lacks the fire of love? None at all. He is no good for others because he is like a locomotive without steam. Instead of being a help, as he should, he may only be a hindrance. He is no good even for himself. As St. Paul says, “If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.”277
    For more reading, copy and paste this link:
    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:K3fny6NIvY8J:www.claret.org/documentos/en/autobio-claret.rtf+autobiography+of+St.+Anthony+Mary+Claret&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=34

46. One of the reasons IMO for Vatican II was that communications and travel were about to speed up tremendously. Television was just becoming commonly in households, same with air travel. Society was about to make vast changes and the Church was with her people in the face of those changes.
    I have a copy of the book form of the documents of Vatican II with commentary, published in 1966. A Fr. Graham commented on Nostra Aetate. He said that it started out being on Catholic-Jewish relations. However “the bishops of the most populous parts of the world” were preoccupied with the other religions present in their country. Fr. Graham notes that a few bishops thought this document did not address essential questions and “confined itself to making polite remarks.”
    So Bernard’s comment that the document says Muslims are esteemed is basically because they seeing the good in others. Not saying that Islam has a fully correct understanding, but seeing the good that is there.
    As A. Williams say, Jesus came not to condemn but to save.
    Someplace in Crossing the Threshold of Hope John Paul II said that it is possible to reach out to others without compromising one’s own beliefs.

47. Cross posted because I was writing in between something else. Let me re-read your last post.

48. I do think that as Catholics we can take the leap of faith and apply what was said at this council to all Faiths that deny Christ
    John, that is your private interpretation. An interpretation not shared by Church teaching.
    Are you then saying that we should then hold all faiths who deny Christ “in high esteem”? And also do you feel and belive as as Catholic that those who deny Christ, where scripture is clear on this subject-can be saved? I await your answer
    “Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.” St. Peter Canisius
    Taking both paragraphs together, you seem to think that esteeming someone, that is being nice to them, is equal to “be in collusion with the Church’s enemies.” I disagree with your view. It is entirely possible, even necessary, to be polite, that is to “esteem” others whether or not they believe as I do.
    Those who deny Christ… I believe that God offers many opportunities for people to accept Him. I pray for others but it’s not my job to obsess over whether or not they are saved. Not only is that between them and God, but also, I have enough to do to keep my own house clean.

49. “Do you really know about the Orthodox?”
    Yes.
    “They do not have obligations.”
    Do you really know about the Orthodox, Anonymous? What religion doesn’t have obligations?
    “In fact, they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with.”
    Meanwhile, Western Protestants see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as legalistic.
    I am aware, of course, that there is a pronounced tendency in Orthodoxy to misunderstand and mischaracterise Catholicism and “Western ideas” so as to create or to overemphasise real or perceived differences.
    Anyway, whoever you are, anyone with even a passing knowledge of Orthodoxy could only smile (or even bust a gut laughing) at your claim that Orthodoxy does not have religious obligations. Their moral and liturgical discipline is generally more intensive than Catholic moral and liturgical discipline. It wasn’t always that way, of course, but Catholicism has gotten pretty lax and easy-going lately, as evidenced by, among other things, our bishops moving holy days to Sundays. Case in point: formerly Catholics abstained from meat for all of Lent and every Friday of the year, but now abstain only on the Fridays of Lent. Again, Catholics used to fast four times a year for the Ember Days, but today most Catholics would say, “Huh?” if you mentioned Ember Days. Again, recently the Church began allowing female altar boys, an innovation that would provoke violence in much of Orthodoxy if any bishop dared to try to introduce it. Orthodoxy has commendably retained its ancient ascetical disciplines, whereas modern Catholicism has all but lost its understanding of ascesis. So please don’t try and claim that Orthodoxy has no concept of moral obligation. These days Orthodoxy is a far more rigorous religion than Catholicism is (and I say that in praise of Orthodoxy and reproach my religion).

50. Jordan
    Nice equivocation. We are talking about holy days of obligation here. Stick with the point. The Orthodox do not have them and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don’t have obligations? You have not answered the question.

51. “Are they less faithful because they don’t have obligations?”
    Talk about leaps of illogic!

52. Answer the question.

53. Anonymous,
    “The Orthodox do not have them and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don’t have obligations? You have not answered the question.”
    Do you have any idea at all about the Christian Faith? Do you know that there is a difference between the different Christian Faiths today and the ‘legalistic’ ancient Jewish faith of the times of Jesus?
    You make it sound like the Catholic faith is a reincarnation of ancient Judaism, with all it’s regulation’s, precepts, Mosaic laws etc.. Is this what you’re trying to get across?
    And do you want to prove that this is so, by using the Orthodox against the overly ‘legalistic’, ‘pharisaical’ Catholics?
    So what if the Catholic Church has developed certain customs and ‘norms’ for liturgical rites etc.? So what if because of a desire to have the members of the Church united in faith, at certain notable dates within the liturgical year, it encourages, indeed requires, all to participate in mandated activities..and such activities can be changed and adapted by individual dioceses and Bishops. Is this a big deal?
    Or rather, is the Church NOT a LIVING organization?… composed of REAL HUMANS, in REAL FLESH, BREATHING REAL AIR, and having REAL HUMAN NEEDS?
    And yes…Needing REAL HUMAN ORGANIZATION, REAL HUMAN PLANNING and REAL PHYSICAL PLACES AND REAL TIMES and DATES FOR ASSOCIATING AND PRAYING TOGETHER? Need I mention that we REALLY COMMIT SINS? ..and need REAL SACRAMENTS and POWER from CHRIST and his CHURCH HIERARCHY to forgive those REAL SINS? Not to mention REALLY CHANGE BREAD AND WINE INTO THE REAL EUCHARISTIC FLESH AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD, JESUS CHRIST?
    The laws of the Church are meant to unite, and help support, all of her members. These laws can change as the leaders of the Church sees fit, according to times, places and circumstances in the life of the Church itself. The Pope and the leaders in Rome have been given the task by Jesus, to orchestrate and coordinate HIS CHURCH, to the best of their HUMAN abilities…and with the help and guidence of the HOLY SPIRIT.
    And He promised that the ‘GATES of HELL’ shall NOT prevail against it.
    What the Orthodox Church decides to do is it’s own business. They are brother’s in the Catholic tradition and faith, and the 2 Churches are currently trying to unite. Pope Benedict’s visit last Fall is just one such attempt.
    Both have their particular liturgies, rules and regulations. Making a big deal about the differences between these two Churches is pretty much a waste of time. If saw fit, the Pope could adapt the entire Catholic Church to the Orthodox liturgy, customs and festivals…no big deal. He can have us worship in Latin, or Chinese or any other language he chooses…no big deal.
    The big deal is : THE GOSPLE OF JESUS CHRIST. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. THE SACRAMENTS INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT SENT TO US BY GOD THE FATHER THROUGH THE SACRIFICIAL MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST!
    These are the important things…the little details such as the Date of Christmas or Easter, the length of the Eucharistic celebration, the length of penitential fasts, the composition of the liturgical practices…all of this is ‘way’ secondary to the doctrine and practice of the Faith of Christ.
    Just curious why you put so much attention on these little organizational rules and procedures which are inherent in any type of REAL, and ordered, human community?
    Sure it’s easy to fantasize that we only need a bible in front of our faces to ‘be saved’! And maybe Jesus indeed will save such a soul in certain of these types of circumstances. However, He, Our Lord and Master, chose to found and order His Church on REAL PEOPLE…Like St. Peter, for instance. It is a LIVING CHURCH filled with Living saints and sinners alike… and it has a LIVING, GOVERNING BODY, named THE HOLY SEE.
    And thanks be to God that He has given us such a Church…and not left us disorganized and lacking the cohesion of the Protestants, Buddhists, Moslems, Evangelicals,New Agers, Hindus, Atheists and all other types of world religions ‘out there’!
    AMEN!

54. “Nice equivocation. We are talking about holy days of obligation here.”
    Well, most of us are. You, however, made the ridiculous claim that the Orthodox don’t have any concept of “obligation” in matters of religious practice.
    “Stick with the point. The Orthodox do not have them”
    Yes they do. They may or may not claim that they don’t, but I hear quacks and I see waddles.
    “and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don’t have obligations? You have not answered the question.”
    So the Orthodox believe that the individual Christian may disregard the Lord’s Day at his own whim, or ignore the Pascha feast or their period of Lenten preparation for Pascha? That’s news to me, and would be news to anyone who is Orthodox. Obviously then, not only do the Orthodox have moral and religious obligations, contrary to what Anonymous asserted, but they also have an understanding that Christians have a moral “obligation” not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together on Sunday and Pascha, etc. The Orthodox DO have religious obligations, so Anonymous’ question about whether or not they are less faithful not to have religious obligations is gobbledygook.
    I should also point out that, even granting the claim that Orthodox Christians don’t have any concept of religious obligation, it’s still got nothing to do with the current trend in Catholicism of transferring holy days to the nearest Sunday. If Anonymous is trying to make an analogy between a purported absence of “obligation” in Eastern Orthodoxy and the current trend of moving holy days of obligation to Sunday, then the analogy is inapt, because Sunday is the first and most ancient of all Christian holy days of obligation and remains so in Catholicism. The Church isn’t going to abandon her divine right to bind and loose, even if every non-Sunday holy day of obligation is abrogated.

55. By the way, Jimmy asks all posters here to use a screen name. Leaving the name blank ist verboten.

56. Esau – totally awesome!!
    Thanks ts!
    Also, I appreciate the info on the “Judas Shuffle”, too!
    Never quite heard of that before, but definitely makes sense considering what they’re doing (not to mention, the term cracks me up)! <=^0 I appreciate your additional proposals! ;^)
    You too, A. Williams!!!
    Bud & Chips instead of the Body & Blood of Christ! Sounds good! Perhaps maybe then MORE people will come to Mass and take it as seriously as they do the SuperBowl!
    GOD BLESS YOU TS (ts) AND A. WILLIAMS! ! !

57. Esau Once again could not resist taking a personal swipe instead of addressing my posts content when he stated
    “Tim J.:
    Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?
    I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent”
    Personal swipe, John????
    Oh please —
    If you carefully took a look at my post, it wasn’t insulting you but your usual CALUMNY!
    I don’t even want to engage in your usual monologues since that’s all they are.
    A conversation (such as that of a “dialogue“) takes two people not only talking but hearing what the other party is actually saying!
    We’ve covered these topics in the past.
    I don’t want to waste time with your usual trash — especially since you never listen to what others are telling you but only talk, talk, talk!

58. John…There is an unpleasant odor to your comments. Your comments are distinctly malodorous when you repeatedly smear the Pope and the Magesterium.
    MARY KAY, YOU’RE ALWAYS SUCH A SWEETHEART!!!
    God bless you, my lady! May Lent bring you great spiritual renewal!

59. IIRC, Immaculate Conception is a holy day of obligation in the US because that’s the patronal feast of the country.
    If that’s the case, I assume St Patrick’s day is a holy day in Ireland. Don’t know about England and Canada.

60. The Orthodox are very legalistic (paradoxically for them) view of their fasting requirements.
    Some monks have even have gone so far as to say that if a person doesn’t fast (meaning the Orthodox Fast) he/she is not a Christian.
    http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/prayer_feasts_fasts.aspx
    The quote is from St. Seraphim of Sarov who said that a person who does not fast is not a Christian.

61. Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them? Everything else has not dealt with this question.

62. Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them?
    Anon:
    That’s just it — just because you would like to take this on a purely “legalistic” level and depend on the citing of specific language (i.e., “holy days of obligation”) does not necessarily negate the fact that such obligation does actually exist in the Orthodox Church though it may not use the same language as the Western Church but, instead, the obligation exists regardless in one form or another.
    You seem to depend on the usual court tactic of a “Yes/No” question that lawyers typically employ in order to twist the perception of the jury to their perspective in the matter.

63. You guys do realize that you are attempting to penetrate an irrational mind with rationality, don’t you. It can’t be done.

64. Anon,
    If you want my humble opinion to your rediculously persistent question: “Are they less faithful because they do not have them?”, I would say…..maybe!
    As the Catholic Church is led by the succession of Popes from St. Peter, down until this present day, whatever the Hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church decides in regards ‘norms’ for liturgical celebrations and Sacraments is in accord to the ‘mind of Christ’ whose Holy Spirit infallably leads and guides the Lord’s BODY, His Church, here on Earth, both now and until the end of the world.
    So the decisions of Rome are the Decisions of Christ. “Those who here you, hear Me.”
    Now regards the Orthodox? We know that they are currently in a state of “schism”, from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And of course this is NOT a good state to be in. Is it less faithful? Of course it is! Who will say that a schizmatic soul is more faithful to Christ than devout and obiedient soul united to the One holy Magisterium of the ONE Holy, Universal Church that Christ founded??
    But you want to be particular…and ask if it is the lack of having a “holy day(s) of obligation”, as we know it in the Roman Catholic world, that indeed makes them less faithful?
    Again. Maybe and maybe not! Of course the Decisions of the Roman Church are the decisions of Christ. “What you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven..etc..”. So if the Orthodox Church doesn’t teach the same doctrines or ‘norms’ that the Roman Catholic Church..it is “probably” deficient in some way or other.
    Might we also wonder why the Roman Catholic Church has significantly spread throughout the entire world, where as the Orthodox Church is largely relegated to Northern Europe and the Middle east?
    But are they LESS Faithful exactly because of the lack of Holy days of obligation? Maybe! or even …Probably! If we look at ‘circumstantial evidence’, the results of such deficient ‘liturgical norms and regulations’, that is ‘lacking’ such norms as “holy days of obligation” might conclude that they lacked or failed ot utilize organizational skills which are essential and essential to spreading the faith to the entire world..even as the Lord wants: Luke 12
    ” I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?”
    and
    ” And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.”
    So…If the Orthodox fail to use all of the organizational skills necessary for accomplishing such goals, or if they lack the will to try to achieve these goals of Christ..then this might indeed signify that they indeed ARE “less faithful”.
    However, this of course is just speculation. Really it’s pretty much a waste of time debating such nonsense.
    It’s much better to pay attention important items..such as this admonishment:
    “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
    So again…the answer to your question is: Maybe. Probably!
    But that’s just my humble opinion, of course!
    And since it is, as I said, a ‘humble’ opinion…I will accept enlightenment, if I err in any way in this matter… from any of those who are more inspired and intelligent than I, in these assumptions adn speculations… especially those who love and serve the Lord with all their hearts, and are also completely Faithful to His ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
    Amen!

65. Mary Kay stated(and this can apply to Esau and Tim J):
    “Those who deny Christ… I believe that God offers many opportunities for people to accept Him. I pray for others but it’s not my job to obsess over whether or not they are saved. Not only is that between them and God, but also, I have enough to do to keep my own house clean.”
    You have not answered the question
    The early martyrs of the church, including all but 1 of the Apostles died a martyrs death rather than subscribe to paganism, faiths which Nostre Aetate (Guided by the Holy Spirit??) all but embraces as it tells us that these pagan faiths (Hinduism & Buddhism) in all of the council mumbo jumbo that those who believe in these faiths acquire perfect liberation” and “supreme illumination”.
    So am I to believe that the Holy Spirit, knowing true well of the deaths of these Apostles and thousands of martyrs afterward up until the early 18th and 19th century in North and South American (and today in Iraq where Christians are being killed for being Christian at the hands of those Moslems)took place.
    Shrines can be visited here in NorthAmerica where pagan Indians burnt alive and ate in some situations depending on the tribe Catholic missionaries trying to spread the word of Jesus in trying to convert them -are you saying that these men and woman were wrong in their belief and should have looked for what was right in these pagans instead of spreading the word of Jesus as the Gospels tell us to do?
    Why would not the Holy Spirit have revealed to them in 1800 years or so of missionary activity areas of the world that also included Hindus and Buddhism that they were wrong? Why would not the church have told them to stop?
    Was the Holy Spirit only guiding these men at Vatican II to believe that Hinduism and Buddhism along with Islam is OK for Catholics to approve of anything that is “true” in these religions? Let it be known that these missionaries and Apostles for the most part and martyrs were almost all saints at a later time period of cannonization.
    This is important Mary because if so, then the church is not the One True Church , we can be saved by any means, and it is something you should be concerned about because then either those before Nostre Aetate were lying, died in vain, or were possessed by some other horrible means and were cannonized as saints incorrectly which can not happen -or this document and then the other 15 documents of this council are pastoral and not be be adhered to. There is a contradiction here.
    I cited by source as well-I wait for an answer as I am confused
    http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet
    [NOSTRA AETATE]
    DECLARATION
    ON THE RELATION OF THE
    CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
    RELIGIONS
    “2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers
    over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition enetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
    Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
    seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with
    love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect iberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other
    religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising
    teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.
    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. ”

66. “Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them? Everything else has not dealt with this question.”
    Well, this is obviously going nowhere. You persist in your erroneous belief that the Orthodox do not have holy days of obligation, even though we have established that the Orthodox do have holy days of obligation, whether or not they call them that or whether or not they admit they do. Since the underlying premise of your argument is false, there is no rationality in your question of whether or not the Orthodox are less faithful for not having something that they have.
    And with that I think there is nothing further to be said to Anonymous on this subject.

67. Mary Kay & Tim J.:
    Please don’t dignify John’s post above with a response, even though he demands from you an answer.
    We’ve already covered this ground in past threads with him ad nauseam.
    It’s pointless.

