It’s not uncommon to hear people refer to the Democratic Party as the "Mommy" party and the Republican Party as the "Daddy" party, but Michael Medved has a different way of characterizing the two.
In this column, he contrasts the "Senator" party with the "Governor" party, assigning the former role to the Democrats and the latter to the Republicans.
He bases this on a look at both where their recent presidential nominees have come from (legislative or executive backgrounds) and where their current crops of presidential hopefuls come from.
He also suggest that the tendency of Democrats to nominate senators for president and Republicans to nominate governors has to do with their (or at least their parties’ nominating core’s) view of government and the proper role of the presidency.
It’s an interesting hypothesis.
It’s also interesting to contemplate how it matches up with conventional political wisdom that it’s easier to get elected president if you’re a governor than if you’re a senator. One theory proposed to explain this is that governors have less of a paper trail than long-time senators do, meaning it’s harder to paint them as politically undesirable based on their past voting record.
But that’s just one theory, and there are several other possible ones here.
Whether any of them will help either party in ’08 (should either nominate a governor for president) is a whole different matter.
I refer to Democrats as the “Evil” party, and Republicans as either the “Stupid” party or the “Gutless” party.
My dad has long said that he considers a Democratic congress and a Republican president as idea. Lots of gridlock. I think that fits in with the Mommy/Daddy and Senator/Governor dichotomies. The Republicans are Executive and the Dems are Legislative. The former lead and do, the latter come to consensus and form committees and vote. The former value individualism, integrity and courage, the latter value communication, relationships and equality. We want the former traits in an executive and the latter in the Senate. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Republicans have dominated in the White House and the Dems in the Senate in the post-war period, despite Watergate. Even Clinton, the most successful Dem president since FDR, was not a leader but rather was known for his “feeling your pain”, following the polls and in general bringing his supporters together and working with allies.
You could also probably say that Dems are Europeans and Republicans are Texans. This is especially apt since many say they will flee to Europe if a Republican wins, and I, for one, would seriously consider a move to Texas were Hilary to become president.
Well, I’m from the People’s Republic of Illinois. I can’t see any difference between the two parties here. Both of them spawn corruption and get indicted by the feds.
I don’t think it really holds out. A lot of it depends on who you believe to be a feasible candidate. As far as end results go, Bush Sr. is the only non-governor since Reagan. Going back to the 96 election, two of the Republicans biggers candidates, Dole and Kemp were Senators.
The present election is filled with senators from both parties. Everyone knows Obama and Hillary, but the Republicans have Brownback, F. Thompson, McCain, and I’m sure I’m missing a few.
Why not throw out a prediction? 2008: Huckabee (R) v. Richardson (D).
I tend to agree with George Wallace when he said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties.”
I think that Shakespeare said it best: “Either a criminal’s office or a fool’s.”
Unfortunately, this doesn’t help label the parties, as each side has their share of both criminals and fools (and not much else).
Very interesting….
ps: bill912 is right once again, but hey, so what else is new?
pps: it’s so nice being able to say “I was Independent, when Independent wasn’t cool.”
Ed, something in common after all. You and I see differently on some topics, but being able to say “I was Independent, when Independent wasn’t cool” describes me also.
Mary Kay, thx.
(PS: the only things we don’t agree on are the very few things you don’t think clearly on.)
(PS: the only things we don’t agree on are the very few things you don’t think clearly on.)
Dang!
That’s devestating!
I need to remember that line whenever I get into a discussion of ‘differences’ between myself and other folks ‘who don’t think clearly’ on certain matters. ;^)
I believe the Governor/Senator distinction has some correlation to party, but it is also clear that Americans as a whole prefer candidates with executive experience. Since the turn of the Century it has been a rarity for anyone to be elected who was not nominated while Governor or Vice President. Only exceptions are:
Howard Taft – fmr Sec. of War
Herbert Hoover – Sec. of Commerce
Dwight Eisenhower – General
John Kennedy – Senator from Massachusetts
And only one member of Congress in that time. Until Eisehower was elected, Democrats held the presidency for twenty years. After Eisenhower, the split was even until our current president was elected in 2000.
So, as a whole, our country prefers Governors and Vice Presidents, though it should be noted that in recent history it has been difficult for Vice Presidents to win the following election. Bush Sr. being the only one to do so without first having assumed the presidency due to the death of the President. (Truman and Johnson)
So, if you are in Congress, best chance to become president is to be someone’s running mate first. Worked in various capacities for Ford, Johnson, and Truman.
Ed Peters thinks clearly until you discuss Johnny Depp.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Who cares about Dumb and Dumber… I want to know if that towel thing was a penguin 🙂
BobCatholic from Illinois,
Eddie Vrdolyak is certainly corrupt but a very intelligent and philosophically correct Catholic and very pro-life–albeit very flawed on a personal level.
Illinois is real messed up.
Haw! Can’t wait for At World’s End.
Denzel and Depp are the two most versatile actors around today. In fact, they are the only two who qualify as versatile, now that Dustin is basically retired.
Denzel and Depp are the two most versatile actors around today. In fact, they are the only two who qualify as versatile, now that Dustin is basically retired.
Depends on your definition on the term ‘versatile’.
Will Smith can arguably be considered versatile if you consider the ‘Fresh Prince’ of former days to the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ guy you see today.
Plus, the guy can rap (using decent lyrics, btw) and solve a rubic’s cube!
(j/k)
Haw! Can’t wait for At World’s End.
Yeah — but will it outdo ‘Spidey III’ at the box office!?!?
— btw, anybody notice the Catholic Moral Theology inherent in that S3???
Kinda nice, huh???
Admiring Hollywood actors. Might as well be fawning over Cheryl Crow.
Movies are like kryptonite to Ed Peters brain. You know I am just having fun with your poor taste in actors.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Admiring Hollywood actors.
A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.
One of these days, Inocencio, one of these days. 😉
A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.
What a character he was.
If, however, they’re convinced that they’re in personal peril, threatened by out-of-control … international forces that require aggressive governmental initiatives to counteract them, they will probably choose “The Senator Party.”
Yet that’s the same bus George Bush rode in 2004. But then, he and the Republican party helped build it.
What’s the matter, Ed? Are differing opinions so difficult that you have to put the person down as “not thinking clearly”?
It’s unfortunate that you chose that response when I held out a hand in friendship.
The last time we had differing views was February 2 and 3 where you objected to my saying that evil is more than an absence of good. I cited Romans 12:21 which speaks of overcoming evil and even looked up the in the original language. The word means “to subdue, to conquer, to overcome, to prevail, to get the victory” from a root word meaning conquest.
Not being able to argue with the dictionary definition, you said it was a “metaphor” which didn’t hold any water.
Whatever you want to call that exchange, no way can it be described as “not thinking clearly.”
Earnie posted:
“A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.
What a character he was.”
More like a clown like the clown masses he was so fond of promulgating!!
The 1980’s were good years for us actor-types. We had both a president and a pope who’d been actors.
President Stallone? Pope Caviezel?
Nearly impossible to imagine. Nearly.
The 1980’s were good years for us actor-types. We had both a president and a pope who’d been actors. President Stallone? Pope Caviezel? Nearly impossible to imagine. Nearly.
Wasn’t Scwharznegger (however you spell his name) portrayed as a President once in a Stallone movie?
Back then, when I heard that, I laughed.
Now that he’s become governor, I don’t know what to do! ;^)
Mary Kay, I’m pretty sure Ed was only joking.
And Will Smith’s ability to solve the Rubik’s Cube amazes me. He never fails!
thx nutcrazical. someone besides me had to say it. humor is dangerous on the net, since so much of it depends on things like voice tone, facial looks, etc, none of which come across in a combox.
marykay, nz was right. notice, my line could be said by anyone about anyone who has ever disgareed with him, therefore, it has no meaning.
oh well.
Is there a reason why this thread about the X-party and the Y-party morphed into a discussion about Johnny Depp and Denzel; then, about President Stallone and Pope Caveziel?
I’m surprised that, at the very least, since everybody started introducing actors into the mix and, plus, since we’re talking about political parties, folks didn’t bring up Rob Lowe and Barbara Streissand! =^)
If it is not Catholic then it is evil or has a evil purpose whether we know what it is or not.
Neither party is Catholic, therefore, they are both agents to the Devil.
Ed, yes humor is more challenging on the net.
Then again, where else would I learn that an actor can solve the Rubik cube? 🙂
Careful, Anon-like-no-other, jokes don’t come across well in comboxes, and surely your post was meant as a joke.
Speaking of funny, tonight would be good night for a Woody Allen film….I’ve got about 30 in my collection. (The foregoing presented as a public service announcement and is not intended to represent the views of managment of or to send the comments off on a tangent.)
More like a clown like the clown masses he was so fond of promulgating!!
Speaking of clowns, they actually hired clowns to work the crowds on Family Day.
I am joking as much as Our Lord when He kicked the vendors from the Temple.
If it does not have its orgins in or converted by the Church it is still serving its evil purposes.
Speaking of funny, tonight would be good night for a Woody Allen film….
Play it Again, Sam!
(Ditto Ed’s disclaimer…)
If it does not have its orgins in or converted by the Church it is still serving its evil purposes.
Mk 12:17:
17 And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (DRV)
But the government should go hand in hand with the Church.
St.Louis???
St.Fernando???
St.Conrad???
St.Elizabeth???
And if you want to talk Republics…
???
Nope not any saints there.
Garcia Moreno might be one day.
But that is all. See this unnatural rise of the Republics had an evil orgin. Now monarchies are more perfect. Republics are licit too. They are not as perfect, but licit. But the way they came about is not. So know that this country was made to be a headquarters of immoral and un-Catholic customs.
And from there you get the evils of the world.
Mark 9:
”…If, amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power. Benedict does not quite describe Christianity’s alliance with state power as a Babylonian captivity. Still, he comes very close when he writes that “the temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in various forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power. The struggle for the freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus’ Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.”
— Weigel talking about B16’s New Book
Esau posted:
”…If, amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power”
Compare that to scripture:
“I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth” (John 18:37)
Pope Leo XIII taught in his Encyclical on Freemasonary:
Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it was presented to the States-General of France…is in reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole structure of society based on that supernatural dignity…. every member of Christ is called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me ”
Of course as the church teaches today that all religions hold truth and even non Catholics can be saved. So why would one expect Ratzinger to believe that the Catholic church should be a church of “power”?
St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy, and one can easily go back and find saints among the Monarchs-Can one say the same for the republics? Pope John F Kennedy anyone????
Is John always this disingenuous? Or is intellectual honesty somehow incompatible with radically traditional Catholicism?
So, as a whole, our country prefers Governors and Vice Presidents, though it should be noted that in recent history it has been difficult for Vice Presidents to win the following election
The only sitting vice presidents elected since the twelfth amendment were Van Buren in 1836 and Bush 41 in 1988. Americans prefer vice presidents to penniless drunken hobos and precious little else.
John is obsessed. All of his posts can be reduced to any or all of the following: 1)Vatican II: Bad! 2)Everything since Vatican II: Bad! 3)Paul VI: Bad! 4) John Paul II: Very Bad!
John posted: “St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy…”
True enough, John, but tell your readers the rest: Thomas ALSO said that when monarchy goes bad, it is the WORST form of government. Democracy, oto, Thomas said, was the least of the good forms, but when IT went bad, it was also the least harmful.
Geeze.
Is John always this disingenuous? Or is intellectual honesty somehow incompatible with radically traditional Catholicism?
John isn’t disingenuous. As far as I can tell, he thoroughly believes everything he says.
Mr. Peters,
I don’t remember the 2nd part, but assuming it is true, there is a major problem.
These revolutions against the monarchy were not Catholic at all. They were all influenced (if not orchestrated) by Masons and the sort.
The world has been in decline since these revolutions began.
But I also put the objection that St.Thomas spoke in reference to a democracy when it is natural and Catholic.
Democracies with revolutionary orgins are not Catholic or natural at all.Plus they are dominated by the forces of evil and not good.
Now I also agree that the late monarchies were decadent. They allowed what happend to them and it is a chastisement to the elites of the world.
It is true that it was too absolutist and soft.
The nobility only wanted to waltz and get fat, when their vocation was to lead the battle and be an example to the people, especially morally.
And it was not done so…
So the Revolution took its course…
Luther-France-Russia-Satanism?
John isn’t disingenuous. As far as I can tell, he thoroughly believes everything he says.
But sincere belief doesn’t make the belief correct.
(for Anon and any lurkers. I know you know that Brian.)
“St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy, and one can easily go back and find saints among the Monarchs-Can one say the same for the republics? Pope John F Kennedy anyone????”
Huh? Pope JFK?
John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?
John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?
I don’t know, but for some reason I cracked up when I read that.
John respons only to Mon. Lefevre though.
There’s these two words….”rat” and “hole”. You put them together and you have “rathole“..
>John is obsessed. All of his posts can be reduced to any or all of the following: 1)Vatican II: Bad! 2)Everything since Vatican II: Bad! 3)Paul VI: Bad! 4) John Paul II: Very Bad!
Actually, his posts can be reduced to this: “The gates of hell have prevailed!”
Simple Sinner Posted:
“Huh? Pope JFK?
John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is? ”
May I ask what that has to do with my post?