68. John,
    I really think you state the truth when you say:
    “I wait for an answer as I am confused”.
    You most definitely ARE confused. I think that you have never REALLY studied the life and personality of Jesus…that is ‘The Gospel’ of Christ. You must have skipped over all of the details, all the mannerisms and even all of the apologetic responses of Jesus in the preaching (and miracles) of His Gospel.
    You, I think, prefer philosophy and logic, and the glory of being on ‘the winning team'(…even as the Jews thought they were in Jesus’ time), over the witness, word and spiritual teachings of Christ. And in not having studied the humanity of Jesus closely, and most probably, not having practiced what he admonishes, you are discombobulated and truly confused about the nature of not only the Catholic Church,(the body of Christ).. but most other, spiritual things.
    You talk about Saints. But the Saints weren’t confused, because, they listened to Jesus, they prayed to Jesus, they ‘communed’ with Jesus, they ‘knew’ Jesus. And this is what we are all called to do. And without knowing the Lord, and obeying Him personally when He teaches us to “love one another’, ‘be merciful to our neighbor’, ‘first remove the beam from your own eyes..” “Do not judge”, ” give and you shall receive” “no greater love has a man than to give his life for his neighbor”…etc…we can never UNDERSTAND HIM!
    Ever wonder why there are NO apologetics, canon law or philosophy included, outside of the homily, in the liturgy and sacrifice of the Mass? Because it is the Gospel and teaching of Jesus Christ that is important!” My words are spirit and life”. And then it is the ‘Communing’ and being made ONE with this same Christ, in the receiving of the Holy Eucharist. Hence: JESUS is the focus! EVERYTHING is CHRISTO CENTRIC!..focused on both His HUMANITY and His DIVINITY!
    Now you want to complain about how the Church can say something good about the pagans! For you, pagans are ENEMIES! They are damned ‘Rebels of God!’ But do you forget that Jesus sends his church out into the world to preach the ‘GOOD NEWS’ to these same pagans? These Hindus, Bhuddists, Anamists and yes, Moslems too? You, I think want to change the accent from ‘Good News’ to ‘Hell News’…that is, first highlight the negative in people, and show how they will surely be burnt in the Fires of Hell, very shortly! What ever happened to Jesus teachings, here…of OUR GOOD FATHER, waiting for his beloved wayward sons to return home?? Jesus didn’t make parables such as: “And when the Father saw His son a far way off, he quickly called his servants and commanded them to stoke the fire pit, for shortly they would be burning alive a traitorous wretch, a vile pagan sinner, and enemy of God… who should be happy to receive such a generous welcome!”
    You need to re-read the Gospels and note how Jesus treats the Pagans! Does he shun and run away from such filthy creatures, even as the scribes and pharisees of his times do?? Have you ever studied the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan”? Do you note that it is one of the ‘pagans’ who is called..”good”?..and not the ‘priests’ and pharisees..who could care less for the critically wounded neighbor?
    And is this why you are confused…because you can’t accept the fact that indeed there are people out there, like the same ‘Samaritan’, which Jesus used in the parable, that are ignorant and waiting for the true teaching and light of Christ to reach them? Again, I think your problem is that you want to generalize and lump all people together under one classification, either Catholic or ‘devil worshipper’…and thus cannot see that Jesus sends us out to “Preach the ‘GOODNEWS’ to all creatures”!I think you cannot accept that it is indeed “GOODNEWS”.
    Thank God the Church imitates Jesus! And not the Pharisees and Saducees and Lawyers of His day…which you seem to want to copy! Thank God, Jesus didn’t condemn the ‘Adulterous woman’, call fire down upon the Roman centurian, the one which he said he had not found such faith “in all of Israel”!.. and kick the woman who was a sinner(St. Mary Magdalene) out of the house of Simon, because she was a ‘filthy prostitute’…even as all the others wanted him to do, and were surprised, indeed, that Jesus not only didn’t kick her out…but honored her and forgave all of her sins!!
    So, John, You do not IMITATE Christ’s charity! The Catholic Church does! The Catholic Church is patient with pagans and sinners, even as Jesus was!
    And furthermore, if you can’t find one thing good about any pagan, then why were so many of the same early saints that you mention, so knowledgable and learned in pagan Greek philosophy? Why does St.Thomas Aquinas look so favorably on the teachings of Aristotle? And for that matter, why does the Church teach such philosphy to it’s seminarians even to this very day, and even before it teaches them sacred Theology??
    Don’t you see, that if there was something good in the VERY PAGAN Greeks, there might also be something good and agreeable in the Bhuddist or Hindu faiths also? Or are you blind, lopsided and so biased as to only think that one type of Pagan might have something worth studying, in the Church, and that being the GREEKS only?!
    Rather, read CLOSELY the very document that you posted above! It makes TOTAL sense! It teaches the real manner in which Christ taught both the ‘Pagans and the Sinners’ in His times. Now, we only need to be obedient to God, when He said on the Mount of the Transfiguration:
    “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED: HEAR YOU HIM.”

69. Esau
    Lets have an intelligent discussion here, if you have supposedly discussed this before with me, maybe you can pull one of those cut and past jobs of all of my posts you keep so handy as you are infactuated with me
    Well I am asking what is a clear contradiction in Nostre Aetate and John Paul II in his teachings on Islam and salvation, where they are telling us to accept these false faiths, and later on this was taken a step further where John Paul has taught they these persons can indeed be saved.
    This has been clearly taught by past councils EX CATHEDRA as well as by Papal Bulls that there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic church, even for Protestants-so why is the church teaching this error now-and why cant Mary Kay or you Esau not know this??
    At the Council of Lateran (649), whose canons were approved and confirmed by Pope Martin I (649-653), it was solemnly declared:
    If anyone does not profess in accordance with the holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, both by the same Fathers and by me approved universal Councils, to the last detail in word and intention: he is condemned, (canon 17)
    At the Council of Trent (1545-63) it was solemnly declared that one must hold that:
    Our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), must remain in its purity, sound, unshaken, and free from errors. (Session V, Intro.)
    At Trent it was solemnly declared concerning the doctrine of justification that: this Catholic doctrine of justification -which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts it, no one can be justified. (On Justification, 16)
    Therefore, No one can be justified if he rejects the Catholic teaching on justification. Of course if some one isn’t justified, then they cannot be saved (i.e. enter heaven), and Protestants reject the Catholic teaching on justification. Thus, they cannot be saved as they are in rejecting this, or any dogma of the Church.
    So why is this infallible teaching being distorted and why can you seem to answer this?? And if the documents of V2 a reteaching an infallible piece of church dogma, then it is pastoral and if one item is pastoral all is pastoral

70. Lets have an intelligent discussion here
    That’s just it John.
    Our several attempts (and I don’t just mean me but Mary Kay, bill912, Tim J., Innocencio, Ryan C., David B., et al) at intelligent discussions with you often displays the lack thereof on your part, as we have visited, re-visited, and re-re-visisted these topics ad nauseam.
    Also, your homosexual tendencies might be the very reason why you are so infatuated with all the priest sex abuse scandals out there since you, most likely, have a fixation on such things!

71. Catholics clamor for the mass of the past
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.latin25feb25,0,2322551.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

72. From the actual article: “Dozens of people gather every Sunday morning in the Gothic sanctuary of St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church to pray for the future of a tradition that’s deeply rooted in the past.”
    i.e. Dozens hardly constitutes “Catholics Clamoring”!!!!
    Vatican II did the necessary “root canal” and the “pew peasants” will be forever grateful.

73. Thanks a lot, Realist.
    In the words of Jed Clampett, “Stop helping me, boy…”
    John,
    Where in Nostre Aetate does it say that Muslims, Buddhists, etc… are “saved”? Unless I am completely brain-fuzzed on the issue, the Church has consistently taught that not even all Catholics are assured of salvation (there’s always that little necessity of dying in a state of grace).
    Nostre Aetate presents outlines of Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim thought in more-or-less their own words as BACKGROUND material, and is not in any way endorsing these beliefs or presenting them as valid alternate religious systems.
    Since when is holding someone in “high esteem” equal to saying that their religion is true, or that they are saved?
    Saying that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims is only to say that salvation is open to them as much as anyone. God’s desire is that all should be saved, though this does not mean that all will be saved. The Muslim belief in the God of Abraham, truncated though it is, can serve as a window, an opportunity, for belief in the deeper revelation of the Trinity and of the Divine nature of Christ.
    The Muslims believe in the One God and reject all others, and in that we agree with them. As far as that aspect of their faith goes, they are right.
    Hinduism, on the other hand, is a religion so complex that almost nothing can be truly asserted about it. There are many kinds of Hinduism, and no Hindu magisterium. It is crowded with gods minor and major. Gods who compete with one another, etc… in this sense, it is right to acknowledge that the Muslims are closer to the Truth with belief in the One God than Hindus are with their vast galaxy of deities. But even they are closer to reality than a confirmed materialist.
    How can a Muslim be said to have rejected Christ if he has never really heard the true gospel of Christ? He has likely only heard a caricature or a distorted parody of the gospel, if that.
    Nostre Aetate affirms those elements in other faiths that align with Christian Truth and that may serve as a bridge to faith in the Holy Trinity and in the saving work of Jesus Christ. It applauds the aims of some other faiths, even as it acknowledges their inability to achieve those aims. It seeks what commonality may be found between Christianity and other faiths in order to use these points of agreement as pegs on which to hang the Gospel, much as St. Paul did.
    It is not that hard – at all – to read these passages from Nostre Aetate in this way, and to harmonize them with previous Church documents. What is impossible is to maintain that Nostre Aetate simply makes all religions equal or that that it teaches that all are saved or that there is no longer any need for conversion. That just is not anywhere in the text. You are reading into the text all kinds of things that are not there, perhaps because you do not like the conciliatory tone compared with earlier documents that had a more “hellfire and brimstone” approach.
    It is your duty as a Catholic to look at the text honestly and openly, without pre-judging.

74. Okay Tim J. and John, if you guys insist in engaging in the same discussions, it may be well to, at the very least, not cover the same ground as we have done in the following threads and end up sounding like a broken record which repeats the same things.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/more_on_the_fly.html
    I’d list even more threads that hashed and re-hased the same arguments, but what’s the use?
    Also, even if one were to provide a unique argument not said in past threads, I doubt that John would heed it since John hardly even heeds any of the previous arguments presented to him and, further, doesn’t read them much lest, even if he did, forgets them and perhaps fails to comprehend them.

75. John, the only other person I’ve heard use the “martyrs died in vain” card was someone who also was strongly anti-Vatican II. So it’s a apparently a characteristic of those with anti-Vatican II prejudice and is an opinion that simply does not hold water.
    Where did you get the idea that “we can be saved by any means?” It’s not what Nostra Aetate says. There’s no contradiction and that entire paragraph of yours is full of errors in logic that I might go back to. (Or might not.)
    Tim summarized several points that I would said.
    -Nostra Aetate does not say that we are “saved by any means.”
    -It does briefy outline Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim thought from their perspective and is not in any way endorsing these beliefs or presenting them as valid alternate religious systems.
    -God desires all to be saved and what is esteemed, what can be held in common, may be a stepping stone to hearing the Gospel.
    -“How can a Muslim be said to have rejected Christ if he has never really heard the true gospel of Christ?” That speaks to your repeated statements of those who you say have denied Christ. But to deny something presupposes knowing it in the first place. If they’ve never heard the Gospel, how can they deny it?
    The other objection you had was the sentence, The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
    maybe I’ll do that in a Part 2

76. I never realized that a lot of people think that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation. Of course, a friend of made the observation that maybe they “did” something on Fat Tuesday or the weekend before so they feel compelled by guilt to attend.
    I wonder why Ash Wednesday is more crowded, in our area, than Easter Sunday?

77. The other objection you had was the sentence, The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
    There’s this footnote to that sentence in my commentary:
    This paragraph presents an understanding that is traditional in the Catholic Church. One recalls, for example, Justin Martyr in the early Church attributing all the truths in non-Christian religions to the Word of God who enlightens every man who enters into this world – a concept found at the beginning of the Gospel according to John.
    That says that even in the early Church it was recognized that even non-Christians had some of the goodness of God who they did not yet know.
    But then I read the rest of the footnote which shed some light: Through the centuries, however, missionaries often adopted the attitude that non-Christian religions were simply the work of Satan and the missionaries’ task was to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration (Nostra Aetate) marks an authoritative change in approach.
    The only missionary that fits that is the priest in Mexico who likely considered the practice of human sacrifice “the work of Satan.” But every other missionary whose lives I’ve read about esteemed esteemed the people and their beliefs while holding fast to their (missionaries’) Catholic faith. Even the North American martyrs who you pulled the “died in vain” card, did so. St. Jean Brebeuf wrote the Huron Carol, which had the most valuable pelts lining the creche.
    But even with the “often adopted attitude,” the only thing changed was the approach. Core Catholic teaching has never changed.

78. Justin Martyr was just a Vatican II type who wasn’t a real Catholic. You know that Mary Kay. It doesn’t matter that he’s *called* a saint. The Anointed know better. Listen to them, because the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven hang from their belts. And don’t you ever forget it!

79. I never realized that a lot of people think that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation
    Annonymouse,
    I don’t think anybody here is actually saying that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation; but that the Church is often filled (at least, mine is and also Dr. Eric’s based on his post above) on Ash Wednesday.
    Yet, I don’t see how Ash Wednesday NOT being a Holy Day of Obligation should be any reason NOT to attend Church, especially since it is the start of the Lent season.
    That’s probably the same mindset that has made people so lax in their religious duties since they reduce Christianity to mere procedure (which is not at all the purpose of HDoO, but actually to bring us to an ever into a closer relationship to Christ); thus, since it has become procedure to many, might as well change it to make it “legal” to NOT attend Mass on such days, since they’re a mere inconvenience to so many.

80. Corrigendum:
    …but actually to bring us to an ever closer relationship with Christ…

81. From Catholic Answers, which seems to be the standard here for being Catholic, now teachings the following:
    http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).
    Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.
    Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.
    The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
    Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
    It then goes on to talk about St Justin and others where he says:
    “We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151])”
    As far as I know Justin Martyr does not carry the same weight as the council of Trent or the Secound Lateran Council, both of which infallibly stated that unless one belongs to the Catholic Church one can not be saved
    I have again given you sources from past posts as well as above
    Catholic answers and Vatican II are teaching error.
    The line that “they did not know about Christ” or the church, etc etc as in a Moslem in this day and age of technology is hogwash, does not hold water and is a game being played to be ecumenical and is false and no one can actually belive that those that are not Catholics are so because they did not know about the Catholic church or Jesus

82. Bill
    Once again you and others are using Catholic Answers as your source for Catholicism
    Justin Martyr is not infallible
    For that matter I could pull thousands of statements made by St Thomas and other saints which would blow much of the innoations you so love out of the water
    We have two if not more councils teach infallibly that salvation outside of the church is not possible, now we have Vatican II in “Lumen Gentium” subtly insert that word that the entire truth only “subsists” within, as well as CA using Justin Martyr and saints taking their teachings as refered to Greeks as some sort of infallible teaching
    False and hogwash again!
    Defection from true teachings

83. Well, John, the Church disagrees with your interpretation of the teaching of the council of Trent and the Second Lateran Council.
    It is the Pope and the Bishops who authoritatively interpret the meaning of those documents, and what you are spouting here is not in agreement with them. The documents of Trent and the Lateran council DO NOT mean what you think they mean. Do you really mean to say that it is impossible that you are wrong and the Pope and Bishops are right on that?
    I’ll go with the Church, thanks.

84. Tim stated:
    ”
    It is the Pope and the Bishops who authoritatively interpret the meaning of those documents, and what you are spouting here is not in agreement with them. The documents of Trent and the Lateran council DO NOT mean what you think they mean. Do you really mean to say that it is impossible that you are wrong and the Pope and Bishops are right on that?
    I’ll go with the Church, thanks”
    Where the 4th Lateran Council (Tim-That is the chruch is it not????????????) infallibly stated:
    “Canon 1
    There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. ”
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-select.html
    And then you have Vatican II and Catholic Answers which state”
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).
    Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.
    Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.”
    Misunderstanding???????????
    No this is a clear defection which CA once again along with Lumen Gentium have defected from true infalliable church teaching
    So Tim-Which “church” are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called “liberal” ones
    Please explain the above clear contradiction-the Lateran council could not be more clear whether they were talking about gnostics or whomever in the 13the century-it is infallible church teaching that outside of the church there is no salvation

85. Define “outside”, John.
    That is the crux of the matter, and the point on which you disagree with the Church.
    Heck, even the old Baltimore Catechism leaves room for those who cling to the hull of the Barq of Peter without knowing it.
    You say that being “in the Church” means ONLY “being a water-baptized Catholic”. The Church disagrees (and has always disagreed) with that narrow interpretation. Baptism is certainly normative, but it is not exclusive. We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.
    If you bump into a former Muslim in heaven (once in heaven, everyone is Catholic), will you wave the documents of the Fourth Lateran Council in Jesus’ face and demand they be sent back? Or can He save anyone He pleases?

86. John said:
    the church on up to the Pope, started by John XXIII and culminating in Paul VI who basically continued with the wrecking ball-who are men in charge of the deposit of faith and tradition as handed down as well as being responsible for the salvation of 1B Catholics-take it upon themselves to change everything, change customs (can someone please show me where receiving our Lord in the hand is documented in the original document on the liturgy and why it is allowed? (not talking about the GIRM)and basically reinvent the church as they saw fit?
    Why stop at Vatican II???
    Who’s to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH did actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit I mean, let’s look at it from Scriptures — is the Church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the Church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II, but actually did so as early as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

87. I’m happy that I could contribute an abbreviation that everyone is now using!
    HDoO!

88. Who’s to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH didn’t actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words, John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II but at the time many claimed was the beginning of the actual Catholic Church? I mean, let’s look at it from Scriptures — is the church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see today as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
    As for your other comment to Tim J.:
    So Tim-Which “church” are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called “liberal” ones
    Well, in your words, the issue could be cleared up quite easily if those so-called “popes” from after Peter on down would fess up and state that the CATHOLIC CHURCH itself was actually a re-invention of the early Christian church as many of our separated brethren have been saying for decades, including so-called “liberal” ones.
    