Pope JFK? Sure, for many of American Catholics, Mr Kennedy is their Catholic Pope, snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people
And now you have congress with a Novus Ordo “Catholic” speaker, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and upwards 1/3 of congress as so called “Catholics” with most in the democratic camp pushing forth their abortion and liberal agenda and being sure to tell the world they are not Catholic which they really do not need to publicize as their actions clearly speak volumes, but they all line up for the photo op to receive their communion wafer from the Catholic church with not a priest, Bishop, or even Pope who backpeddled again after first saying that pro abortion politicians are excommunicated denying them the sacred species, our Lord and Savior
Who are the real pharisies? It is the clergy of Vatican II who refuse to deny our Lord to those in mortal sin and want to do him harm as the pharisies did 2000 years ago as they care less in protecting his name and body and blood from continued defamation and abuse.
>BobCatholic from Illinois,
>
>Eddie Vrdolyak is certainly corrupt but a very >intelligent and philosophically correct Catholic >and very pro-life–albeit very flawed on a >personal level.
>Illinois is real messed up.
No disagreement there.
>John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?
Why do I have this feeling he doesn’t have one?
BobCatholic,
Actually, his posts can be reduced to this: “The gates of hell have prevailed!”
If only John could realize that is what he has accepted.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
…snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people
Okay, somebody kindly explain this to me:
John complains about JFK and others supposedly snubbing their nose right at the Vatican and the refusal to take orders from the Pope.
How is this any different from John?
However, John snubbs the Vatican and takes no orders from the Pope himself!
Geeze!
Talk about projection!
There’s a psychological imbalance there that needs to be resolved in this guy’s psyche.
Pope JFK? Sure, for many of American Catholics, Mr Kennedy is their Catholic Pope, snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people
John, the reason so many people get upset with you is because you always attribute these qualities to the Church rather than the people who exhibit them. You know as well as any of us that the Catholic Church does not teach these things; it’s the people who dissent from the Church who act in this way. If your posts made the distinction between what the Church actually teaches and the people who refuse to accept Her teachings, you would have a lot more friends around here.
If your posts made the distinction between what the Church actually teaches and the people who refuse to accept Her teachings, you would have a lot more friends around here.
Brian,
You hit the nail right on the head!
What’s weird is that I believe the reason why John refuses to acknowledge this is because it too much reminds him of himself; thus, there is a psychological ‘block’ in his mind that prevents him from realizing this fact in his psyche.
Think about it —
The very reason why there have been so many liturgical abuses rampant in the world today is because of folks who refuse to adhere and acknowledge actual Church teachings but, instead, make up a facsimile of it that is to their own liking.
In John’s case, he refuses to adhere and acknowledge the actual Church teachings himself but, instead, makes up a facsimile of it that is to his own disliking in order to provide him a reason (albeit fabricated) to rebel against it.
This, too, can be said of the Rad Trads (though not genuine Traditionalists who still faithfully look up to the Pope and acknowledge the Novus Ordo Missae).
Why?
Because it gives them a reason for being; for their existence.
You need to realize that for these Rad Trads, the Tridentine Mass was a part of them psychologically and emotionally; therefore, to have lost it due to the Novus Ordo Missae meant losing that aspect of themselves.
Therefore, they’ve manufactured all these things that Vatican II supposedly did in order to provide them with reasons for their existence and for their rebellion against the very thing that caused them to lose that aspect of themselves — the Catholic Church.
All in all, it’s a mental defect, you might say, that causes the Rad Trads to behave so irrationally.
This does NOT go the same for genuine Traditionalists who want to bring back the Tridentine Rite for legitimate reasons, who actually still acknowledge the Vicar of Christ as Head of Christ’s True Church and the Authority of His Catholic Church.
This does NOT go the same for genuine Traditionalists who want to bring back the Tridentine Rite for legitimate reasons, who actually still acknowledge the Vicar of Christ as Head of Christ’s True Church and the Authority of His Catholic Church.
Esau, I think that John does, at the very minimum, do these things (despite at the same time ranting against the Church). Maybe it’s because I haven’t been here very long, but I have a hard time outright condemning John. His disgust for the dissent that is so common in our age is absolutely appropriate and right. Unfortunately he’s kind of like Darth Vader using the force for the dark side instead of for the rebels. I guess I still have hope that John’s hatred of that which should be hated can be channeled in the right direction rather than abandoned completely.
Brian:
I think you’re missing the point of my post above.
There is a distinct difference between Rad Trads and genuine Traditionalists.
I know genuine Traditionalists and affiliate with them, in fact. They continue to acknowledge the Seat of Peter and the Authority of the Catholic Church.
Rad Trads, however, are a sect all their own.
They have gone to the extent of declaring Pope John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI, Paul VI and John XXIII heretics as well as apostates.
So, if you were to survey John’s posts, it’s interesting to note that even though John shows such disgust for dissent; he himself is guilty of the same thing.
In his case, as I tried to explain in my above post, it’s perhaps a mental defect in that his psyche prevents him from seeing clearly that the very thing he accuses the people in the Church of (i.e., massive dissent) is also a reflection of himself as well.
Unfortunately he’s kind of like Darth Vader using the force for the dark side instead of for the rebels.
Perhaps this will help —
Remember in Revenge of the Sith, when Anakin was so blinded by the dark side (by his hate) that he couldn’t clearly see that the very lives he sought to protect were the very lives he was endangering?
Remember how Anakin started manufacturing ‘evil’ things about the Jedi that, in his mind, he thought were genuinely true; however, they had no basis in reality?
It can be said, for one, that these fabrications about the “corrupt” Jedi provided Anakin justification to rebel against them and helped to relieve his conscience of any guilt in the matter to the point where he started committing such horrific actions without giving them a second thought (e.g., the killing of the Jedi children).
Not that John is going to start killing innocent children (hope not), but, in the same way as Anakin, John’s mind (as well as that of a Rad Trad’s) manufactures such awful things about Vatican II wherein he is unable to see things clearly (blinded, like Anakin, by hate; in this case, a hatred of Vatican II and what it supposedly did) that he and the Rad Trads have gone to the extent of declaring our Popes as heretics and, even worse, apostates (same way Anakin started demonizing the Jedi Council in his mind), not knowing that the very thing he and they are fighting against (in Anakin’s case, it was the Jedi) is the very thing that is the source of our salvation.
“John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is? ”
“May I ask what that has to do with my post?”
It has as much to do with “The X Party Vs. The Y Party” as Pope JFK.
And given your predilection to lurk and decry that we Catholics aren’t Catholic anymore anyway – and do so in any and every thread you seem to post in – this place right here is as good a place as any to ask.
So please, out there in the wilderness with your true Catholics, can you tell us who your bishop is? If you can’t tell, that would be rather telling.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3122.html
Here is the product of “Freedom”, “Religious Liberty” and Masonic influence in the US and the so called Democratic process. Lets see if the Pope takes a stance
Pro-Abortion Members of Congress Blast Pope Benedict on Excommunication
Email this article
Printer friendly page
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 15, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Eighteen pro-abortion members of Congress lashed out on Monday in a letter opposing remarks Pope Benedict XVI made about pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The Catholic Church leader told reporters last week that any Catholic elected official who supports abortion has automatically excommunicated themselves.
Led by pro-abortion Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, eighteen members of the House issued a statement responding to the pope’s comments.
“We are concerned with the pope’s recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views,” the statement read.
They said that the penalty of excommunication “offend(s) the very nature of the American experiment and do(es) a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”
DeLauro and the pro-abortion lawmakers suggested that even though the Catholic church is pro-life that it’s a personal mission rather than a mission accomplished through public policy.
The pontiff was asked about the topics in reference to a threat from the Catholic bishops in Mexico to excommunicate members of the Mexico City legislative assembly who recently voted to legalize abortion in the nation’s capital.
“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.
“They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church… which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life),” he added.
The pope talked about church doctrine known as “automatic excommunication” where someone who does something which the church considers a grave sin inflicts on themselves.
A report in The Hill, a newspaper focusing on Congress, the statement “mirrors” a Catholic “statement of principles” released last year that 55 mostly pro-abortion Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, signed.
The statement of principles says that the lawmakers agreed with the Catholic Church’s “undesirability of abortion” and that each member “is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term.”
When it comes to communion, Mary Ann Walsh, spokesperson for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told The Hill the decision to withhold sacraments is made by individual bishops.
When it comes to communion, Mary Ann Walsh, spokesperson for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told The Hill the decision to withhold sacraments is made by individual bishops.
Speaking of which…
Who is your bishop?
Here is the product of “Freedom”, “Religious Liberty” and Masonic influence in the US and the so called Democratic process. Lets see if the Pope takes a stance
John:
Why should anybody care what the Pope has to say?
Or even what the Catholic Church has to say?
I COMPLETELY agree with what you wrote here in the past:
“Obedience is to God not to Man. Obedience is to sound and true Catholic teachings, not man made.”
Posted by: John | Apr 25, 2007 2:06:41 PM
And since, by your own admission on another thread, the Catholic Church has, YET AGAIN, changed her teachings, why should anybody give them heed when, really, such are but the arbitrary inventions of man which change ever so often by merely the drop of a hat?
Now, does anybody really want that?
Therefore, I suggest that the only authority by which to rely on can only be found in the unchanging pages of Scripture; since only it remains ever so constant and guarantees the Word of God remains pure and unadulterated.
Infallibility itself (by the very evidence you have provided in terms of how the current and previous pontiff had changed what were considered historical dogmatic teachings of the Church) is nothing but another man-made invention concocted by the Catholic Church meant to secure her corrupt heirarchy and power base.
Christ said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.
Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the ‘True’ Church of Christ; but that it is certainly the church which is comprised of bible-believing Christians who look to the TRUE Auhority that does NOT change — the Bible!
Come on, y’all. No one is under any obligation, or should feel any pressure to answer personal questions.
I don’t have a Bishop.
I am praying that soon a Godly priest is called to fill that role, though.
John, What do the heretical beliefs of American politicians have to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church? People have been abusing their freedom since Adam and Eve, yet that certainly doesn’t prove that God has wavered in His Law. Neither do the actions of today’s sinners prove that the Church has abandoned that Law.
Pope Benedict stood up for the Church’s teachings with his statements last week. He explicitly stated the Church’s position on abortion and made an example of the Mexican bishops for all the limp-wristed bishops who are too afraid to do their jobs. Yet you want to turn it around and use it against the Church. Tell me John, if this isn’t an example of Pope Benedict doing his job as Holy Father, then what is?
Come on, y’all. No one is under any obligation, or should feel any pressure to answer personal questions.
I simply don’t see this as a personal question.
If he is to present himself as Catholic here, it is time for him to step up to the plate and present where “real Catholics” can be found. In the person of the “episcopi” of a local community, the fullness of faith can be found. In communion with the Roman See, that fullness is safeguarded.
My bishop is +JOHN (Kudrick) of Parma.
Please do share with us who your bishop persisting in the true faith is.
“In the person of the “episcopi” of a local community, the fullness of faith can be found.”
Fair enough. I just don’t find that it helps much when the discussion turns from ideas to personalities.
OTOH, the Church IS made up of people, bishops are people, and every Catholic ought to have one in union with the Pope.
Though our state has no bishop at present, we DO have an Archbishop in a neighboring state (as well as an administrator here).
Simple Sinner, I have to agree with Tim that it’s a personal question, at least it’s an identifying question and it’s up to each person to what extent they want to identify themselves (as to location etc).
“Simple Sinner, I have to agree with Tim that it’s a personal question, at least it’s an identifying question and it’s up to each person to what extent they want to identify themselves (as to location etc).”
If John feels this to be the case, let him speak for himself. He may decline for that reason.
Catholics are served by priests. The bishop has the fullness of the priesthood able to celebrate or provide over all sacraments. Deacons cannot say Mass, priests cannot ordain, but in a bishop you have the fullness of the priesthood. If we are in fact without a viable, valid or credible Pope, we will have to settle for knowing who the good bishops are that are still Catholic.
If the rest of us are apostate and the gates of hell have prevailed and us “Novus Ordo” Catholics (I am a Greek Catholic so I guess I am guilty by association!) are in a world of hurt as a result, speak up man!
Name names! Let us know where the “real” Catholic bishops and priests may be found! Surely there are not so many that to name one’s ordinary would be a dead giveaway as to your specific location or identity – of which you may reveal what you please. At least, if you could, name some bishops who presrve in true Catholocism in the absense of a true magisterium!
Perhaps if we know who and where they are, the rest of us could get on the “real Catholic” boat and not be so hopelessly lost, John. Why hide it under a bushel basket?
If John feels this to be the case, let him speak for himself
Point taken 🙂 Now that I’ve read the rest of your post, I see where you’re going with that question.
Brian posted:
“Pope Benedict stood up for the Church’s teachings with his statements last week. He explicitly stated the Church’s position on abortion and made an example of the Mexican bishops for all the limp-wristed bishops who are too afraid to do their jobs. Yet you want to turn it around and use it against the Church. Tell me John, if this isn’t an example of Pope Benedict doing his job as Holy Father, then what is?
”
Ok then-please answer in a Yes or No-after reading and listening to the Popes talk on the plan or at least what is reported, in a simple YES or NO-ARE PRO ABORTION POLITICIANS EXCOMMUNICATED OR NOT????