89. Who’s to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH didn’t actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words, John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II but at the time many claimed was the beginning of the actual Catholic Church? I mean, let’s look at it from Scriptures — is the church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see today as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
    As for your other comment to Tim J.:
    So Tim-Which “church” are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called “liberal” ones
    Well, in your words, the issue could be cleared up quite easily if those so-called “popes” from after Peter on down would fess up and state that the CATHOLIC CHURCH itself was actually a re-invention of the early Christian church as many of our separated brethren have been saying for decades, including so-called “liberal” ones.

91. Dr. Eric,
    Yeah, HDoO is a naturally great abbrev.!
    I had decided to use it as well in my post above instead of writing the whole thing out.
    Although, sometimes I’m tempted to pronounce it the Homer Simpson way: H-doh!

92. Wow! Maybe they can move Sunday obligation to Christmas and Easter. Then we can have practically all Catholic fulfill their Mass obligation. Nothing like hitting the bull’s eye by moving the target in the way of the arrow 🙂

93. Wow! Maybe they can move Sunday obligation to Christmas and Easter. Then we can have practically all Catholic fulfill their Mass obligation.
    Tony,
    Actually, I made a similar proposal on my Feb 23, 2007 7:58:57 PM post above:
    We should only attend Mass on CHRISTMAS ONLY!
    Most people come to Church only ONCE a year anyway and that’s on Christmas!
    I also made other such proposals for the convenience of the average Catholic on a Feb 23, 2007 8:34:16 PM post:

    Oh yeah, while we’re at it, since people do whatever they want in church anyway, let’s upgrade them:
    1. For the convenience of people who actually chew gum in church; let’s be accomodating and install gum vending machines on each entrance to the church. Actually, we might want to distribute a stick of gum in addition to the Eucharist. Perhaps some day, we might get it right and distribute a stick of gum instead of the Eucharist since the Eucharist is only a symbol anyway!!
    2. For those who love talking in church; we who are so inconsiderate that we actually pray in church instead would like to take this time now to sincerely apologize to y’all.
    To make up for our rudeness, let’s propose we install live chatrooms in church so that during the Mass, we don’t have to be bothered with the empty ritual that’s happening there and spend our time doing something more worthwhile like engaging in deep conversation regarding something profound like talking about the television show Desparate Housewives!
    3. For those who love blasting their cellphones in church; we’ll provide you with speakers so that during the Mass, you can play all your ringtones in surround sound so that everybody in church and also outside can hear it!
    4. For those who love to race out of the church even before the Mass ends; we’ll have NASCAR-like competitions to see who’s out of the church in split-second timing before the priest even pronounces the blessing!
    5. For those church choirs who love to embellish the Novus Ordo Mass by providing such spectacular groovy music; we’ll be certain to provide you with a concert stage along with all tambourines and drums and bass you want!
    6. For more entertaining liturgies, we’ll be certain to get all the acrobat performers and other such acts to perform at Mass so that we can groove to the funky beat!
    7. For all rogue clergies out there who want to be cool and hip, we’ll hand you out some Fonzie leather jackets and some cool shades for you to wear at Mass so that your parishoners know how cool you really are!
    8. In place of the Eucharist, since it’s a symbol to certain Catholics anyway; we’ll instead hand out Oreo cookies since people much prefer those over stale bread anyway!
    Have I missed anything?

    To which “ts” and A. Williams (God bless them!) kindly provided additional proposals:

    Esau – totally awesome!!
    There is an old expression for those who sneak out of church early (your #4) – the Judas Shuffle, in memory of Judas’s early departure from the Last Supper. Maybe if the church bulletins noted this fact every week, people would be embarrassed to do it.
    And that reminds me of one you missed –
    9. Since so many people prefer to read the bulletin during Mass instead of taking it home afterward – and probably only read it because there is nothing else (cereal box, whatever!) – there should be one of those things like they have at airports so as you come in you can pick out a newspaper or magazine of your choice to read!
    Posted by: ts | Feb 24, 2007 2:29:39 AM

    and

    “Have I missed anything?”
    We might want to change the wine to “Buds”. Wine is way too formal, and we don’t want to appear ‘square’, ‘uppity’ or ‘offensive’ in anyway!
    And you know everyone loves ‘Bud’.. so this should be the perfect ‘inclusive’ choice for a liturgical beverage! Go’s well with the dancing also!
    Furthermore, the beer mugs and pitchers they currently use in the diocese of LA should be a model for all other parishes…with little adaptations. It’s perfect for the buds and now only needs to be made a church ‘norm’.
    And the Vatican could harness Sheryl Crow as a papal envoy.(kinda like a modern St. Catherine of Siena!)She’s a woman, she likes Bud ‘early in the morning’ which is good for 6:00a.m. masses, and I think she might be a Catholic. However, if she’s not a Catholic it shouldn’t matter, due to all the possible ecumenical benefits it should provide. It might even attract Tom Cruise and Katie Holms back to the Church, with such totally ‘updated’ and ‘cool’ modifications!?
    But you should not use Oreo’s…but rather ‘Tostito’s'(white corn). Also, maybe be an indult can be aquired to use ‘Corona’s’…and maybe even ‘guacamole’… on certain feast (ie.,BBQ) days!
    Otherwise, Esau, I think you are on the right ‘liturgical’ track, and these are excellent proposals in keeping with our ever changing modern times!!
    Posted by: A.Williams | Feb 24, 2007 6:19:49 AM

    To the latter, I agree:
    Bud & Chips instead of the Body & Blood of Christ! Sounds good! Perhaps maybe then MORE people will come to Mass and take it as seriously as they do the SuperBowl!

94. The 4th lateran council is very very clear
    I love the way CA lauds anyone who feels that those outside the Catholic church cant be saved as being a “Rad Trad”!!
    No-CA is wrong again as it was on Our Lady of La Salette calling “Holding back ones hand” as another “Rad Trad” invention as it was documented by the church, approved by the Holy See and a basicalla built in honor of this apparation by the Popes themselves but you and the church today are trying to distort INFALLIBLE church teachings to suit your modernistic view of the church and it is causing the pews to empty, people to run away in droves as those that actually believe in the past teachings as infallible and adhere to tradition dont feel at home in the church today and are looking at all alternatives.
    Esau-when someone like you is actually considered a “conservative” and then the church tries to paint those that actually belive in the Lateran Council and Vatican I as being “radical” as CA tried to do with Mr Karl Keating a Traditional Hating founder of CA-then one has to take hold and look at who has what and what their objectives really are

95. Esau, they are already doing this in some protestant churches; couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc

96. Esau, they are already doing this in some protestant churches; couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc

98. Yes WAY!!! with vending machines to boot.

99. John,
    Again:
    Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
    Further, if it is up to you and those Rad Trads who think they are the authority by which to pick & choose which councils are legitimate and which aren’t; then, why follow Traditional Catholic teaching at all as the very thing you propose is outright contrary to it?!?
    What you and your Rad Trads are proposing here is a church based on Democracy and not one actually based on Traditional Catholic teaching!

100. Yes WAY!!! with vending machines to boot.
     AnnonyMouse:
     Whoa! Talk about convenience!!!
     Then the Catholic Church is actually behind on the times!
     Okay, from your previous post about their having couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc; I say we outdo them and go for plasma TVs in place of the altar and betting booths for those days where a football/basketball game is on in order to collect more funds from the typical $1 Catholic! Also, maybe then we’ll get the entire parish to actually attend Mass once we’ve removed all vestiges of Christ! ;^)

101. John,
     “The 4th lateran council is very very clear”
     But your understanding is clouded.
     I am having real problems reconciling your above posts with others wherein you claim to recognize the authority of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
     Was Church history broken in two at Vatican II, or not? If the pre-VII Church and the VII Church are the same, then you owe the assent of faith to the teaching of that Church. If the Church has promulgated heresy – as you seem to claim over and over – then the Gates of Hell have prevailed. The words of Christ are null. Our faith is vain.
     But I have ceased posting on this for your benefit. My responses are now mostly for those who may be reading your screeds and who may be confused unless they are refuted.
     I do pray that you change your mind, but you seem impervious to reason, as bill912 has noted.
     In the last several decades, we in the Novus Ordo Church could have used the help of those with such zeal for tradition, had so many of you not run off into little conclaves so you could continue to hear your precious Latin.
     I love the Tridentine rite. I wish we had an indult Mass to go to that was within a three-hour drive. But I will not act in disobedience to my rightful Bishop, and will not in my behavior and associations seperate myself from the Church.

102. Tim and Esau
     Look I dont know as a mortal whether those outside the church are saved or not-but I read these documents and it seems clear to me, and I have this thrown at me from my inlaws who are SSPX and it makes sense to me but I dont tell them that, or at least to their face
     It appears as if the church softened her stance as to who can be saved and who can not be but whatever
     Thanks

103. John:
     Again, it cannot be ignored that the very points you attempt to convey in your arguments are not only fallacious in their nature but, above all else, are the very elements that are evident in many of the rebels (as the reformers of Luther’s days) that had gone to the extent of severing their ties with the Church due to the fact that they judged themselves sole arbiter of what exactly is legitimate and according to the dictates of Christ.
     If you should feel that you and your Rad Trad pals know exactly what is legitimate and what is not; then, by all means, proceed and establish a church apart from that of the Catholic Church and set yourselves up as the authority upon which all things Catholic should be decided upon and not the Magisterium. But, allow me to ask you — does this in any way resemble Traditional Catholic Teaching or is it, by its very nature, reflective of Protestantism?
     At any rate, like you said: “Whatever”!

104. John –
     Sorry if I got a little heated up, earlier.
     I honestly do not think the Church has changed her stance on those who can be saved, though she may have changed her rhetoric. There are times and circumstances for stern warnings, and there are times for conciliatory language.
     Times for vinegar, and times for honey.
     It seems to me that the era of the Protestant Deformation would be a time for stern warnings. These warnings were directed primarily to those who were in the active process of consciously rejecting the authority of the Church, and who were leading millions astray by their example.
     Most Prots really are not in that position, now. They are simply carrying on the faith of their ancestors without knowing much about the history of it. To them, the authority of the Church and the Pope is something alien and warped.
     We can’t consign anyone to hell, but how those without the Church and the sacraments have a hope of heaven is beyond me. I struggle, even with the sacraments to strengthen me. It’s not beyond Christ, though. If He can save me, He can save anyone. We are obliged to try and bring the gospel to the whole world, the rest is up to God.

105. John, reading your posts have made me very, very glad to the fullness of Catholic teaching in the Magesterium.
     Tim’s 9 am post says it so clearly. Church teaching has always had an opening for those who have not heard the Gospel.
     To which, your blistering response was The line that “they did not know about Christ” or the church, etc etc as in a Moslem in this day and age of technology is hogwash, does not hold water and is a game being played to be ecumenical and is false and no one can actually belive that those that are not Catholics are so because they did not know about the Catholic church or Jesus
     To make that statement, you clearly have no idea of anything outside your circle. That there are countries and/or areas where the Gospel has not been heard is obvious to anyone. Anyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand, that is.
     But one doesn’t have to live in a far-off, third world country to have not heard the Gospel. Two friends, one from Massachussets, the other from Texas, said they were adults before they learned why some adults walk around with dirt on their foreheads on a February Wednesday. And they had full access to all the technology that the USA has to offer.
     You said that SSPX makes sense to you. Well then, you’ve made your choice. But that also means there’s no point in further discussion.
     As Tim said, if I respond to your posts, it will be for the benefit of lurkers.

106. Mary
     You have distorted my post
     What I have said is that what my inlaws who attend SSPX have stated with regards to salvation outside of the church, the 4th lateran council and papal bulls on the subject makes SOME sense to me (sort of like the revised teaching of the church that there may be some salvation outside of the church).
     For you, Esau and CA to slander those that only want to adhere to teachings and customs of the church before she changed is so uncharitable of you-while you would reach out an olive branch to a Moslem who in this day and age has access to the internet such as al quaida to broadcast public beheadings-but has no knowledge of Christ is beyond my or anyones comprehension in this day and age-and not to a CATHOLIC whose only desire is to worship in a way as performed up and including the second vatican council goes to show that you seem to have a fear of those so called traditionals, and for those like CA and Esau who paint them as “radical”, having them in my family I see nothing “radical” about them, they are more devout than I can say 99% of those that attend the new mass will ever be as I have attended their masses and one walks away with a miss and a desire. Genuflection as one walks across the aisle, men in suits and not in shorts, a formed line of kneeling parishoners at the altar rail, chant-all leaves one pining for a reform of the reform

107. John,
     Stop avoiding my questions by your distortions of the facts!
     To make it easier on you, at the very least, answer my last question:
     If you should feel that you and your Rad Trad pals know exactly what is legitimate and what is not; then, by all means, proceed and establish a church apart from that of the Catholic Church and set yourselves up as the authority upon which all things Catholic should be decided upon and not the Magisterium. But, allow me to ask you — does this in any way resemble Traditional Catholic Teaching or is it, by its very nature, reflective of Protestantism?
     At least, our seperated brethren are HONEST enough to admit to the fact that they are Protestants.
     However, you and your Rad Trad groupees can only be described as hypocrites who underneath it all are really Protestants at heart since you would rather place upon yourselves the authority that rightfully belongs to the Church Christ had established!
     However, you are of the worst kind since not only are you so dishonest about this; even further, you disguise yourselves as Catholics in spite of the fact that by your very actions, you actually prove that you are not!

108. Esau
     Your lack of charity is Evident
     A “Traditional” could not ever be a Protestant as if you knew your history, Luther upon his visit to Rome, a monk who was so devout he did penance each and every day, made the arduous 3 month journey to Rome, only to find indulgences for salvation being sold to pay for the abuses being promulgated by the Pope at that time who actually squandered the money earmarked for the Sistine chapel on his own personal cumforts, among other clergy abuse, became appalled the rebelled. Of course we know the rest (I hope you do) upon his return to Germany he demanded reform and nailed requests to the door of his church. The rest is history. The council of Trent, which you know so little about, was called to unify the church and reaffirm her beliefs so these abuses would never happen again, until Vatican II was called and ambiguity was again set in, everybody now interprets who and how they get saved, that Moslems and Hindus and Buddhists should be appeased as they are “illuminated”, denies clergy abuse and fraud, and has CA and those like yourself trying to tell all what is catholic and call those Radical for adhering to a mass codified by St Pope Pius V in his Bull and the teachings of that Council which held the church together through the most difficult time
     To call “Traditionalists ” -“Protestants” has no merit at all. In reality, the church today after Vatican II , just a CA stated above, in the uncertain way she now defines salvation outside the church and everything else for that matter is actually closer to Protestant than any Traditional Catholic ever could be

109. Hey John,
     Did you know all this afliction that attacks Our Holy Church did not start with Vatican II?
     It simply gave it the force of law.

110. When was hurling calumny (as you do) against the Church and holy people like Mother Teresa and JPII actually considered charitable?
     Of course we know the rest (I hope you do) upon his return to Germany he demanded reform and nailed requests to the door of his church.
     You are definitely ignorant as concerns matters regarding Luther. This “nailing” was a myth!
     Even Jimmy Akin could tell you this as well.
     The council of Trent, which you know so little about
     Tha I know so little about????
     As I’ve said time and again in previous posts, there were actually other canons that existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571.

111. “Today, the majority of Luther researchers see it as fact, that Luther did not nail his theses to the door of the Castle Church on that day. But the picture of Luther nailing the theses to the door of the church is still today the most common in regards to Luther, the reformation and Lutherstadt Wittenberg.”

112. “This seems in doubt. It is true that announcements of upcoming disputes were supposedly regularly hung on the door of the Castle Church. But the first written account of the event comes from Philipp Melanchthon, who was only called to Wittenberg University as a professor after the event, and his account appeared only after Luther’s death – there is no record of Luther ever mentioning the nailing himself.
     What is known, is that he included them, round about the same time (1517), with a letter he wrote to his superiors denouncing the sale of indulgences. But most historians now believe it’s likely that the story of the nailing is a Christian urban legend, invented after the fact for greater dramatic effect. ”

113. from my inlaws who are SSPX and it makes sense to me John 11:46 am
     Mary You have distorted my post
     What I have said is that what my inlaws who attend SSPX have stated with regards to salvation outside of the church, the 4th lateran council and papal bulls on the subject makes SOME sense to me John 1:44 pm
     John, you omit the word “some” in your first post and then accuse me of distorting what you said.