I WAIT ON YOUR AND ALL OF THE OTHER PEANUT GALLERY’S RESPONSE
Does that mean “Yes” or “No”?
Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.
Are these politicians likely to enforce it on themselves? No. But do you really expect the Pope to come to America and follow them around and make sure they don’t receive communion. The U.S. Bishops need to start listening to the Holy Father, they haven’t (with a few noble exceptions) for years.
It is an automatic excommunication, John.
Individual bishops will handle it however they will… what does that have to do with anything?
What is YOUR bishop doing about it?
With something as glaring as abortion and the clear concise responsibility of the church to protect life, is it that difficult for the Pope, any Pope since Roe V Wade and now in Catholic (former?) Latin America to call on the excommunication of these politicians? Pope Paul IV had no problems warning the Catholic faithful of those who professed to be Catholic but are really otherwise, as did Pius X in his clear excommunication of those who came after him who embraced the errors of Modernism
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
Tim posted:
“It is an automatic excommunication, John.
Individual bishops will handle it however they will… what does that have to do with anything?
What is YOUR bishop doing about it?”
Well Tim, if one went and looked the so called schismatic Traditional Catholic Bishops, when one attends mass and is a member of the congregation, one is required to:
Be in a state of grace before receiving communion (announcements are made)
Dress approprite (requirements posted on the entrance to the church by the BISHOP) and ushers escort anyone out. Message reads “in respect for the blessed sacrament…)
Annulments not allowed nor are divorced persons allowed to receive communion
Weekly writings and pamphlets given out talking about the latest of current events and mortal sins to avoid
Confessions given before mass so all can receive communion and between mass as required
Nuns singing and teaching the catechumens as well as the children as the number of those who want to attend the Traditional Latin Mass and receive sacrements untainted my modernism and protestanism bursting at the seams with newly ordained priests and fund drives to purchase some of the closed novus ordo church’s, sold to pay for pedophila, to start up traditional church’s (note that the dioceses in NYC and Boston have denied selling these closed church’s to traditionalists even for more money and instead have decided to sell to Buddhists, Protestants and developers as these Bishops hate the Trads and even when sold in Boston to a trad group the Bishop made a public announcement to let all know that this group was NOT part of the so called “Catholic Church”
One could go on Tim, but maybe you and Esau should go to Mass and pray the new Eucharistic prayer (is this the 5th one now allowed by the Novus Ordo?) that the Pope promulgated I just read in Brazil!
note that the dioceses in NYC and Boston have denied selling these closed church’s to traditionalists even for more money and instead have decided to sell to Buddhists, Protestants and developers
Is that what is meant by not letting the gates of hell prevail?
Annulments not allowed
John I’m as against the huge abuse of annulments in America as you are, but are you saying that your bishops treat invalid marriages as sacramental ones?
As for the rest of your comments… I’m happy you have a church that makes you feel good. I’ll tough out the abuses in the Church that Christ founded. You know, you can be just as opposed to all the sins performed by Catholics in the Church as you are now without being opposed to the Catholic Church
John,
“Annulments not allowed”
Wrong again! Richard Williamson of the SSPX in a letter dated March 3, 1998 admits that the SSPX had been secretly granting annulments.
He even states that the annulments that the SSPX granted “might have been better left in private”.
Hmmm setting up secret marriage tribunals without jurisdiction and only admitting it after it became public knowledge. Doesn’t that sound at least a little troublesome to even you?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
From that letter dated March 3, 1998, “Do not think – second accusation .. that the Society is opening wide the flood-gates to “Traditional annulments”. Here in the U.S.A., since the Society undertook this ungrateful task, it has taken only some one hundred cases seriously enough to examine them, and of those one hundred it has declared in less than a dozen cases, I am told, that the contract of marriage was invalid from the beginning. That is, like before Vatican II, a trickle rather than a flood.”
LLB,
Undertook the ungrateful task without jurisdiction. Like everything else the SSPX does if it says it is right then how dare anyone question them, even the pope.
At least I know I am fallible and that is why I trust the authority Our Blessed Lord established and promised would lead us to all truth.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
As expected, the letter also addresses the subject of jurisdiction.
http://www.sspx-schism.com/Williamson0398.htm
Let me clarify my response to Tim as he was once again going down some road that I never see him or anyone here go with their separated “Protestant bretheren” as they do with those who only want NO change in the church as before vatican II
I was of course indicating what I have observed in the times I have attended masses at other “Traditional church’s”, that are not the normal Indult where we attend. The piety their Bishops demand for the blessed sacrament on down is right there for all to see, and not a time that I was there was this not verbally relayed as well.
If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?
In a church which morals and teachings NEVER change, as in the SSPX and Trad church’s as we all know that the deposit of faith which the Vicar of Christ per Vatican I is only allowed to safeguard and not Change (note that B16 recently said that the “ever changing” deposit in one of his speeches on Traditionalist last month, that even the Pope does not know what is allowed and what is not)or the church of Vatican II?
LLB,
“As expected, the letter also addresses the subject of jurisdiction.”
As expected anyone who supports the SSPX will look the other way no matter what authority the SSPX take for themselves and accept any explanation that is given.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
You were wrong about the SSPX and annulments and should be man enough to admit it.
What would they have more in common with?
The Church established by Christ upon the rock of the papacy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
NO change in the church as before vatican II
John, this is a false statement and you know it. The Church has always changed, if it hadn’t we wouldn’t have the Traditional Mass. Yes, there have been incredible abuses since Vatican II, and we all want to correct them. But to keep the Church frozen in time would deny the Holy Spirit. The Church is dynamic, it’s alive, it’s the Body of Christ – it can’t remain stagnant, it would die. The Church will make it through this period and will be reformed just as it has been in the past.
The piety their Bishops demand for the blessed sacrament on down is right there for all to see, and not a time that I was there was this not verbally relayed as well.
I’m a huge fan of piety, it builds faith and is desperate lacking in our times. But piety in and of itself doesn’t mean right belief. Piety must first be built on Truth.
If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?
They’d recognize their Lord with whom they live in perfect communion as the Church Triumphant. At one Mass they’d recognize a whole bunch of people who receive the Lord while being opposed to his Church (by rejecting Her Authority since Vatican II). And at the other they’d also see a whole bunch of people who receive the Lord while being opposed to his Church (by rejecting Her Authority in general). The tares will always be in mixed in with the wheat.
In a church which morals and teachings NEVER change, as in the SSPX and Trad church’s as we all know that the deposit of faith which the Vicar of Christ per Vatican I is only allowed to safeguard and not Change (note that B16 recently said that the “ever changing” deposit in one of his speeches on Traditionalist last month, that even the Pope does not know what is allowed and what is not)or the church of Vatican II?
You’re mixing two definitions of change. The morals and teachings of the Catholic Church never change as they become more developed but they never contradicted themselves. You’ve posted several documents to try to prove that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has contradicted itself, but your interpretation of the documents has been illogical to everyone but you. The deposit of faith, despite your arguments, has always been developing as we understand it better. Again, this is the work of the Holy Spirit – without it we would have a dead faith. One modern example is John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality has always been consistent, but JPII unraveled the mystery of the sacrament of marriage to reach a new level of understanding. If you’re selling me a dead Church where this can’t happen, I don’t want any part of it.
The morals and teachings of the Catholic Church
neverchange as they become more developed but they never contradicted themselves.oops.
LLB,
The letter addresses jurisdiction by admitting that they don’t have it:
To paraphrase: We don’t have any jurisdiction, we know we don’t have any jurisdiction, let’s just act like we do and the missing jurisdiction will be magically supplied by the Church so that our consciences need not be troubled.
No thanks. We can agree that the handling of annulments by the Church is problematic, even that it is a crisis, but you will not find the solution apart from the Vicar of Christ in a group with schismatic origins that claims to be “more Catholic than the Pope.”
If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?
John:
Oh, puhleeze!
The Saints in Heaven DIED for TRADITIONAL Catholic beliefs.
Amongst these (like St. Thomas More) was first and foremost the authority given to St. Peter by Our Lord and Saviour Himself!
This is something you REFUSE to recognize and acknowledge. This is something deeply engrained in TRADITIONAL Church Teachings since the days Our Lord was present here on earth and, thus, made evident in the pages of Scripture!
Although you and Tim J. may tire of my mentioning this repeatedly and would like nothing more than to see my back, what I say here is, in fact, Truth; that is, Petrine Authority, is an integral part of Traditional Church Teaching and is NOT something you or any pretender to the throne can arbitrarily rescind or modify, since it was Our Lord and Saviour Himself who willed it so, as spoken by Him in Scripture!
Which reminds me, you still haven’t answered my previous questions — where is your Pope and where is the ‘TRUE’ Church, since you don’t believe the one that exists now is actually the real one?
Not like you’d ever answer any of our questions here anyway.
Huh? What makes you think I would like to see your back, Easu?
Sorry, that’s “Esau”.
And why would I get tired of hearing about Petrine authority?…
Tim J.
It’s just that I tire of the “Guilt by Association” scheme that John keeps operating on.
It seems to me that he often targets you and David B. just because of your association with me.
Also, it does become rather tiresome that because John keeps harping on the same things over and over again and especially because he refuses to engage in actual dialogue with folks here on this blog but, instead, just regurgitates the same vomit as before; it seems rather futile and pointless where you typically have various points already covered by folks in past threads needing to once again deliver these all over again.
And for what purpose?
John doesn’t even seem to read them, acknowledge them or even answer the questions put to him by such folks.
Smoky had masterfully described the situation concerning John where John will complain about A, B, C, D and E about the Church. While folks will attempt to speak on any one of A, B, C, D or E; John will just ignore these and repeat the same complaints about A, B, C, D and E.
There is no progress here.
Thus, this all becomes monotonous and awfully boring, with no real purpose whatsoever.
I’m pretty certain that you and other folks on this blog deserve much more intelligent conversation than this rather pointless routine.
God bless.
I asked a simple question regarding the Pope B16 and his “statement” on politicians being excommunicated, those who are so called Catholic and promote the death of the unborn with the Masonic “Freedom, Fraternity and Equality” ideals, as they so eloquently stated in their rebuttal of the Pope
One word answer-Yes or NO
Excommunicated or NOT?
I wait on Esau, Tim J, Inocencio, and all to answer in line with a Yes or No
If you dont, then I know that you like Vatican II and the popes of Vatican II are selling nothing but confusion to the laity and vagueness to “appear” to be in line with traditional teachings but really are promoting each and everybody to make their own decisions on something as easy to spell out as death of the unborn
I am waiting
Esau, that’s why most people have stopped reading John’s posts.
John, I remember seeing someone respond to your post.
Well, that’s why if it were my blog I would ban John, but that’s just me.
There may be SOME benefit in having to articulate the arguments for the umpteenth time , but that point was passed (IMO) a while ago.
It’s like sharpening a sword… having to defend and explain authentic Catholic doctrine when it is questioned and attacked helps us to clarify these things in our own mind, and makes us better able to articulate the truth when the need arises. Like sharpening a sword, it’s a good thing to do, but after a point the job is done and you’re just wasting time and energy.
Besides, as you noted, John is not listening, does not respond to substantive arguments and will not acknowledge when he is caught in foolishness or falsehood.
I will slightly modify what Smoky wrote; John says “What about A,B,C,D and E!?”. Someone will offer a reasoned argument about “A” and John will then say, “Well, what about F,G,H,I and J?! HUH??!!”
Hobby Horse, Laundry List, whatever you call it. The sheer number of logical fallacies in any one of John’s posts is so overwhelming that it is virtually impossible to deal with all of them. It’s not argument or debate, more like a rhetorical sawed-off 12-gauge… it doesn’t have to be accurate. If he says it often enough, I’m sure he figures someone will believe it.
I think the effect, though, is the opposite of what he intends. I’ve never been so turned off by any member of a religious sect. I have argued in a more civil manner with Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists, and been able to go out bowling or for a beer afterward (bowling with the JWs, beer with the atheists… just for the record).
And, for the record, I have no problem with your posts except for occasionally the CAPS and italic issues which I mentioned before and which (seems to me, anyway) you have moderated somewhat lately. I find the substance of your comments to be right 99.44% of the time… which – by sheer coincidence – happens to be the precise extent to which I agree with them.
I know I defend John more than I should, but I’ve actually learned a lot from John’s posts. Especially when he quotes from Vatican II documents to prove that they’re heretical. When he does that I learn what they actually say as opposed to what Rad Trads say that they say. Vatican II may be a startling shift in perspective, but it doesn’t contradict any of the truths of the Church.
That being said, I’m all for true traditionalism (greater support for the TLM, revival of Catholic culture and piety, etc.), but to try stop Tradition at Vatican II is Protestantism not traditionalism. If Tradition has been frozen in time just before Vatican II, then the Rad Trads have no ability to rule authoritatively when new disputes arise. In fact, without living Tradition they don’t even have the ability to issue a doctrine condemning Vatican II.
John,
As always (and unlike you) I will let the popes speak for themselves.
The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.
“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,”he said.
“They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church… which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)”.