114. Bold Off!

115. John:
     I still cannot see how you are so blinded by your aversion to the Catholic Church that you actually fail to see how Protestant you and your Rad Trads are in your thinking.
     For example, look at what you wrote:
     A “Traditional” could not ever be a Protestant as if you knew your history, Luther upon his visit to Rome, a monk who was so devout he did penance each and every day, made the arduous 3 month journey to Rome, only to find indulgences for salvation being sold to pay for the abuses being promulgated by the Pope at that time who actually squandered the money earmarked for the Sistine chapel on his own personal cumforts, among other clergy abuse, became appalled the rebelled. Of course we know the rest (I hope you do) upon his return to Germany he demanded reform and nailed requests to the door of his church. The rest is history.
     Even the manner in which you wrote the above seems to show such genuine admiration for Luther in what he had done.
     Plus, how can you deny the fact that what you and your Rad Trad groupees is not in fact Protestant?
     The very definition of Protestantism would seem to be the placing on one’s own person the authority that rightfully belongs to the Church that Christ had established!
     What do you think is the point of Matthew 18:17-18 as well as Matthew 16:18???
     How can you actually say that what you and your cohorts are doing is not, in the least, Protestantism when, in fact, you have dubbed yourselves as your own Pontiffs, usurped the authority of the Church, and declare, independent of the Catholic Church, what you believe to be genuine and according to the dictates of Christ, just like any other Protestant!
     So, again:
     Tell me, how can you actually describe your actions as being according to Traditional Catholic Teaching when, clearly, what you do is, in fact, contrary to it! Doesn’t the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church teach (and have taught since the time of the early church) to acknowledge the very authority of the Pope and, furthermore, the very authority of the Church, just as Christ had desired of his true followers?

116. Esau
     Your ramblings are making you look foolish
     It is quite easy to see the similarity between the ‘reformed” church of today and that of the Protestants
     The church of today has indeed CHANGED and liberalized as well as introduced vague and misleading interpretation of canon law, catechism, teachings etc in order to be more “inclusive” and open minded. Sort of like Sola Scriptura in which it is left to the Protestant to form their own opinion as to what a passage reads, or what their local minister in Bible study tells them, where the church has the magesterium, which used to be clear and concise on a teaching, but now instead of ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC you have Bishops and Priests and Diocese(insert the word Minister)doing whatever they want (England and Wales Cardinal allowing Gay masses, Mad Mahoney in LA, Cardinal Law, etc etc). 60,000 American annulments a year in the church today has made Canon Lawyers rich, thanks to the new 1982-1983 JPII code of canon law, which along with a weak and non existant pre-cana program is wreaking havoc on the Catholic family of today.
     Where on the other hand you have the Traditionals who want NOTHING/very little changed from this Council, which unified the church as she faced her biggest challenge, as well as acknowledged there were some misgivings going on in the ranks, and these Traditionals only want to worship and have their children taught exactly as the Council of Trent and later the Baltimore Catechism instructs with uniformity and cohesion and no “wiggle room”.
     The similarities to today with what is going on and the period leading up to the reformation are uncanny and one who does not learn from the past is due to repeat it
     So Esau, their is nothing in common as it is in many Traditionals mind that it was the “modern church which left them” and not the other way around
     God bless you on your journey

117. John,
     Just an observation from a passerby, but I see more in common between you and Martin Luther than I do between Esau and the Protestants.
     For what it’s worth.

118. Anon
     Not knowing who you are-please explain?
     Those who want to adhere to the faith and tradition and not “REFORM” and being called “Protestant” while those that have done the “RERFORMING” such as the church and Esau are trying very hard to be callled “Catholic”
     The problem is that the deposit of faith can never be changed or altered in any way or else it no longer falls under that domain. We have had bleak times in our history, the Reformation popes, Aryan heresy, three men all claiming to be Pope splitting the church but those that always sided with the true faith unchanged have always perservered
     God never changes nor does his church

119. “God never changes nor does his church”
     John, respectfully, that’s just silly (though it speaks volumes). Of course the Church changes. Church history is a history of change. The liturgy has changed many times, both before and after VII.
     The Deposit of Faith, of course, can not change. The Church can not teach error, and so can not reverse Herself. Our understanding of defined doctrine can grow and deepen, but can never reverse. Do you really believe that every Pope since John XXIII has somehow overlooked this?
     None the less, the teaching on salvation has not really changed substantially, at all. The Church has NEVER taught that salvation is possible only for baptized, institutional Catholics. It just hasn’t.
     The Church does not now teach that everyone is saved, or that being a Catholic doesn’t matter, or that one religion is as good as another – or anything even close.

120. Esau
     Your ramblings are making you look foolish
     And yours doesn’t????
     It is quite easy to see the similarity between the ‘reformed” church of today and that of the Protestants
     It is very easy to see the similarities between the Rad Trads and the Reformers of yesterday!
     The Reformers of yesterday at the time of Luther claimed that the Catholic Church had strayed away from the authentic teachings of Christ; sound familiar??? The Rad Trads claim that the Catholic Church of today has, likewise, strayed from the authentic teachings of Christ! Thus, it is very easy to see that RAD TRADS are really nothing but CLOSET PROTESTANTS; but, they are not as respectable as our Seperated Bretren in that they’re not HONEST about this FACT, rather, they yet have the DISHONESTY to disguise themselves as CATHOLICS even though what they do is clearly CONTRARY to it!

121. There is no conflict between the following statements;
     1) There is no salvation outside the church
     2) There is hope for salvation for those ignorant of the Church (including many who think they know about the Church, but don’t really)
     3) Those who reject the authority of the Church with full knowledge and sufficient reflection are in danger of hell.
     In relation to #2, there may be many who are united to the Church without being aware of it. This has been the constant teaching of the Church.

122. Again, John, if it didn’t hit you:
     The Reformers of yesterday at the time of Luther claimed that the Catholic Church had strayed away from the authentic teachings of Christ — Sound familiar???
     The Rad Trads claim that the Catholic Church of today, likewise, strayed from the authentic teachings of Christ!
     Thus, it is very easy to see that RAD TRADS are really nothing but CLOSET PROTESTANTS; but, they are not as respectable as our Seperated Bretren in that RAD TRADS are not HONEST about this FACT; rather, they yet have the DISHONESTY to disguise themselves as CATHOLICS even though what they do is clearly CONTRARY to the TRADITIONAL Teachings of the Catholic Church itself!
     For what else is usurping the authority that rightfully belongs to the Church and to the Pope and setting up one’s self as this authority??? This, to you, doesn’t smack of PROTESTANTISM!
     At least the Protestants of today are merely carrying out what was handed to them by those of their predecessors and, therefore, has excuse for genuinely believing the way they do.
     You and your schismatic cohorts, on the other hand, claim you know and adhere to the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church; yet, you deny the authority of the Church and the Pope, which are fundamental to the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church right down from its very beginning, as evident from the early Christian Church forward!

123. John,
     I don’t know who you are either. (Blogs are funny that way.)
     You resemble Martin Luther, from what I have seen, in that you each believed that your interpretation of Church history was more correct than the current Vicar of Christ (and/or most recent Vicars of Christ).
     Seems pretty simple to me. (Whoever me is.)

124. Just an observation from a passerby, but I see more in common between you and Martin Luther than I do between Esau and the Protestants.
     Thanks, Anon!
     God bless!

125. One -Two-Three posts in a row from Esau!!!!
     Esau-I am not leaving nor have I left the church, but it is clear that the church has reformed, for the first time in history to appease her enemies such as the Protestants, Buddhists, Moslems etc by changing her mass, canon law, catechism and beliefs instead of doing as she always done, shore up her defenses and relied on her unwavering tradition and beliefs
     If one uses the past 40 years as a yardstick, it has been a monumental failure
     As far as the Gates of Hell-Our Lord never said what shape or form or even who would be at the helm of the papacy upon his return. He never said what would happen in the interim to the church from his founding of the church and his return. To have your children being taught to kiss the koran or that it is OK to worship as a Moselm as the Holy Father did instead of fight this apostasy and try to convert these men, as sacred tradition and past actions of past popes have taught us from the Crusades on tell us this cant be correct and like during the Ayran heresy where the Bishops and papacy were in the hands of Gnostics the true Catholics blended into the countrysides

126. One -Two-Three posts in a row from Esau!!!!
     If it weren’t for the fact that you fail to graps certain points right from the get-go, perhaps I wouldn’t need to repeat myself.

127. Esau-
     Are you anti-Protestant?…

128. John, you leave the Church when you don’t accept the authority of the Pope or the Magesterium.
     You might not believe in sola fide or other Protestant ideas, but you do cast aspersions on the Pope. You also take excerpts out of context, which is a habit that Protestants have.
     For lurkers: John’s comments do not reflect Catholic teaching.

129. “Are you anti-Protestant?…”
     What does that mean, erick?

130. Tim, your 9:35 post says it clearly and succinctly.
     Maybe I’ll copy and paste it so I can just whip it out in response to John. 🙂

131. Same thing it means when Rome uses “anti-Catholic”.- I guess!.

132. Does “Rome” use that word?
     Where can I find this “Rome” of whom you speak? Do they have a blog?

133. sigh!.

134. Esau-
     Are you anti-Protestant?…
     sigh!.

135. Mary Kay
     Simple question and I ask for you to answer as a simple yes or no
     Knowing your faith, If the Pope tomorrow allowed openly homosexual priests, refused to condemn publicly those that abuse little children who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, agreed to relax the rules and cast doubt on both form and matter of all of the sacraments, changed the Mass from the present Mass that you find so “reverent” to something that is akin to your local Lutheran or Episcopal church, and promulgated teachings of a “One World Religion”-Would you follow along and let your children be taught akin to the above?
     If the church is to ever unchanging-would someone who lived in the 16th, 17th, 18, 19th 20th etc century who was clergy or laity and was a devout catholic came back today and attended mass at your local parish-would he or she know they were in a Catholic church?
     Simple yes or No would suffice

136. John:
     Simple question and I ask for you to answer as a simple yes or no
     1. Do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church?
     2. Do you accept the authority of the Pope?
     Simple yes or No would suffice

137. Esau,
     Any chance of lightening up on the use of bold and CAPITAL letters? It’s hurting my ears!

138. As a follow-up to the above–the use of these features, along with your tone, feels like “shouting”. It doesn’t convey your message well. You will be hard-pressed to convince others of your points due to your style of delivery.
     Other posters use a much more restrained (and terse!) style and language, which–based upon “feel” only, not upon content–make one want to consider their points more carefully.
     Just my 2 cents.

139. Going Deaf:
     If there is something you find wrong in anything I have said in my posts here, then, by all means, refute it.

140. Esau,
     You missed my point. It’s not the content of your posts I’m addressing, but their style, tone and formatting.
     At least for me, the use of bold, italics, and capital letters is an immediate turn-off to even reading your posts, let alone giving them careful consideration. Moreover, your sometimes harsh, aggressive tone is a secondary turn-off.
     None of the above says that your content is necessary wrong, just that the delivery style is less effective than it could be.

141. John,
     Have you stopped beating your wife?
     A simple yes or no will suffice.

142. Understood.
     Thanks Going Deaf!
     I guess sometimes my passion for the Church overwhelms me so much that I can’t help but want to convey that in my writing.
     I appreciate your patience and charity!
     I will try to restrain myself in my comments as well as the accentuation of certain points.
     God bless!

143. You know, Going Deaf, taking a second look at my bolded comments above, I can’t help but think of the old Batman series with Adam West and Burt Ward where they had those POW and BAM cartoon-like bubbles each time they fought the villians! <=^)

144. I’ll be your “honey suckle”!-
     Your positions are quite easily refutable!
     Can I take the “challenge”?.

145. 🙂

146. erick: Not to speak for Esau here but … We’re all on pins and needles waiting to see if you do take the challenge.
     Anything anyone says here is open to that challenge so go for it.

147. Knowing your faith, If the Pope tomorrow allowed openly homosexual priests,
     I live in a city where did try to openly support homosexuals and the Vatican said they had to stop or be excommunicated. The Pope is never going to allow openly homosexual priests. Your question is rhetorical.
     refused to condemn publicly those that abuse little children who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders,
     John Paul II did condemn above, I don’t have the time at the moment to look up time and place
     agreed to relax the rules and cast doubt on both form and matter of all of the sacraments,
     Hasn’t happened, won’t happen. Another rhetorical question.
     changed the Mass from the present Mass that you find so “reverent” to something that is akin to your local Lutheran or Episcopal church,
     Hasn’t happened, won’t happen. Another rhetorical question.
     and promulgated teachings of a “One World Religion”
     Hasn’t happened, won’t happened.
     You stated the Pope. Dissident priests have been… well, dissenting. But they are dissenting from Catholic orthodoxy.
     When are you going to answer Esau’s question?

148. JOHN:
     If you DENY that Rad Trads are not, in all actuality, CLOSET PROTESTANTS, then take a gander at the following:
     MARTIN LUTHER had said:
     “. . . The pope . . . and his will let the Church be destroyed. Thus he has turned himself out of the Church . . .
     Therefore we, whom the pope has so sadly deserted, can do nothing else than go elsewhere for advice and help, and begin by seeking and praying for a reformation from our Lord Christ…
     For because of these abandoned tyrants, who compel us to despair of a council and a reformation, we must not despair of Christ, or leave the Church without advice or help; but we must do what we can, and let them go to the devil, as they desire…
     They allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church . . . since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are . . . But if they cannot prove it . . . they are not the church and . . . we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church…
     Who can tell all the abominable innovations you have devised . . .”
     Likewise, JOHN (jtnova), had said (in a compilation of his comments below):
     “Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after V2 the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion …
     A Catholic, therefore, would owe no obedience to someone who does not truly possess the Church’s authority or teaches error…
     In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name. To obey modernist and heretical “popes” is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely – quod absit!…
     …we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed…
     …Those that are “traditional” continue to grow, except we dont have the huge resources of the church and are barely 20 years old and it takes time to get the money for new church’s and priests…
     …the church on up to the Pope, started by John XXIII and culminating in Paul VI who basically continued with the wrecking ball-who are men in charge of the deposit of faith and tradition as handed down as well as being responsible for the salvation of 1B Catholics-take it upon themselves to change everything, change customs (can someone please show me where receiving our Lord in the hand is documented in the original document on the liturgy and why it is allowed? (not talking about the GIRM)and basically reinvent the church as they saw fit…”
     SO, RAD TRADS: CLOSET PROTESTANTS???
     The facts above speak for themselves!

149. Esau—–
     You live in a contradictory world view that constantly makes you look bad!.
     To you, the Holy Scriptures are just there–powerless–divineless–lethargic—
     Until one day– Bam! Rome touches them and suddenly are vested with power-, authority and wisdom- but insofar as Rome dictates as to the extent of these attributes!.
     Sorry, but this (as I’ve said before) leaves you with the inescapable conclusion that you adhere to sola ecclesia!
     It is Rome the reason you give for not only being a Christian but for the knowledge of God Himself.
     Without Her you have no faith!.
     Without Her you have no Bible.
     Without Her you have no eternal life.
     Without Her you have no God.
     Sola ecclesia!.
     Your “theology” belongs to Rome, and She in turn gives it to you filtered through Her own private interpretation.
     Why do you believe in God Esau?.

150. Erick,
     What say you about the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox?
     Without Rome do they have the Bible?
     Without Rome do they have Faith?
     Without Rome do they have Eternal Life?
     Without Rome do they have God?
     Does their Theology belong to Rome as well?

151. Dr. Eric
     The same questions go for whom ever you wish!
     Myself included!.

152. “To you, the Holy Scriptures are just there–powerless–divineless–lethargic—
     Until one day– Bam! Rome touches them and suddenly are vested with power-, authority and wisdom-”
     Care to show me where you got that, erick? It is at the very best a caricature, a parody, a straw man. It also brings back memories of your previous trolling here, ad nauseum.
     Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so?

153. erick, do you have a blog? I’d love to drop in.

154. Again erick:
     THE QUESTION RE: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
     The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just what books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books are authentically inspired and can be deemed as Scripture. Now, as I’ve stated in my previous posts (posts in other threads where I submitted various significant points that you have yet to refute) there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of these formed Scripture.
     Now, as I’ve said, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church considered as part of the New Testament, which Protestants to this day still put faith in.
     That is, you might as well do like what the Jesus Seminar folks are doing —
     You should, by your own authority (since you don’t acknowledge that of the Church), re-consider all the books that are currently in the bible, but also, in addition, take up all those other books that the Catholic Church rejected time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). I mean, who’s to say that the Catholic Church made a mistake in rejecting all those books that they threw out in deciding the Canon of the New Testament???
     However, the MAIN QUESTION I’d like you to answer:
     What would, then, be your criteria for determining if a book should be part of Scripture? Is it because it’s written by an Apostle?
     Many bible scholars would beg to differ since there are many books in the Bible that are not.
     For example, do you actually consider Hebrews as part of the Scripture? Do you know that to this day, nobody actually knows who wrote it?
     Even Protestant bible scholars know that! Even my Protestant minister, who was the head of a big congregation throughout the United States, acknowledged that and many other Protestant seminary professors as well.
     But, if you should actually accept Hebrews as part of Scripture, then why???? What makes it so special??? What makes it authentic??? What makes you actually think it’s God-breathed???
     For all you know, it could’ve been written by whatever other phoney in the past, even one who may have been a mental case!
     Now, a lot of folks (including you it seems) underplay this fact — although Dr. Martinus Luther actually acknowledged the fact that “if it weren’t for the papists, we (Protestants) wouldn’t have the bible”!
     Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
     In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
     “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
     DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IN THE EARLY CHURCH
     There were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, for example. I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews as part of Scripture and said that they were not, in fact, inspired.
     Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
     The fact of the matter is that the Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided which books were to be included as part of Scripture, as part of the Bible, as part of the New Testament!
     FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
     Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
     That is a matter of historical fact.
     You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
     Again:
     As I’ve requested from you countless times, I would be very interested in your criteria in determining just exactly what makes a book Scripture from one that actually isn’t??? And if you really do not trust the Catholic Church, then why trust their judgment about what books comprise the New Testament???
     THE DOGMAS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
     Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture. The word Trinity is not there. It was even a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD. Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture. The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
     Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
     I believe that’s exactly why God gave us the Church to begin with!
     If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not in written form. The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and Jesus’ teaching was oral (he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the spoken word and other elements of Tradition like liturgical action that were not written down.
     That Tradition then – I should explain, ‘That which is handed on’ – and so if you have the body of Christian belief, it was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing, which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
     Like, for example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or not; or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
     We know people are supposed to be baptized but we don’t have the details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
     The reason for that is pretty clear:
     Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects for you to be an Early Christian, reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church to answer those questions for you.
     In fact, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
     1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
     AND
     Paul actually says:
     2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
     Even 1 Cor 11 which uses the same Greek word “Paradosis”: “I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions” as well as in 2 Thess 3:6 says the same thing.
     So, were called to hold fast to Tradition and, as Catholics, we actually draw from the Old Testament.
     THE “TRADITION” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE ORAL TORAH & THE WRITTEN TORAH
     The Jews had two fountains from which they received God’s Word.
     According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
     “We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
     THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
     He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh).
     Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was orally transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”
     Remember, Jesus acknowledged that Tradition. He made a distinction between the traditions of men in Matthew 15 that are bad from the AUTHORITATIVE Tradition that Jesus, himself, acknowledged such as the teaching of the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23.
     Now, do you know why Jesus said those things to Peter in Matthew 16:18????
     Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
     Of course, you’ll probably revert back to your magnificent and brilliant argument:
     “I believe the books of the bible are inspired, God-breathed, authentic, etc. because the Bible tells me so, and that’s the only authority I go by and that is all I know!”