Now answer my question. Is it even a little troubling to you that the SSPX set up secret marriage tribunals without jurisdiction and only admitted it after it became public knowledge? Yes or no?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I wait on Esau, Tim J, Inocencio, and all to answer in line with a Yes or No
John, I answered: Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.
Tim J answered: It is an automatic excommunication, John.
If you dont, then I know that you like Vatican II and the popes of Vatican II are selling nothing but confusion to the laity and vagueness to “appear” to be in line with traditional teachings but really are promoting each and everybody to make their own decisions on something as easy to spell out as death of the unborn
John, we’ve asked you this many times: If the Church is no longer the Church, then where is the Church that Christ founded? I will do my part to fight the abuse occurring in Jesus’ Church, but I will not fight against His Church itself. Unless you’ve found the true Church and haven’t told us, you seem to be fighting against both.
John, I answered your question before.
The excommunication associated with procuring or assisting abortion is automatic. Whether these politicians can be said to be actually “assisting” in the procuring of abortion according to the definitions of canon law, I don’t know. They may be incurring automatic excommunication for other reasons, as well.
Our own Canon Lawyer Ed Peters has a good post on this at the moment (http://blog.canonlaw.info) which points out the fact that excommunication and the refusal of the Eucharist are two different things.
But this whole question brings to light yet another of your logical fallacies; that the behavior of this or that bishop, or the Pope’s response to said bishops, somehow “proves” whether or not he is really-o, truly-o a legitimate Pope of a legitimate and authoritative Church.
You freely impute the guilt for actions of spineless clergy on the Holy Father, as if that were evidence that the Church is in apostacy.
So, when Archbishop Burke or another courageous and orthodox bishop takes a stand for Catholic truth, can’t I just as well claim that this is “proof” that the VII Church is the Real Church Christ founded and that Pope Benedict is the greatest thing since sliced bread?
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but in your world, your little reducing valve will permit the evidence to flow in only one direction.
Using your logic, I say that Father Corapi is absolute proof that Benedict XVI is Christ’s Vicar on Earth and that Vatican II is as legitimate a Church council as any.
Thanks, Tim J.
I appreciate your comments and thanks for the kind words.
— although I do note the drop in percentage points from 99.5% to 99.44% ;^)
Kidding aside, I think you are right in your presentation of what Smoky actually said.
Although, it just seems to me that rather than introducing a new set of complaints (i.e., F, G, H, I and J), John appears to revert back to the same old ones (i.e., A, B, C, D and E) without paying any heed to people’s responses.
It would be worth the effort if John actually participated in the discussion by listening to the replies of others and answering their questions; that way, it would’ve been actual dialogue.
But the fact of the matter is that, with him, it never is.
About your ‘sword’ analogy — I totally agree!
I think that’s one of the pivotal reasons why I enjoy Jimmy’s blog and greatly appreciate the various interactions with several of the folks here — even if we might sometimes get lost in the heat of the discussion. That’s all a part of being ‘human’.
Anyway, the viewpoints of and exchanges with our seperated brethren as well as other non-Catholics and even fellow Catholics provide us with a variety of prespectives/issues (some of which provoke thoughtful reflection) and opportunities for us to share our Faith and, in this sharing, gain an even clearer, more articulate understanding of the Catholic Faith by virtue of such interactions; that is, so long as we remain constrained in our passions ;^).
For what it’s worth, I would also ban John for the reasons articulated by Tim J.
The first time you confront what he says, you might learn something by virtue of being prompted to go somewhere else and find the truth. The value of that quickly passes however, and what he says (over and over) takes on all of the attributes of negative knowledge, and you end up dumber just for having been in the same combox with him.
Tim J. offered the following example:
I think he gives John too much credit. From what I have seen, after someone offers a reasoned argument about “A” John will then say, “Well, what about A, B, C, D and E?” In other words, he will ignore A and pretend nothing was ever said about it, and then he will just keep re-presenting the same pre-packaged list that he has copied and pasted from some rad trad website. To suggest that he will move on to F, G, H, I and J implies that he actually comes up with something new.
Unless of course “F, G, H, I and J” refer to the ad hominem attacks that will be unleashed from time to time.
But that’s just my opinion.
Brian posted:
“John, I answered: Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.
Tim J answered: It is an automatic excommunication, John.”
You all make me laugh!!
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702642.htm
Vatican tones down papal remarks on pro-abortion Catholic politicians
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
SAO PAULO, Brazil (CNS) — Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on excommunication for pro-abortion Catholic politicians touched on huge and sensitive issues — so sensitive that the Vatican issued a toned-down version of his remarks the following day.
Speaking with journalists on the plane taking him to Brazil May 9, the pope left the impression that he agreed with those invoking excommunication for Catholic legislators in Mexico City who had voted in April to legalize abortion.
When reporters pressed the pope on whether he supported the excommunication of the Mexican deputies, he answered: “Yes, this excommunication was not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law). It is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ.”
Referring to Mexican bishops, the pope continued: “Therefore, they did not do anything new, surprising or arbitrary. They only underlined publicly what is foreseen in (canon) law, a law based on the church’s doctrine and faith, on our appreciation for life and for human individuality from the first moment.”
On May 10, the Vatican press office released the official transcript of the pope’s 25-minute session with reporters. The pope’s opening “yes” to the direct question about excommunication had disappeared, and so had the references to Mexican bishops.
The tweaked version of the pope’s remarks began: “Excommunication is not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law.) Therefore, it is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with going to Communion, in which one receives the body of Christ.”
In the rest of the edited version, some of the pope’s verbs were changed to make his remarks more generic.
Asked about the changes, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reporters May 10 that it was routine for the Vatican Secretariat of State to review the pope’s extemporaneous remarks and clean them up a little for publication.
That the pope’s comments had potential for controversy was apparent immediately after he made them. Father Lombardi quickly circulated among reporters on the plane and told them that the pope was not announcing a new policy on Catholic politicians.
Father Lombardi also noted confusion over what the Mexican bishops had and had not done. The Mexican bishops had not announced the excommunication of anyone, he pointed out.
“And if the bishops haven’t excommunicated anyone, it’s not that the pope wants to do so,” Father Lombardi said.
Later May 9, after consulting with the pope, Father Lombardi said the pontiff was only reiterating the teaching that Catholic legislators who promote initiatives like the legalization of abortion exclude themselves from the conditions needed to participate fully in the Eucharist.
But for many media, those distinctions meant less than the pope’s apparent “yes” to the penalty of excommunication for Catholic politicians. The next day’s banner headline in one of Brazil’s leading newspapers, Folha de Sao Paulo, read simply: “The pope supports the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians.”
In Brazil and in several Latin America countries, there are increasing pressures to legalize abortion. Its adoption in Mexico City, which now allows abortion for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, was seen by church leaders as a major defeat.