155. Esau (and Mary Kay)
     Your ramblings make no sense and have no logic
     Lets see if you follow this simple analogy as to why the church today is much more in line with Protestanism than any so called “Trad”, whom you along with Catholic Answers label “Rad Trad”:
     Reformation=REFORM=Protestant=Vatican II “REFORM”=Church after 1962
     TRADITIONAL=TRADERE “Latin root=to teach, to hand over, to pass down”=The same=One=Catholic
     So-who is more close to the Protestants??????

156. Esau (and Mary Kay)
     whom you along with Catholic Answers label “Rad Trad”:
     John, don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that and I’d appreciate your retracting it.

157. John,
     You seem to have an affinity for logic.
     Your argument seems to be that self-styled “traditionalists” must be more in line with the traditional teachings of the Church because…they call themselves “traditionalits.”
     Mormons call themselves “Christians” while denying the divinity of Christ. The application of your “logic” would leave us powerless to say they are not Christians.
     A self-styled “traditionalist” who argues that Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils are heretics and/or heretical is no more a “traditional Catholic” than a Mormon is a “Christian.”
     Logically speaking.

158. Mary
     You never called me a “Rad Trad”?
     Well if not then I apologize.
     Name calling seems to be envogue with many here it seems though. I have 20 councils to pull from for my research as an Apologist and not just the last council which bent and distorted the truth I am sad to say to suit its modernistic agenda, an agenda denounced by Pope Pius X among others. Such infiltration was at the highest levels within the church he had all clergy take an Oath against Modernism, which was quickly done away with by John XXIII and Paul VI, not to mention the Papal Oath, which JPII refused to take and which every Pope since the 6th century took. But an agenda was in play
     Again
     Protestant=Protest=Reform=Church after 1962
     Traditional=Tradere=to pass down unchanged=One=Catholic
     Simple Analogy

159. Protestant=Protest=Reform=Church after 1962
     Traditional=Tradere=to pass down unchanged=One=Catholic
     John:
     Your logic is so screwed up!
     You mean to tell me that just because you call yourselves “Traditionalists“, that this actually makes you so????
     How about those Communist countries that call themselves “Republics”??? Are they, in fact, “Republics” just because they’re called that???

160. Erick,
     Without Her you have no faith!.
     Without Her you have no Bible.
     Without Her you have no eternal life.
     Without Her you have no God.
     Assuming that “Her” is the Church, which is in turn the Body of Christ, I would respond as follows:
     Without Her you have no faith!
     Correct. No one has true faith apart from the Body of Christ, much as no branch has life separated from the vine.
     Without Her you have no Bible.
     Again, correct. (Most non-Catholics acknowledge this point, don’t they?) But since God gave the Bible to His Church, it does stand to reason that I would not have it unless the Church gave it to me.
     Without Her you have no eternal life.
     Since one needs faith for eternal life, this is pretty much disposed of in the answer to the first question, no?
     Without Her you have no God.
     God’s existence, obviously enough, is not dependent on anything I do. But to the extent I willingly separate myself from the Body of Christ, I would be foolish to say that I “have Christ.” So again, you would be correct.
     Neither God, nor Scripture, nor faith, nor eternal life exist because the Church says they do.
     The Church exists because the Word of God spoke it into existence. It has authority because He gave it authority. Not the other way around.

161. Tim J—-
     No , it is not a caricature—
     Rome defines not only the extent of Scripture, but its authority as well!!!– You know that.
     Or are you willing to state that Rome is subservient to Scripture?.
     For someone who attended “school”— you sure resort to name calling!!!!— why?
     Can’t take it?
     As for Esau’s “lesson” in textual criticism….it only furthers my point that he cannot answer not one of my questions.
     Incidentally– why do YOU believe in God Tim?.
     “Neither God, nor Scripture, nor faith, nor eternal life exist because the Church says they do”—Amen to that Esquire!.—Now, tell it to Esau who is bent on “thanking” Rome for The Bible.

162. “Name calling seems to be envogue with many here it seems though”- John.
     Amen to that too!.
     I guess you only deserve respect if you are Roman Catholic posting here!…

163. I guess you only deserve respect if you are Roman Catholic posting here!…
     IF that were, in fact, the case, what of the manner John is treated?
     He is treated as equally as you or anyone here!
     Once again, erick, you REFUSE to answer any of my questions.
     You always AVOID my questions since you CANNOT answer them.
     What is your criteria for accepting the books comprising the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon??? Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of that New Testament Canon? If so, why???

164. From what I see, there has always been a sort of ‘protesting’ in the Church, all the way back to the first public teachings of Christ. These first ‘protesters’ or ‘protestants’ agaisnt Jesus, were the ‘pharisees’, Sadducees, Nazarenes and leaders of the Jews. But, even the Apostles themselves protested, at times, as they followed their Master throughout His preaching tours of Judea and Galilee
     And Jesus in these circumstances, often showed his dismay, if not displeasure, when His Apostles thought to restict, package or bottle up His novel doctrines and charitable doings, even to the forgetting of normal meal times, etc..
     But even so, He remained patient with them.
     And much of the protests, both with the Pharisees themselves, and even with the Apostles, were in circumstances where Jesus appeared to be ‘unduly’ lenient, or permissive, in the normal practices and religious customs of His day. Just remember when the disciples wanted to turn the children out, thinking that, since they lacked sufficient reason, they were unfit to occupy the precious time of the Lord…wherein they would only be a burden.
     But Jesus corrected them!
     “But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” Matthew 19:14
     And so with the Pharisees. They would not stop pursuing Him for things like healing on the Sabbath, failing to follow the common cleansing rituals, eating with known ‘sinners’ and forgiving sins. They were all protesting that basically Jesus wasn’t following the normal rules..He was being too loose..and possibly even being too loving, without the proper authority to be such!
     Now, why were the Pharisses so blind in the times of Jesus? The Lord gives us a hint when he gives his disciples an essential lesson when He says:
     “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”
     And the word hypocrisy comes from the Greek, and was used in the theater in Jusus’ time at Sepphoris, only 4 miles distance from Nazareth.. a word derived from hupokrites (hoop-ok-ree-tace’)which means an actor, a stage player, a pretender. And he uses this word 17 times in the Gospels!
     “12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
     So, what we learn from this is that there are many ‘actors’ out there in the world of Religion.(..even as Judas was one also) And furthermore, Jesus wants His true disciples to be very careful to avoid such ‘leaven’, which can ‘raise’ them high above all others. And with the above quote on the children, don’t we see that being high, smart, logical, socially acceptable, and knowledgable in humanly interpreted theology, does not guarantee, in any way, entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.
     And that also, some of these elements can easily be corrupted into ‘pure’ leaven…and becaome a great ‘social’, theatrical act, for mere human praise,.. and possibly an easier way of gaining of living? And herein Jesus stresses that the “leaven’ of hypocrisy should be guarded against by every true follower of His, as being against Truth itself.
     Now, how does this relate to the debates at hand on this site?
     With the ‘so-called’ Rad-trads, we can see that they are indeed ‘protesting’. They are also protesting against looser interpretations of the messege of Christ than they prefer. Forgetting that many of the present liturgical rites the Church uses have been adapted hundreds or possibly even thousands of times before–considering there were times in Church history where there was very little uniformity at all in these regards, they make it seem as if there is only one ‘orthodox’ way of doing things…all the other ways as being ‘heretical’. The pharisees used the exact same types of arguments against Jesus, relying on their man made traditions. But what they forgot about was the TRUTH. So too they forgot about Love of God, and Love of Neighbor as being the two greatest commandments! In all of their logic and excellent theological reasonings, they mistook the ‘knat ‘ for the ‘Camel’..the essentially and eternally important things, for minor items, man made customs.. that were changeable and just mere ‘aids’ to religion and devotion.
     So this is a mistake that I think many people make, and especially these so-called Rad-Trads.
     They are so focused on their own view of what the Catholic faith should be, that they can’t agree to follow the present authority in the Church when this authority sees fit to interpret, or adapt, Church teachings and customs to the needs of the modern world. Isn’t this what they’re complaining about?
     However, to sort all things out, we need to really re-examine the Gospels, and the teachings of Jesus. We need to be sure, that indeed we aren’t adding ‘leaven’ to our teachings and doctrines, but that they are centered not only on logic, but on loving kindness, true prayer and devotion, and mercy as well.Likewise, everything should be simple to understand and suitable even to ‘little Children’.

165. erick:
     Allow me to lend you a hand.
     Here’s a list of books for you to get started:
     The Book of Jasher
     The Book of the Wars of the Lord
     The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the kings of Judah
     Books of Chronicles
     The Book of Shemaiah
     The Covenant Code
     The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
     The Acts of Solomon[3]
     The Annals of King David[4]
     The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]
     The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]
     The Book of Gad the Seer[7]
     The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]
     The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]
     The Visions of Iddo the Seer
     The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]
     Iddo Genealogies
     The Story of the Prophet Iddo
     The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[13]
     The Book of Jehu[14]
     The Story of the Book of Kings[15]
     The Acts of Uziah[16]
     The Vision of Isaiah[17]
     The Acts of the Kings of Israel[18]
     The Sayings of the Seers[19]
     The Laments for Josiah[20]
     The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[21]
     The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia[22]
     The Epistle of Jude
     The Epistle to Corinth
     The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
     The Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
     The Earlier Epistle of John
     Missing Epistle of Jude
     The Wisdom of Solomon
     The Wisdom of Sirach
     Maccabees (I)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (IV)
     Esther
     Judith
     Tobit
     Adam
     Enoch
     Lamech
     The Patriarchs
     The Prayer of Joseph
     Eldad and Modad
     The Testament of Moses
     The Assumption of Moses
     The Psalms of Solomon
     The Revelation of Elias
     The Vision of Isaiah
     The Revelation of Zephaniah
     The Revelation of Zechariah
     The Revelation of Ezra
     The History of James
     The Revelation of Peter
     The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
     The Epistle of Barnabas
     The Acts of Paul
     The Revelation of Paul
     The Teaching of Clement
     The Teaching of Ignatius
     The Teaching of Polycarp
     The Gospel according to Barnabas
     The Gospel according to Matthias

166. erick:
     What is your criteria for accepting the books comprising the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon??? Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of that New Testament Canon? If so, why???
     Here, let me give you a hand:
     The Book of Jasher
     The Book of the Wars of the Lord
     The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the kings of Judah
     Books of Chronicles
     The Book of Shemaiah
     The Covenant Code
     The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
     The Acts of Solomon[3]
     The Annals of King David[4]
     The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]
     The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]
     The Book of Gad the Seer[7]
     The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]
     The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]
     The Visions of Iddo the Seer
     The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]
     Iddo Genealogies
     The Story of the Prophet Iddo
     The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[13]
     The Book of Jehu[14]
     The Story of the Book of Kings[15]
     The Acts of Uziah[16]
     The Vision of Isaiah[17]
     The Acts of the Kings of Israel[18]
     The Sayings of the Seers[19]
     The Laments for Josiah[20]
     The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[21]
     The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia[22]
     The Epistle of Jude
     The Epistle to Corinth
     The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
     The Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
     The Earlier Epistle of John
     Missing Epistle of Jude
     The Wisdom of Solomon
     The Wisdom of Sirach
     Maccabees (I)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (IV)
     Esther
     Judith
     Tobit
     Adam
     Enoch
     Lamech
     The Patriarchs
     The Prayer of Joseph
     Eldad and Modad
     The Testament of Moses
     The Assumption of Moses
     The Psalms of Solomon
     The Revelation of Elias
     The Vision of Isaiah
     The Revelation of Zephaniah
     The Revelation of Zechariah
     The Revelation of Ezra
     The History of James
     The Revelation of Peter
     The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
     The Epistle of Barnabas
     The Acts of Paul
     The Revelation of Paul
     The Teaching of Clement
     The Teaching of Ignatius
     The Teaching of Polycarp
     The Gospel according to Barnabas
     The Gospel according to Matthias

167. Ooops!
     I think I also included in there some Old Testament books that were rejected, too!
     Anyway, maybe you could lend me a hand in deciding those as well???

168. Esau—
     You stated a Challenge….. I stepped up to the plate!!!! I challenged your “theology”.
     You, instead of dealing with the subject at hand … went on having a one man question and answer time , all to none effect I may add.
     I guess that makes you look good in front of the unsuspecting fans you have, but you have not fooled the un-biased bystander.

169. Tim J-
     No I do not have a blog—-
     But you are more than welcome to e-mail me anytime!!!!- and I say this with a friendly attitude.

170. erick:
     I love how you AVOID the questions I pose you by your petty tactics at diversion!
     You, instead of dealing with the subject at hand attempt to divert attention from the fact that you are incapable of meeting the challenge I pose to you and cannot simply give answer to the question I submitted to you.

171. Still waiting…

172. esau-.
     Amnesia_?
     It was I who took the challenge to question YOUR “theology”…..
     Ever hear of Ginkgo Biloba?– . I hear its great for memory loss!.

173. erick:
     Was that your answer to my question:
     What is your criteria for accepting the books comprising the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon??? Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of that New Testament Canon? If so, why???
     IF you cannot answer my question, then say so.
     IF you CAN, then DO SO!

174. esau-
     Don’t ever challenge anyone to question your “theology” unless you are FULLY prepared to answer(1PET 3:15).

175. erick:
     That’s just it — you didn’t take up the CHALLENGE!
     Allow me to ask you this:
     Is a challenge actually taken up by the one who simply slaps his opponent with his glove? Or is it when that person actually engages in the duel (e.g., swordfight) that that person actually takes up the challenge?
     As for you, you’ve never even engaged in the “duel” as you keep backing off from each swordplay I put forth against you!
     So, have you, in fact, taken up the challenge???
     I beg to differ!

176. Further:
     …unless you are FULLY prepared to answer (1PET 3:15).
     What do you call my Feb 27, 2007 2:21:03 PM post then as well as my questions to you above???
     To remind you:

     Esau’s FULLY prepared answer to erick:
     
     The Canon of Scripture

177. Did I call you a name, erick?
     Anyway…
     “Or are you willing to state that Rome is subservient to Scripture…”
     OF COURSE the Church is subserviant to scripture! How can you not know that after all our tedious back-and-forth?
     The Church is subserviant to the whole word of God, written OR oral.
     The FACT that the Church established the authoritative Canon does not in any way place the Church above the scriptures, but we have been over this.
     Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium are not in competition with one another. They are complementary. Where one is, the others are also.
     I believe in God because I find no meaningful alternative to explain the universe, to explain me, or to explain anything. I believe in God for every reason you can think of.
     I believe in the Gospel because it answers perfectly the problems of the human condition, because it was handed on to me by trustworthy people, and on the testimony of history and logic. You might want to check into the thread on Faith and Reason for more. I don’t want to repeat myself.
     I believe in the Church because I find it supported in the scriptures, in history, and by logic. I became a Catholic from Protestantism because it became apparent to me that the latter was unsupportable from history, unbiblical, and logically untenable. I found in the Church the fullness of faith in Jesus Christ. In leaving Protestantism, all I lost was the protest.
     Now…
     Why do you believe the scriptures are the word of God?

178. BOLD OFF!

179. Tim J-
     “OF COURSE the Church is subserviant to scripture! How can you not know that after all our tedious back-and-forth?”.
     You would not know that by the postings of esau and the like.
     How can THAT which produces something-be a servant of the product?—in other words if Rome produced the Bible-(see the textual critique above by your friend)- then it is scripture which owes its very existence to Rome!.
     After all. no Rome- no bible—
     Show me where I am wrong in this !.
     By the way Both esau and you think you’ve got one up on me with this question!.
     If you think that Rome is the inescapable answer as to who gave us the new testamet— then I’m glad you left “protestantism”.
     I doubt that you were ever one!.
     If you think that Rome is the inescapable answer to who “produced” the new testament, then you cannot truly believe that Rome is subserviant to Scripture, for the reason I listed above.
     You may pay lip service to the preeminence of Scripture— but there again you cannot know ANYTHING about it unless Rome dictates to you how so.
     The Church discovered Scripture.
     The Church did not PRODUCE Scripture.
     The Church is a servant to Scripture.
     The Church is not master over Scripture.
     Scripture is God breathed divine and inerrant.
     The Church is composed of sinners who need Jesus.
     .

180. erick:
     What is your criteria for accepting the books comprising the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon??? Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of that New Testament Canon? If so, why???
     Here, let me give you a hand:
     The Book of Jasher
     The Book of the Wars of the Lord
     The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the kings of Judah
     Books of Chronicles
     The Book of Shemaiah
     The Covenant Code
     The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
     The Acts of Solomon[3]
     The Annals of King David[4]
     The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]
     The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]
     The Book of Gad the Seer[7]
     The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]
     The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]
     The Visions of Iddo the Seer
     The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]
     Iddo Genealogies
     The Story of the Prophet Iddo
     The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[13]
     The Book of Jehu[14]
     The Story of the Book of Kings[15]
     The Acts of Uziah[16]
     The Vision of Isaiah[17]
     The Acts of the Kings of Israel[18]
     The Sayings of the Seers[19]
     The Laments for Josiah[20]
     The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[21]
     The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia[22]
     The Epistle of Jude
     The Epistle to Corinth
     The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
     The Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
     The Earlier Epistle of John
     Missing Epistle of Jude
     The Wisdom of Solomon
     The Wisdom of Sirach
     Maccabees (I)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (IV)
     Esther
     Judith
     Tobit
     Adam
     Enoch
     Lamech
     The Patriarchs
     The Prayer of Joseph
     Eldad and Modad
     The Testament of Moses
     The Assumption of Moses
     The Psalms of Solomon
     The Revelation of Elias
     The Vision of Isaiah
     The Revelation of Zephaniah
     The Revelation of Zechariah
     The Revelation of Ezra
     The History of James
     The Revelation of Peter
     The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
     The Epistle of Barnabas
     The Acts of Paul
     The Revelation of Paul
     The Teaching of Clement
     The Teaching of Ignatius
     The Teaching of Polycarp
     The Gospel according to Barnabas
     The Gospel according to Matthias
     Still waiting…

181. erick says: Scripture is God breathed divine and inerrant.
     The question is: How does erick know this????
     How about these books:
     The Book of Jasher
     The Book of the Wars of the Lord
     The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the Kings of Israel
     The Books of annals of the kings of Judah
     Books of Chronicles
     The Book of Shemaiah
     The Covenant Code
     The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
     The Acts of Solomon[3]
     The Annals of King David[4]
     The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]
     The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]
     The Book of Gad the Seer[7]
     The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]
     The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]
     The Visions of Iddo the Seer
     The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]
     Iddo Genealogies
     The Story of the Prophet Iddo
     The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[13]
     The Book of Jehu[14]
     The Story of the Book of Kings[15]
     The Acts of Uziah[16]
     The Vision of Isaiah[17]
     The Acts of the Kings of Israel[18]
     The Sayings of the Seers[19]
     The Laments for Josiah[20]
     The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[21]
     The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia[22]
     The Epistle of Jude
     The Epistle to Corinth
     The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
     The Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
     The Earlier Epistle of John
     Missing Epistle of Jude
     The Wisdom of Solomon
     The Wisdom of Sirach
     Maccabees (I)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (II)
     Maccabees (IV)
     Esther
     Judith
     Tobit
     Adam
     Enoch
     Lamech
     The Patriarchs
     The Prayer of Joseph
     Eldad and Modad
     The Testament of Moses
     The Assumption of Moses
     The Psalms of Solomon
     The Revelation of Elias
     The Vision of Isaiah
     The Revelation of Zephaniah
     The Revelation of Zechariah
     The Revelation of Ezra
     The History of James
     The Revelation of Peter
     The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
     The Epistle of Barnabas
     The Acts of Paul
     The Revelation of Paul
     The Teaching of Clement
     The Teaching of Ignatius
     The Teaching of Polycarp
     The Gospel according to Barnabas
     The Gospel according to Matthias
     Still waiting for an answer…

182. erick says:
     Scripture is God breathed divine and inerrant.
     How does erick know this?
     “Because the Bible tells me so!”
     And then erick says to folks on this blog (as he did on past threads): “Your arguments are so circular!”
     However, what kind of argument do we, in fact, have here???
     Scripture is God breathed divine and inerrant.
     Why??? Because Scripture tells me so!

183. After all. no Rome- no bible—
     Show me where I am wrong in this !.
     That’s just it, erick… if you are SO RIGHT, then you should ANSWER MY QUESTION!
     What is your criteria for accepting the books comprising the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon??? Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of the New Testament Canon? If so, why???
     WAIT! I think I have an answer to your dilemma!!!!
     It wasn’t really the Catholic Church that decided the Canon of Scripture after all!!!!
     Actually, you know what happened????
     The bishops of the early church actually prayed to God and God e-mailed (ooopsss!) — I mean — a letter fell from the heavens which featured a list of books God had instructed the bishops to accept as part of Scripture and, thus, all the other books listed above were therefore rejected!
     Viola!
     I solved your problem!
     (Actually, there were more books than just those in the above list, but who cares??? Right???)
     –OR–
     Could it be that the Church preceded Scripture???
     Maybe that’s why Jesus established a CHURCH and NOT a BOOK!
     As Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18:
     Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
     Even further, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
     1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
     AND
     Paul actually says:
     2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

184. Esau, good going my brother!!
     Not sure if it’s appropriate to ask this in this blog topic but I don’t know how else to contact you. So, please forgive me if I’m out of step! Can you help clarify a few things for me and the people at church who are readying for the Holy Week readings?
     Paschales Solemnitatis states:
     33. The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the part of Christ, the narrator, and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of the Christ should be reserved to the priest.
     The proclamation of the passion should be without candles and incense; the greeting and the sings of the cross are omitted; and only a deacon asks for the blessing, as he does before the Gospel. [37] For the spiritual good of the faithful, the passion should be proclaimed in its entirety, and the readings that proceed it should not be omitted.
     We take it to mean that after the second Good Friday reading the priest and the faithful omit the usual greeting before the Gospel, “the Lord be with you…, The priest simply begins by proclaiming “The Passion of our Lord…” and we skip the usual response “Glory to you…and also omit the crosses on our forehead, lips, and heart.
     PasSol mentions the Passion is to be done in three parts but we have never seen it printed in only three part. We take this to mean that the faithful DO NOT also join the priest, narrator and the third reader at any time during the reading of the passion; is this right? If so, then we could simply amend the multiple part version we have at hand into three parts: Jesus, Narrator and Third reader takes all other parts.
     As you know I am not Catholic (yet) but do attend and the local Catholic church and help out in as many “go for” ways as possible. These questions arose while the group was putting the lector schedule together. After many years of just doing what the “missalette” says, we thought it best to read and study a bit –and to actually try to do this right – of course that means we need answers!
     Many thanks for your help!
     Grace and peace.

185. Clarification of above posting:
     I realize Paschales Solemnitatis [33] refers to both the Palm Sunday and Good Friday readings of the Passion, not jusst to Good Friday:]

186. esau-
     There you go again….a one man show. One man’s debate with a fictional character!.
     You posted a challenge—but now you twist things (as you do The Scriptures)-and suddenly it is I who challenged you to question MY faith?.
     Let the above postings show the truth.
     Incidentally… I do believe that The Church is the “pillar” of truth…yet somehow YOU seem to believe that your Church is THE TRUTH.
     How can that which holds (pillar) be that which it holds (truth) at the same time? .
     “My word is truth” Jesus said….again The Church is to uphold, serve, be the pillar of truth…
     the Church was never spoken of as being “truth”.
     but never mind, you backed down from your acceptance of a challenge…you never thought it would come from me did you?.

187. Kaneohe, it’s always good to see your posts.
     After many years of just doing what the “missalette” says, we thought it best to read and study a bit –and to actually try to do this right
     That’s a good question.
     SolPas was probably directed towards people doing things such as assigning the part of Jesus to a woman, holding the Easter Vigil at say 4 pm and treating it like a regular Sunday vigil, ending the reading with simply the sound of a nail being hammered into wood, things like that.
     As for the congregation saying a few lines, the missalette follows the rubrics, so I would think it is safe to “follow what the missalette says.”

188. erick, when do you suppose the Church began? When some people gathered around a New Testament?
     The Church began at Pentecost, when not one book of the NT was in existence. The Church (you know, all those early Christians) then proceeded to write the books of the New Testament. Later, the Church set down an authoritative list of books in the Canon, so that people like you would know what WAS the word of God and what wasn’t.
     Logically, the Bible was either produced within the Church, or outside it. Do you maintain it came from outside the Church? You say the Church “discovered” the Scriptures? Did they trip over them in the road? Did they find them under a bed?
     The Scriptures sprang from the Church, and not the other way around. That is a fact, unless you have some secret knowledge the rest of the world is not privy to.
     The Scriptures are the revelation of God, and as such, though the Church gave birth to them, the Church also is their servant. Part of that service to the Word of God was protecting and preserving it by establishing an authoritative canon. Anyone can make their own canon of Scripture, but only ONE body has had the authority to proclaim a canon as binding on the Christian faithful, and make it stick. There was a great deal of controversy about which books were scripture and which were not, until the Church settled the issue. Afterward, you had the Canon, and you had “everything else”. Period.
     Oh, and your insistence on using the word “Rome” when referring to the Church is just weird. “Rome” could not write the Bible. Rome is a city. The Church was centered in Jerusalem when most of the NT was written, though Peter and Paul died in Rome, by all accounts.
     If you prefer geographic labels, though, I could refer to the Presbyterian faith as “that Scottish sect” if it would make you feel better.

189. Now…
     Why do you believe the scriptures are the word of God?

190. Just to add fuel to the fire:
     Taking a very literal understanding of what “Scripture” means — i.e., that which has been written down (study some Latin), then a very literal rendition of the verse says “all that has been written down is God-breathed.”

191. Esau,
     You are totally correct when you say that “Jesus established a CHURCH and NOT a BOOK!”
     Does anyone who has carefully read the Gospels NOT know that Jesus was very versed in Scripture, and could very easily have, if he wanted to, written a book(ie. papyrus scroll)? Furthermore, everyone knows that an autobiography always has more insight and personal truth, in revealing a person’s thoughts and soul, than just a ‘biography’, which the Gospels are, and yet still…Jesus DID NOT write His GOSPEL. This is a real ‘conundrum’ for all those who are so brainwashed as to think that the Bible alone contains everything that we will ever need to understand the will of God.
     So it is very clear, and even says so in the Gospels themselves, (for those that demand such literal proof): “Peter, you are rock and upon this rock I will found MY CHURCH”. He could have easily said…”I am Jesus and here is my written Gospel,written by my owm hand, so that all may have it before their eyes, yes, even until the end of the world!”
     But He didn’t decide to do this!
     But those who really know the Lord understand why He didn’t choose this method! And the most easily understood reason is that almost nobody knew how to read in His day, they were almost ALL illiterate, especially the pagans. Until the invention of the printing press, about 1500 years after the birth of Christ, transcribing any written literature was both extremely costly, and also extremely laborious!
     Jesus, being our God, and knowing all of these deficiencies of man, used another method. And of course, His method is entirely superior…but something that fundementalist ‘Bible Thumpers’ will never understand, no matter how many times they read the Bible! And that is…He chose to be resurrected form the dead….and then to send THE HOLY SPIRIT into the world!
     And so ‘Bible thumpers’ don’t understand that it is not only “The BIBLE” that they need! They need the actual Holy Spirit to UNDERSTAND the Bible. And don’t you think this is the reason that the Apostles were with Jesus almost EVERYDAY–by his very side–carefully listening to Him… and yet they STILL could not understand much of what He was teaching? How many times did He need to say to them: Do you still have no PERCEPTION? Do you still not understand??..Oh,you men of little faith!
     But Jesus promised that THE HOLY SPIRIT would one day remind them of everything that He taught. This is the POWER that they, (and we too)really needed…that is, COMPREHENSION.
     On another note, regarding the actual practice of trusting in Jesus’ teaching, and ‘putting into practice’ the teachings in the Gospel:
     On occasion, when ‘Bible Thumpers’ want to debate me over religious items, (like trying to attack the Catholic faith, for instance) .. they always want to debate with the bible in their hands! They almost cuddle it, and stroke it, like a weapon of sort, primed and ‘ready to kill’a decieved Catholic with it–or so they might wish or think. Thisnking that all Catholics are completely ignoprant of the Bible, they can’t wait to celebrate their triumphant victory, and you can follow the tactics and rhetorical stategies, very easily..haveing already been through the scenario so many times before! And really, The Bible is a powerful resource for proving doctrinal points…and I have been tempted also to bring, or have one handy, also during such face to face debates. However, before meeting them, and knowing they are truly skilled and practiced in their planned attacks, I need to really pray and remind myself to resist such a temptation.
     And Why?? Why not be as planned and ready as they are? Why not have all my Bible versus highlighted and numbered beforehand…almsot like an NFL pre game playbook?
     Because Jesus said:
     “But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. 20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
     And I trust these words of Christ, in these same Gospels enough, not to need a Bible handy, but rather, to be OBEDIENT to His very clear admonition. In this way I prefer the HOLY SPIRIT of HIS FATHER over any BIBLE! And since I have read the bible so many times, really I have the essentials inscribed into my soul by now…and so the Bible they try to use as a weapon against me, is of no avail to them, becasue they can twist words and meanings, but never comprehend the simple message that Jesus taught…the which comprehension is provided through the same gift of “the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
     So Esau, you are correct! We need the LIVING CHURCH, which is the BODY OF THE LIVING CHRIST to teach us in this world and NOT just the Bible! If we only needed the Bible, do you wonder why Jesus said “Take and eat, this is my BODY. Take and drink, this is my Blood.” The bible does nothing to consecrate and transubstantiate the bread and wine into the real body and blood of the Lord. It only instructs us on HOW to do it! So this is what the Bible is good for, teaching us the personality and admonitions of Christ, Our Lord, but then we need to BE A LIVING CHURCH, FILLED WITH THE LIVING HOLY SPIRIT, and practice all of these things in reality.
     And we can thank God for this all! For the Kingdom of Heaven is a living reality, even as God is….and not just a story from a 1900 year old Bible!

192. Esquire stated:
     “Your argument seems to be that self-styled “traditionalists” must be more in line with the traditional teachings of the Church because…they call themselves “traditionalits.”
     Esquire-it is not I who coined those that did not want to “REFORM-Again note the word reform after Vatican II” as Traditionalists-It was those very same Cardinals and Bishops while trying to bring down Ottavani and Lefebvre, wanted to make these men and those that did not want to “Reform (aka Luther?) as being something then to be avoided, hence the word “Radical” was then attached
     It was also not the Traditionalists who called those that went along with the reform “Novus Ordo” or New Order which by the way has Masonic overtures to it, as this was written right into the reform of the liturgy, and by the way is on the back of your dollar bill which as we also know has Masonic ties
     Your an intelligent man-put the pieces together

193. John,
     I appreciate the compliment, but you really have no idea whether I am intelligent or not.
     For someone who has complained about the use of labels by others, you seem to argue from them quite a bit. I agree with you that “rad trad” is a fairly useless label. But the tags that you are arguing from — traditionalists and reformers — are similarly useless without an understanding of what makes something or someone “traditional” or what is being reformed.
     Let me give you an example. I have a collection of traditional classical music that I want to reform. Good or bad? You don’t have enough information to make a judgment, even if you assume (as you ought) that classical music is good. By reform I could mean that I want to make the beat snazzier, and add some funky instruments. Bad. By reform I could mean that I want to convert my 8-tracks into MP3 files so that I can have better sound quality. Good.
     Before I can make a judgment about whether it is “good” or “bad” that someone wants to hold onto the “traditional” Catholic teachings, I have to know what they regard as “traditional.” Before I can know whether a particular “reform” is good or bad, I need to know what is being reformed to what (why wouldn’t hurt either).
     I agree with you that there have been some hideous “reforms” performed in the “name” or “spirit” of Vatican II. I also agree with you that there are many “traditional” Catholic teachings that need to be “rediscovered.”
     But I am not sure that I agree with you on what the “traditional” Catholic teachings are. One of my favorite Saints, Pope Pius X, said in Pascendi Dominici that the root cause of Modernism is a lack of obedience or respect for authority. The root cause. That is a traditional Catholic teaching, and you can underscore it with the teaching of all of the Doctors of the Church throughout the millenia.
     A discourse that is not founded on what is “traditional” or not is probably less useful than what is “right.”

194. Are these the actions of men inspired by the Holy Spirit?
     http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070228-9999-7n28diocese.html
     By Mark Sauer
     UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
     February 28, 2007
     After four years of legal wrangling in the clergy-abuse scandal, attorneys for Bishop Robert Brom filed for Chapter 11 protection last night, making San Diego the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the nation to declare bankruptcy.
     In a brief electronic filing just before midnight, the diocese said it had assets of more than $100 million and estimated debts of more than $100 million.
     The bishop, who said filing for bankruptcy was “not a cop-out,” …. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, who filed most of the cases in 2003, expressed outrage at the filing.
     “(The bankruptcy) is nothing more than a cynical attempt to stop the truth from coming out,” said John C. Manly, ….It is ironic that a Catholic bishop would be allowed to seek bankruptcy protection in an attempt to deny justice to hundreds of children raped by priests,” Manly added.
     Terry Giles, an attorney for Nicki Rister, whose case was to have begun this morning, characterized the diocese’s final settlement offer – delivered at 10:30 a.m. yesterday – as “nonexistent.”

195. As evidence of my lack of intelligence, the last sentence of my post was garbled. Should read:
     A discourse that is founded on what is “traditional” or not is probably less useful than a discourse founded on what is “right.”

196. erick —
     You say:
     you backed down from your acceptance of a challenge
     It is you who have, in fact, backed down since you still haven’t answered my questions to you in response to your so-called challenge!
     Now, again, if you DO NOT ACCEPT or ACKNOWLEDGE the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, then all the books that the Catholic Church declared INSPIRED and INERRANT, all those books that they declared as the NEW TESTAMENT is nothing more than a MERE OPINION, much like a Movie Critic who selects the Best Films of 2006!
     Thus, why should you TRUST the Church’s OPINION any more than you should trust a Movie Critic’s, since both would be, in your OPINION, NOT INFALLIBLE!
     In your words:
     Show me where I am wrong in this !.

     Go BACK to my Original Response to you below:
     
     The Canon of Scripture

     and
     again, in your words:
     Let the above postings show the truth.

197. erick —
     You say:
     you backed down from your acceptance of a challenge
     It is you who have, in fact, backed down since you still haven’t answered my questions to you in response to your so-called challenge!
     Now, again, if you DO NOT ACCEPT or ACKNOWLEDGE the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, then all the books that the Catholic Church declared INSPIRED and INERRANT, all those books that they declared as the NEW TESTAMENT is nothing more than a MERE OPINION, much like a Movie Critic who selects the Best Films of 2006!
     Thus, why should you TRUST the Church’s OPINION any more than you should trust a Movie Critic’s, since both would be, in your OPINION, NOT INFALLIBLE!
     In your words:
     Show me where I am wrong in this !.

     Go BACK to my Original Response to you below:
     
     The Canon of Scripture

     and
     again, in your words:
     Let the above postings show the truth.

198. The money won in these suits is being taken away from ordinary folks in pews who give in order to support their local Catholic charities and schools, not from evildoers, so good for the diocese if they can file bankruptcy. The men responsible for the horrible crimes should be punished (sued, locked up, executed, whatever), not every Catholic Christian in the area, but I guess no one would make much money from suing the individuals responsible.

199. A. Williams-
     “This is a real ‘conundrum’ for all those who are so brainwashed as to think that the Bible alone contains everything that we will ever need to understand the will of God.”
     Not at all, you see, God “could” have “Personally” written the Old Testament also– BUT HE DIDN’T.
     Who are you to presume that just because He did not then His Word “needs” anything else?.
     Was it not The BOOK of The Law that was put inside the Ark?—Have you ever asked yourself WHY?—.
     His Word in written form is the best human way to preserve doctrine….That’s one reason any way.
     It is “THY WORD” who is a lamp unto our feet—not Israel (who is replaced by The Church according to replacement theologians- which I am not).

200. erick:
     Still waiting…

201. I have not challenged anyone!!!
     It was You!.
     Can’t you read your own post?—
     Did you not challenge anyone to “refute” you?

202. Was it not The BOOK of The Law that was put inside the Ark?
     erick:
     As even my College Protestant Bible Studies has taught me, did you not know that it was Moses that wrote the first five books of the bible????
     Here, allow me to educate you yet again (from a Protestant Bible Course):
     Concerning the authors of the various books of the Bible, it is widely known that Moses wrote the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and there is scriptural evidence of it:
     “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning . . . ” (Ex. 24:4)
     “So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this Law in a book, when they were finished that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, saying: ‘ Take this book of the Law, and put it inside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.’ ” (Deut. 31: 24-26)
     Therefore, how can the Book of the Law have been present in Noah’s days if it was actually Moses (who is born years later) who wrote it years later???
     Further:
     The Jews had two fountains from which they received God’s Word.
     According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
     “We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
     THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
     He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh).
     Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was orally transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”

203. I think when erick speaks of the Ark he means the Ark of the Covenant, not Noah’s Ark.

204. I gathered that, but I just wanted to get the chance to re-reintroduce my Oral Torah arguments above since it appears he hasn’t even read or acknowledged them.

205. Again, erick:
     Now, again, if you DO NOT ACCEPT or ACKNOWLEDGE the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, then all the books that the Catholic Church declared INSPIRED and INERRANT, all those books that they declared as the NEW TESTAMENT is nothing more than a MERE OPINION, much like that of a Movie Critic who selects the Best Films of 2006!
     For example, Steven D. Greydanus (sorry SDG) may compile the Best Films for 2006, but should that list of movies be considered as inspired? No, because SDG is not infallible and, thus, his list is merely OPINION — HIS opinion.
     Much like the way you look at the Catholic Church.
     Since, to you, it has NO AUTHORITY and is NOT INFALLIBLE, the Canon (or list) of books that the Catholic Church declared as inspired, inerrant, and as being part of the New Testament should only be considered as MERE OPINION.
     Therefore, since it is MERE OPINION, you shouldn’t trust its OPINION the same way that you shouldn’t trust a Movie Critic who SELECTS the Best Films for 2006!
     For all you know, the Catholic Church may have made a MISTAKE in the books that it SELECTED!
     Since to you the Catholic Church is a HUMAN institution and FALLIBLE — HOW do you, in fact, KNOW that the Books it selected as being the NEW TESTAMENT is, in fact, CORRECT???

206. Esau–
     Ypu are IGNORANT—-
     Obviously I meant The Ark of the Covenant!!!!…
     I thank God You are not MY teacher of Biblical studies!!!!!….

207. Great to see that I’ve finally hit a nerve!
     Now, you finally KNOW how I feel when you do something similar to me!
     So, going back to what I was asking (for the nth time), why don’t you simply ANSWER my questions since you are, yourself, SO KNOWLEDGEABLE????
     Back to my other question above:
     Now, again, if you DO NOT ACCEPT or ACKNOWLEDGE the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, then all the books that the Catholic Church declared INSPIRED and INERRANT, all those books that they declared as the NEW TESTAMENT is nothing more than a MERE OPINION, much like that of a Movie Critic who selects the Best Films of 2006!
     Even further:
     Since to you the Catholic Church is a HUMAN institution and FALLIBLE — HOW do you, in fact, KNOW that the Books it selected as being the NEW TESTAMENT is, in fact, CORRECT???
     What??? No answer???
     STILL WAITING….

208. WAIT!!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
     erick —
     You said: I thank God You are not MY teacher of Biblical studies!!!!!….
     But I thought all you needed was the WORD???? Why, then, do you need a TEACHER??? Also, even further, how do you KNOW if what he is teaching is CORRECT????
     Still waiting…

209. Bold off again!
     *sigh*

210. Dr. Eric:
     Thank you for making fun of people who are so passionate enough about their Faith that they actually defend it, unlike those who just passively go through life without giving a damn about it!
     At the very least, erick is to be commended for being so passionate about his faith; despite the fact that he still hasn’t answered any of my questions regarding it.

211. Once again Erick, it was very easy for Jesus to have written His own autobiographical Gospel account down for all future generations, had He wished to do so. However, He DID NOT CHOOSE this EASY means.
     The sending of the Holy Spirit, rather, was the means that He chose! And He chose to fill His Church with this HOLY SPIRIT, for all times, until the end of the world!
     From the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and disciples REMEMBERED and WERE ENLIGHTEND about everything Jesus did, and everything He taught them, while He was with them in Judea and Galilee, even as He prophesied and promised beforehand!
     And when they understood all of this, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they also aquired the ability to record these events, and all of their true significance and context, in writing. So Jesus REALLY left the writing of the Gospel accounts to the memories of the Apostles under the influence and grace of the Holy Spirit.
     Furthermore the compilation of these recollections, and the exact ordering of them, that is, accepting only some of the words and acts of Jesus during His lifetime and teaching, was really one of the first acts of the early Catholic Church.
     I’m sure there were plenty of disciples who said..”put this in! and that!..but what we are left with are the final forms of the written Gospel, of no more, no less than inspired by the Holy Spirit, and later canonized as authentic by the magisterium of the early Catholic Church. And if we remember, St. John said,
     “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21
     So we know that there we many options to choose from for those early Gospel writers.
     And as Esau says rightly, it is only through the authority of the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that we have these inspired New Testament texts!
     To the Glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Amen.

212. Esau
     An observation from afar-You seem to know scripture well but little else in the way of Catholic teaching, faith, tradition, moral, or any of the previous 20 councils before vatican II
     Were you raised a catholic or converted to later in life if I may ask?
     There seems to be such an abundance of those that seem to put themselves in figures of authority on Catholic teachings such as Karl Keating, Mark Shea , Scott Hahn and others who were either atheist/had no belief growing up or recent converts

213. You seem to know scripture well but little else in the way of Catholic teaching, faith, tradition, moral, or any of the previous 20 councils before vatican II
     Really????
     Then, I guess you LIED when you told us that you ACTUALLY “READ” OUR POSTS!
     What of the dozen citations I provided you in my previous posts which revolved around the Church history, the Fathers and the Sessions of Trent, for example???
     Here, allow me to REMIND you:
     “Here, let me share some information for you:
     We all know about Eucharistic Prayer#1 since it’s the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints= names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
     However, as regards to the other Eucharistic Prayers:
     Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
     Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
     Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.
     This is the reason why I have had such great respect for Vagaggini since he was attempting, in the Novus Ordo, to do a “reform of the reform” in his day and tried to restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.”

214. You SUCK BALLS!!

215. erick:
     Struck a nerve yet again???
     That was an awfully puerile and, not to mention, very RUDE remark!

216. For Lent, do not feed troll. Anyway, Jimmy will be bringing Glamdring out shortly.

217. JOHN:
     There seems to be such an abundance of those that seem to put themselves in figures of authority on Catholic teachings such as Karl Keating, Mark Shea , Scott Hahn and others who were either atheist/had no belief growing up or recent converts
     Incidentally, Scott Hahn and other Protestant Converts such as Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples do more for the Catholic Church (and, in fact, know more about it) than you will ever know!
     John, your PREJUDICE AGAINST PROTESTANT CONVERTS is the MOST PERVERTED sense of Christianity I have yet experienced from a Catholic (or, I should say, a so-called Catholic).

218. Esau
     First, if my opinion means anything, I am disgusted with whomever posted that slang foul post, and one should not be in my opinion even engaging in a discussion with them
     With respect to the liturgy (mind you I am not SSPX)-Your post was full of truths, but the problem with the new liturgy as compared to the organic development of past so called “changes” was that changes in the past 1900 years of the church to the liturgy were ADDITIONS to the mass and or customs as well such as the prayers for the consecration of Russia at the end of Low Mass and so on.
     The New Mass DELETED upwards of 30 prayers, shortened the mass, introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES, did away with kneelers and the Eucharistic MINISTERS (Protestant word I must point out)and so on. And what prayers that were decided to be kept they changed those to, even the Apostles Creed as well as the Words of Consecration, which the ICEL still cant get correct over 40 years later!!
     Now if the “Reformers” of the liturgy had ADDED prayers to the Mass in conforming with sacred Tradition then I dont think that many people would have probably said boo

219. Esau-
     Let me start by saying this–
     All in all it IS good to “joust” with you on Biblical matters.
     You do have a Zeal……
     I do not share your views– that’s obvious!.
     But having said that I would like to say that not one of the Protestant ( and I never use that term except here on this blog) sites brings me more satisfaction and also an outstanding challenge to my faith as this site does.
     Am I right always?— probably not!
     Ok– Esau and everyone else on this blog– especially Jimmy Akin—- I don’t know who posted the above— but if that person was a protestant….I apologize for him (her).
     Totally inexcusable!.
     Ok Esau…. NOW!
     let’s start from the beginning- although I do not agree that it was I who owed you answers—let me let you take a poke at me with ONE QUESTION…OK?.
     LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!!!!!!

220. Wait a minute!!!!
     ESAU—– I did not do that posting!!!!!!.
     Surely there is a way to tell wether that came from MY computer!!!!!….
     I am not like That folks!!!!

221. Esau posted:
     “John, your PREJUDICE AGAINST PROTESTANT CONVERTS is the MOST PERVERTED sense of Christianity I have yet experienced from a Catholic (or, I should say, a so-called Catholic).”
     Well Esau, with Karl Keating running CA and blogs such as this that seem to rely on CA as their so called resource , where apparations such as La Sallette are called “Rad Trad” inovations because of words which do not suit the modernistic agenda of Mr Keating, and Mr Hahn by his own admission has had problems with Mary and Marion devotion due to his Protestant background, one must look at them with suspicion
     As compared to a Cradle Catholic, who has had the benefit of Grandparents and past generations of Catholics, with knowledge of Tradition (remember-Tradere means to pass on??), they are at a disadvantage over most cradle catholics and seem to fall back onto Canon Law (JPII version), scripture, and Vatican II for every possible answer they can think up. And with Vatican II being so vague you can drive a truck through it as compared to the language of the past 20 councils in order to “Appear” to conform with tradition and not defect, and with scripture very subjective-they are in effect handicapped from what I have seen in many cases.
     I am sure Mr Hahn, as a former Protestant Minister can quote the words from any passage from the Bible faster than a blink of an eye-but in all of the tapes and hours of lectures I have ever heard him give he has never ever mentioned the Council of Trent, Vatican I, any Pope before John Paul II and so on-because being a convert all he has ever been exposed to was the papacy of JPII and the current state of affairs within the church and that is not saying much I might add

222. Ok folks—-
     Can I get confirmation that I was not the author of the travesty above???….
     Jimmy?…..someone?.
     I do not have to post anymore (if so be it )- but let THAT not be the reason!!!!
     Jimmy?…..someone?.

223. That’s why I make such a fuss about not responding to anonymous posts. There’s no way to know who posted and people can’t be expected to be mindreaders. (Esau, you fell into that one)
     Erick, I’m sure Jimmy has a way of checking where each post comes from.

224. erick:
     As I had indicated in a prior post, I ADMIRE greatly the zeal you have for your faith — I just wished some Catholics were likewise!
     I remember the times I spent in a Protestant church and the many bible studies and gatherings back in my College days and I LOVED them because there was a FIRE that, unfortunately, some of my fellow Catholics lack.
     So, although we may have our differences; I still count you as “brother”.

225. (Esau, you fell into that one)
     Actually, Mary Kay, to be honest, I was picking on erick in order to get him to answer my questions above.

226. Esau-
     “Actually, Mary Kay, to be honest, I was picking on erick in order to get him to answer my questions above.”
     Ok– “brother”—-
     My offer stands!— One (1) question —then we will see about more Ok?….
     Let’s play ball……….what say you?
     thanks MaryKay!.

227. JOHN —
     You said:
     “…Mr Hahn by his own admission has had problems with Mary and Marion devotion due to his Protestant background, one must look at them with suspicion”
     Why stop there??? Weren’t most of the Saints and Martyrs of the Church actually CONVERTS????
     We should look at them with such suspicion as well!
     You also stated:
     “As compared to a Cradle Catholic, who has had the benefit of Grandparents and past generations of Catholics, with knowledge of Tradition (remember-Tradere means to pass on??), they are at a disadvantage over most cradle catholics…”
     So PROTESTANT CONVERTS are at a DISADVANTAGE OVER CRADLE CATHOLICS when it comes to actual knowledge about the Catholic Faith, eh????
     If that’s the case, then why is it that the MAJORITY of CRADLE CATHOLICS actually CONVERT to PROTESTANTISM due to their LACK of knowledge about the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church?!?!
     I, myself, have converted MANY back in my College days to Protestantism (actually, many of those that came from our campus apartments, in fact)! My GREATEST ADVANTAGE was THEIR IGNORANCE about their Catholic Faith!
     Further, research even shows that the second largest group in the United States is EX-CATHOLICS.

228. I’m waiting!….( as you hear the tune from wheel of fortune in the background)…….

229. I, myself, have converted MANY back in my College days to Protestantism (actually, many of those that came from our campus apartments, in fact)! My GREATEST ADVANTAGE was THEIR IGNORANCE about their Catholic Faith!
     Unfortunately, what I said here is true.
     It’s too bad I lost touch with those folks.
     My having convinced them to turn away from their Catholic Faith is something I’ll always regret.

230. Don’t sweat it Esau!
     Now they KNOW they have eternal life— where as THEN they thought they would be guilty of the “sin of presumption”.–

231. Esau,
     My comment was just about the bold function being left on repeatedly for the last few days. It was nothing against you personally. Is your skin getting too thin? 🙂
     God Bless You,
     Dr. Eric

232. John,
     You make some good points, but some of your arguments are intellectually dishonest.
     apparations such as La Sallette are called “Rad Trad”
     The site you have referred to I believe, is the one Mr. Akin wrote a few years back. If you pay attention to it, he does not call the apparition “rad trad.” He states that it happened in 1846.
     What he says, among other things, is that certain radical traditionalists make claims about the apparition that are demonstrably false. That is a far cry from stating that the apparition is “rad trad.”
     If you’re point is worth making, then it should be worth making with legitimate facts, not manufactured ones.

233. Esquire
     With due respect, you were not part of a recent thread which was titled “who’s holding back whos hand” in which Mr Akin (whom I agree with 75% of the time) stated that such was only a metaphore and was not true. Knowing myself of those, and donate to those within and devout to this apparition, approved by the Holy see, and in which Pius IX and Leo XIII confirmed what was said to this youngster, whom our Lady always appears to in all her apparations because of their innocence
     The words were clear, and it was the Pope himself who sought out this youth, not the other way around. A basicalla was built on the spot to honor this apparition
     Those within and without of the church with modernistic agendas as well as the Masons tried to distort this message over the next 50 or so years. They made it sound like doomsday as this girl, now in a convent, became somewhat obessessed with the end of the church and the world in it’s entirety, as I think ANY one of us would if the blessed mother had come to us with such a dire warning.
     Of course the church after Pius X and of course with Vatican II ignored what our lady said and reformed to conform more in line with the modern world and the rest is history
     Some of those with an agenda have taken this message to an extreme, both on the so called “traditional side “(I hate the word Radical and I wish Mr Akin would not have used it as people look up to him and words like that only alienate those like within my family and give them more fuel to their fire as proof that the church has gone away from tradition by calling the above message a “metaphore” and “Rad Trad”).
     I am sure you can find the thread and see the give and take as even Mr Akin chimed in. Esau as usual was combative and resorted to name calling to me as did others. But I can take abuse and name calling as I can only wonder what those in the early church had went through and sometimes something needs to be broken dowm in this case the church in order to bring her back stroger than ever
     God bless

234. “Mr Akin… stated that such was only a metaphore and was not true.”
     No. Jimmy pointed out (as I have said before) that, in her appearance at La Salette, Mary spoke using a metaphor; the metaphor of holding back the hand of her Son.
     Jimmy nowhere even hints that La Salette is anything but a genuine apparition.

235. JOHN:
     Again, you demonstrate your DISHONESTY!
     Look at what you wrote above:
     “The New Mass DELETED upwards of 30 prayers, shortened the mass, introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES…”
     First off, introduced novelties never before seen???
     Did you even READ my past post which, again, for your convenience, I had re-pasted above in order to remind you???
     I, yet again, paste it below so you might actually READ it:

     “Here, let me share some information for you:
     We all know about Eucharistic Prayer#1 since it’s the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
     However, as regards to the other Eucharistic Prayers:
     Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
     Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
     Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.
     This is the reason why I have had such great respect for Vagaggini since he was attempting, in the Novus Ordo, to do a “reform of the reform” in his day and tried to restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.”

     Now, as to the other thing you said:
     …introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES…
     Tell me exactly where it is stated in all of Vatican II’s 16 documents or in the New Sacramentary that people should hold hands during the Our Father???
     Again, you demonstrate your DISHONESTY here as you have in other threads!
     There is NO SUCH THING! Nowhere did Vatican II establish such a practice of HOLDING HANDS during the OUR FATHER!
     As for the other lies you attempt to perpetuate:
     “… did away with kneelers and the Eucharistic MINISTERS (Protestant word I must point out)and so on.”
     Vatican II did away with kneelers???
     Again, show me where exactly did Vatican II establish such a mandate?
     “… And what prayers that were decided to be kept they changed those to, even the Apostles Creed as well as the Words of Consecration, which the ICEL still cant get correct over 40 years later!!”
     Please re-read my posts as well as my other posts to you in past threads.
     You accused me of knowing so little about the Chuch prior to Vatican II and, yet, from the very TRASH you’re spewing here, it is your IGNORANCE about the Church prior to Vatican II that is, in fact, demonstrated!
     Finally, the last thing you mentioned:
     “Now if the “Reformers” of the liturgy had ADDED prayers to the Mass in conforming with sacred Tradition then I dont think that many people would have probably said boo”
     Could it be that it is because of the very fact that you and such other Cradle Catholics are so IGNORANT about the historical Canons of the Church beyond the Latin Rite that there was such BOO-HOOING???
     Again, from my previous post to you from long ago:

     The Commission formed by Pope Paul VI was headed up by the brilliant and utterly Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini. Vagaggini was a Commodelese Monk who had taught at Sant’Anselmo for decades. Not just an intellectual, but a real mystic and a great historian. He was also the one who delved into the traditions of the early church and not just the East and the West but looking at the Liturgy of St. Mark and other things too, showing how the Church can be enriched by this legitimate plurality of options (e.g., the Eucharistic Prayers). Furthermore, there were actually other canons which existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Catholic Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentin rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
     About your claim that the Novus Ordo missae has created a greater division between East and West, you do know that there were serious defects even in the Roman canon used in the Tridentine mass, don’t you, and had greatly differed with the ancient canons? I shall list them for your convenience so that you may see for yourself. Although, as I’ve mentioned, I wouldn’t hesitate attending the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, you, again, have presented matters with such gloss and prejudice, these need to be addressed:
     1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
     This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude.
     2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
     This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt…Benedictus… Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona… For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies…. In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who…” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers.
     3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
     The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition….
     It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;…
     Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.
     As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition….
     The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory.
     4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
     In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency.
     5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
     a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;… After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too.
     6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
     This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting.

237. JOHN:
     Again, you demonstrate your DISHONESTY!
     Look at what you wrote above:
     “The New Mass DELETED upwards of 30 prayers, shortened the mass, introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES…”
     First off, about what you mentioned regarding Vatican II having introduced novelties never before seen —
     Did you even READ my past post which, again, for your convenience, I had re-pasted above in order to remind you???
     I, yet again, paste it below so you might actually READ it:

     “Here, let me share some information for you:
     We all know about Eucharistic Prayer#1 since it’s the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
     However, as regards to the other Eucharistic Prayers:
     Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
     Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
     Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.
     This is the reason why I have had such great respect for Vagaggini since he was attempting, in the Novus Ordo, to do a “reform of the reform” in his day and tried to restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.”

     Now, as to the other thing you said:
     …introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES…
     Tell me exactly where it is stated in all of Vatican II’s 16 documents or in the New Sacramentary that people should hold hands during the Our Father???
     Again, you demonstrate your DISHONESTY here as you have in other threads!
     There is NO SUCH THING! Nowhere did Vatican II establish such a practice of HOLDING HANDS during the OUR FATHER!
     As for the other lies you attempt to perpetuate:
     “… did away with kneelers and the Eucharistic MINISTERS (Protestant word I must point out)and so on.”
     Vatican II did away with kneelers???
     Again, show me where exactly did Vatican II establish such a mandate?
     “… And what prayers that were decided to be kept they changed those to, even the Apostles Creed as well as the Words of Consecration, which the ICEL still cant get correct over 40 years later!!”
     Please re-read my posts as well as my other posts to you in past threads.
     You accused me of knowing so little about the Chuch prior to Vatican II and, yet, from the very TRASH you’re spewing here, it is your IGNORANCE about the Church prior to Vatican II that is, in fact, demonstrated!
     Finally, the last thing you mentioned:
     “Now if the “Reformers” of the liturgy had ADDED prayers to the Mass in conforming with sacred Tradition then I dont think that many people would have probably said boo”
     Could it be that it is because of the very fact that you and such other Cradle Catholics are so IGNORANT about the historical Canons of the Church beyond the Latin Rite that there was such BOO-HOOING???
     Again, from my previous post to you from long ago:

     The Commission formed by Pope Paul VI was headed up by the brilliant and utterly Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini. Vagaggini was a Commodelese Monk who had taught at Sant’Anselmo for decades. Not just an intellectual, but a real mystic and a great historian. He was also the one who delved into the traditions of the early church and not just the East and the West but looking at the Liturgy of St. Mark and other things too, showing how the Church can be enriched by this legitimate plurality of options (e.g., the Eucharistic Prayers). Furthermore, there were actually other canons which existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Catholic Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentin rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
     About your claim that the Novus Ordo missae has created a greater division between East and West, you do know that there were serious defects even in the Roman canon used in the Tridentine mass, don’t you, and had greatly differed with the ancient canons? I shall list them for your convenience so that you may see for yourself. Although, as I’ve mentioned, I wouldn’t hesitate attending the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, you, again, have presented matters with such gloss and prejudice, these need to be addressed:
     1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
     This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude.
     2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
     This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt…Benedictus… Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona… For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies…. In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who…” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers.
     3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
     The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition….
     It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;…
     Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.
     As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition….
     The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory.
     4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
     In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency.
     5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
     a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;… After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too.
     6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
     This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting.

238. Esau
     Your posts are very very long and time consuming to read all through, but I think we have something we agree on
     You are correct, Vatican II says nothing about doing away with kneelers, communion in the hand, eucharistic ministers, etc- to name a few-so then how did they get introduced, who introduced them-and why is it now allowed with no condemnation?
     Would these innovations ever be allowed or is the mass open to interpretation in order to appease the liberals and bishops who have for example a large liberal or even homosexual laity like in SF “interpret”-or abuse-the liturgy as they see fit and do to the fact that the council was so vague and liturgical reform so open ended-they appear to be in accordance with church authority?
     This is a problem that also appeared before the Coucil of Trent as there were different variations of masses being said in Venice, in France, in Africa, as well as in the North of Italy
     What these ingenious council fathers did was unify which of course led to the much debated Papal Bull of Pius V which proclaimed that one mass with NO variations is to be used throughout with the wrath of St Peter and Paul for those that deviate or change the mass.
     Now of course those that are supporters of the new mass using their cunning ways have decided to bend the papal bull and we could debate this as the Pope in 1570 probably had no idea he would have been circumvented by those as evil and Archbishop Bugnini, who was a known Mason and was applauded by Italian Masonic sects as well as protestants world wide for his efforts on the reform of the liturgy (one can only wonder why?).
     One can only wonder if the wrath of St Peter and Paul and working on the church today with the crop of clergy who have no guts to stand for anything, have condoned pedophila and are up to 5 American bankrupt diocese as we speak with the Bishop here in NYC making front page news this week for closing church’s and tricking a priest to leave his church to come up to 5th ave and while he was gone he had the church doors padlocked and the parishoners, many of them Lithuanian , now saying they will leave the church or even go to Traditional chapels nearby who are courting them.
     Our Lord has said “By their fruits you shall know them”…….

239. Our Lord has said “By their fruits you shall know them”…….
     Uhhhh… John, again you NEGLECT Church History.
     If the above was true, then what of the CORRUPT clergy in the Catholic Church back even in its early days, be it at the time of Luther or at the time of Augustine?
     If you observed such awfully evil folks at that time of Luther or even that of Augustine, by the “evil fruits” you would have observed from them, would that, in fact, demonstrate that the Catholic Church was actually evil?
     Also, what of the corrupt priests at the time of the Old Testament (that’s assuming, of course, that you actually respect and honor the Old Testament)?
     Take a look at 1 Samuel Chapters 1 and 2, you’ll see that at the time the high priests – a man named Eli was very indulgent of the priests (who happened to be his sons back in that day because they had a hereditary priesthood) and he was very indulgent of his sons who would engage in a variety of different things that could be classified as embezzlement, sexual harassment of the women who served at the Temple (I mean, it says that they slept with the women who served at the Temple).
     If you observed such awfully evil folks at this time in the OLD TESTAMENT, by the “evil fruits” you would have observed from them, would that, in fact, demonstrate that the religion of the Jews of the time and the One True God they worshipped was actually evil?

240. John,
     I was aware of, and thinking of, the thread you mention when I wrote. As Tim J. pointed out, you have mischaracterized Jimmy’s characterization of the apparition.
     With respect to Archbishop Bugnini, as one schooled in the art of evaluating and presenting evidence, I can only conclude that the case for his masonic membership has not been made, much less conclusively so. As such, I am obliged out of Christian charity to assume that the rumors of masonic involvement are just that, unsubstantiated rumors, and therefore false.
     As a matter of Christian honesty, however, I am obliged to acknowledge that he was a crummy liturgist.

241. Esau
     I have to agree with your last post
     There is and will be evil in all mankind as that is what was bestowed upon us for Eve not obeying God
     Esquire and Tim
     With respect to Jimmys Catholic Answer’s summary of LaSallette, I did not mischaracterize it at all, especially as I just went back and read it again
     If you go back to the Thread, I was asked by Jimmy A for my reference to the content of the apparation, and refered him to the La Sallette webisite which has no such “Rad Trad” ties or so many here say, and it was posted there as well. There are also books written before there were even those called Traditionalists (Imagine-we were actually all Catholic at one point?)where the exact same message was published. IT should be noted that this message was distorted towards the end of her life as she was starting to lose her mind possibly as well as the event itself and to the average person sounded like the so called “fanatic” on the street corner we see here in Manhattan NYC all to often.
     Here is an excert from JimmyA’s article on CA regarding La Sallette. It talks nothing of “Holding back the Hand”, which was the message, instead it uses the words “Radical Traditionalists” throughout, and the phrase “seat of the Antichrist” which is something I have heard maybe 1 in 1000 Traditionalists say, and I having attending masses, funerals, and weddings with them from my family and friends, many of whom are independent, SSPX or SSPV, I have never heard this. Maybe Jimmy has been surfing the web a little to much
     He also cast doutt on the apparation saying:
     “Afterwards, Maximin never revealed his secret. He is reported to have claimed that Mary told him that he would become a millionaire, that the Antichrist would slay him, and that the next pope would be French. None of those things happened, and scholars generally conclude that they were stories Maximin made up in an attempt to stop people from pestering him about the secret. When texts alleging to be Maximin’s secret began to appear in the press (some of which are demonstrably false), the frustrated seer refused to either confirm or deny that they were his, saying it was the pope’s responsibility to decide whether the secret should be revealed.
     Melanie’s story is different. Over the years she apparently did begin revealing pieces of her secret to others, and in 1879 she published the whole thing.
     The trouble is, what she wrote in 1851 consisted of only three, hand-written pages. The booklet she produced in 1879 was much longer than this, and undoubtedly contains ideas that were not part of the secret sent to the pope. So, while Melanie’s 1879 publication may have been based on her original secret, it undoubtedly contains elements not in the original, and we cannot tell which elements are which. That raises a concern about the “Rome will lose the faith” line. It may not have been in the secret sent to the pope.
     There is another problem: Some of the prophecies contained in Melanie’s secret are demonstrably false. They’re too specific, they’re tied to the nineteenth century, and they didn’t happen.”
     Basically in one felt swoop-Mr Akin all but eliminated the entire apparation as being one big hoax and characterized both the boy and girl as being nuts
     Read for yourself and tell me where I am wrong
     http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0001chap.asp
     Here is the link
     Sorry for such length of post but I question if you have read this so called “sorting of the truth” as written on this Rock on CA

242. John:
     About your last comment to me:
     Esau
     I have to agree with your last post
     There is and will be evil in all mankind as that is what was bestowed upon us for Eve not obeying God
     
     I’m glad we actually finally agree on something!
     I’m rather curious though, on this whole business of LaSallette —
     As you know, I had once attended the Tridentine Mass (approved, by the way, by both the Holy See and the local bishop) at a distant Catholic parish.
     For one reason or another, I had received since then circulars and other communiques regarding the Tridentine Mass as well as information concerning associations advocating its celebration, such as the Traditionalists.
     I could not help but notice though that quite recently, there has been much focus on the LaSallette apparition by such Traditionalists.
     Is this to impose some sort of fear upon the Catholic masses by adapting the message of LaSallette in order to provoke adoption of the Traditional Latin Mass?

243. Just a quick note though, John.
     I don’t agree with your subsequent statement though that:
     There is and will be evil in all mankind as that is what was bestowed upon us for Eve not obeying God
     Evil was not bestowed upon us for Eve not obeying God.
     God cannot bestow evil; God is all good.
     Evil, by the way, is the absence of good.

244. Esau
     I honestly dont know-but I do know that the fear of God is the primary reason why myself (who want a return, and I to attend the Indult here in NY) and have attended unauthorized TLM masses I admit to, go to the TLM and still observe the structure and observations such as the Holy days as this thread is about, and so on etc for that very reason
     As you know, and you are a scripture expert it seems (I have to spend more time in that area), other than scripture, we only have church sanctioned apparations to go by as far as communication with Our Lady, who of course intercedes on our behalf with her son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus
     I think that Fatima was handled much much different because of what happended at La Sallette which was hijacked by the Masons with a distorted message. And possibly it is being distorted again now 160 years later by those who call themselves Traditionalists, but if they are using it as an analogy with an Antichrst, then they are wacko
     So maybe La Sallette is something being used to bring those back to the TLM, but that seat of the Antichrist stuff is nonsense and garbage and the fringe elements from what I see are the only ones buying into that

245. John,
     <>Basically in one felt swoop-Mr Akin all but eliminated the entire apparation as being one big hoax and characterized both the boy and girl as being nuts
     No, he eliminated certain reports about the apparition as being untrue.
     As for the boy and the girl, Jimmy does say that certain things the boy and girl are reported to have said are demonstrably false. He does not, however, conclude that (a) the apparition is a hoax, or (b) the boy and girl are nuts. Quite the contrary. He assumes that the apparition is genuine, and that the girl’s original three page notes are the best evidence of what the girl saw (being recorded closest in time to the event and submitted to the pope).
     He then provides plausible (not certain) explanations for why certain of the boy’s statements are demonstrably false, and certain reports of the girl’s statements (30+ years after the fact) are not only demonstrably false, but inconsistent with her earlier statements.
     None of the plausible explanations provided by Jimmy (a) question the validity of the apparation, or (b) suggest that the boy and/or girl are nuts.

246. Esquire
     Show me then, in the entire so called discussion of Mr Akin, where he supports the Popes, the Bishop and the decision to build the basicalla, as well as the words “holding back the hand of God” which are no where to be found, instead the “antichrist” and seat of, is spread all over to make Traditionalists sound wierd
     It is typcial liberal Novus Ordo, Karl Keating progpoganda that is so lame it makes one start to question of maybe the antichrist is Karl Keating!!

247. John,
     You seem to miss the point of Jimmy’s article. He is not questioning the apparition, therefore there is no question raised about “supporting” Popes, the Bishop, or building a basilica.
     The point is not to make “Traditionalists” sound weird. It is to demonstrate one particular faulty argument made by some who call themselves traditionalists.
     There is nothing “liberal” or “novus ordo” about making logical arguments based on actual facts and requiring that others do the same.