Some of the church’s statements following the vote in Mexico City have appeared inconsistent, however.
Carlos Villa Roiz, a spokesman for Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, told Catholic News Service May 9 that the Mexican church did not yet have an official position on the matter.
Immediately before the law’s approval April 24, local press quoted a Mexico City archdiocesan statement that said when the law took effect “any baptized assembly members will automatically be excommunicated and therefore be excluded from the Catholic Church.”
However, Cardinal Rivera backed off this stance May 6, saying that excommunication was not necessary.
“The only official position of the archdiocese is the one the cardinal announced on Sunday,” Villa said. “During Mass, he said that he hadn’t considered excommunicating anyone.”
Villa added that Mexican clergy were still debating whether the lawmakers had been excommunicated “latae sententiae,” meaning excommunication may have been automatic following their vote, with no need for a formal church declaration.
He said Mexican church officials would be ready to follow any orders from the pope.
“When Rome speaks, the discussion is over,” Villa said. “Even if Cardinal Rivera hasn’t excommunicated them, the pope is making it understood that the legislators have committed a serious, mortal sin.”
Politicians who supported the abortion bill have downplayed the excommunication discussions.
Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a member of the Democratic Revolution Party, told reporters May 9 that he “hadn’t lost any sleep” over the possibility of being excommunicated.
“I am going to fulfill my duties,” he said. “Above the law, there is nothing more important.”
The issue of politicians and Communion has ramifications beyond Mexico.
During the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, about 10 to 12 of the approximately 190 diocesan bishops spoke out in favor of denying Communion to politicians who favored abortion. The bishops are scheduled to discuss the issue again this November when they vote on a new statement on “Faithful Citizenship.”
– – –
Contributing to this story was Jonathan Roeder in Mexico City.
END
Is that true? Hmmm I seem to have just seen pictures in the washingon post pasted all over other blogs showing John Kerry receiving communion with McCarrick REFUSING to deny him communion
More blah blah blah confusion, you dont even know your own faith
Note the clear “backpeddle”!!!
On May 10, the Vatican press office released the official transcript of the pope’s 25-minute session with reporters. The pope’s opening “yes” to the direct question about excommunication had disappeared, and so had the references to Mexican bishops.
Blah Blah Blah more backpeddling, like with the Moslems with the Pope actually said the truth then realized it did not fit into the Vatican II scheme of ecumania and then had to run off to Turkey and pray in a mosque towards Mecca for the entire Arab world to see and laugh over how they now have the Vicar of Christ on a string, soon the Pope will be visiting these murderers of the unborn to make sure they still love him as JPII was so loved by the secular world
Maybe you could show us a true bishop who is a true Catholic to lead us John?
John,
You really are an old broken record.
Your refusal to respond to questions, poor reading comprehension and inability to do anything other than cut and paste is tiresome.
It is time for you to move on like the League of Evil Traditionalist have done.
I think even Jimmy’s amazing patience will come to an end soon.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
The Vatican cleaned up the Pope’s comments to make them more palatable to the heretics. I’m not a huge fan of it, but both versions still say what they catechism says: that anyone who particpates in abortion is under automatic excommunication. I’m not an expert on this, but this isn’t the same thing as when a bishop personally excommunicates someone. You seem to want the Benedict to say that is, when that would be lying. Tim J, Pope Benedict, and I have given you the answer that has been canon law for hundreds of years (well before Vatican II) and you still protest against it.
Secondly, the Pope can’t just issue a sweeping excommunication of these politicians. To do so he would need evidence that they actually participated in abortion (I think voting for abortion laws would be enough to do it). But that isn’t Benedict’s job, it’s the job of local bishops. I wish they would do it as much as you do, but you can’t blame Benedict for what other people do with his words (both the bishops for not following them and the Vatican Secretariat of State for softening them). Afterall he did get in a bit of trouble for speaking the truth last September, I’m sure the Vatican media is very sensitive against comments that may lead to more violence.
Brian posted:
“Secondly, the Pope can’t just issue a sweeping excommunication of these politicians. To do so he would need evidence that they actually participated in abortion (I think voting for abortion laws would be enough to do it). But that isn’t Benedict’s job, it’s the job of local bishops. ”
And when asked the question whether these politicians were excommunicated by the Pope you stated:
“Brian posted:
“John, I answered: Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.
Tim J answered: It is an automatic excommunication, John.””
So now you have backpeddled and changed your tune as have the pope, making excuses
The problem is that like a poster replied to me regarding the 1917 code of canon law vs the 1983 liberalized annulment filled version regarding “traditionalists” is “Let them have it and let them live by it!”
The issue is simple, that many here, as ex Protestants and even liberal Catholics love the way the church has become as it really stands for nothing and changes on a whim. Everything is vague and it is done that way to be ecumenical and protestant with a small “P”, as Protestants feel that it is their right to interpret scripture and teachings as they please and if they dont like what their elected paid minister is teaching or saying, they go to another church.
Those of you who have no issues with this wishy washy teachings, catechism, liturgy on down the line all of which has changed with the Pope now actually saying that the doctrine of faith is allowed to be “renewed” in clear defection of Vatican I and all church teachings are trying to have the best of both worlds, being “Catholic” but really you are not as membership into the Catholic church used to be exclusive, those that were willing to sacrifice and strive for sainthood. Obviously with the watered down teachings, ecumenism and Religious Liberty that is not the case anymore
Protestants feel that it is their right to interpret scripture and teachings as they please and if they dont like what their elected paid minister is teaching or saying, they go to another church.
Oh, you mean like those schismatic Catholics who feel it is their right to interpret Traditional Catholic Teachings as they please and if they don’t like what the Pope, the rightful Vicar of Christ (with a lineage traced back to St. Peter himself), is saying, they go to attend a schismatic church?
“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam”
“Oh, you mean like those schismatic Catholics who feel it is their right to interpret Traditional Catholic Teachings as they please and if they don’t like what the Pope, the rightful Vicar of Christ (with a lineage traced back to St. Peter himself), is saying, they go to attend a schismatic church?”
Some may. Some may not.
Others just refuse to tell us who is “still a Catholic bishop” even after being asked time and time again.
Hard to tell about these naysayers!
Esau posted:
“Oh, you mean like those schismatic Catholics who feel it is their right to interpret Traditional Catholic Teachings as they please and if they don’t like what the Pope, the rightful Vicar of Christ (with a lineage traced back to St. Peter himself), is saying, they go to attend a schismatic church?”
Looking at scripture where the Books of Matthew and Mark are very clear in the instruction Jesus gave to his Apostles :
Matthew
9″Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
11″Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”
Mark CHAPTER 16.
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
For the above the church of Christ was established on this earth, to preach the Gospel and convert the world, instead of ecumenism, where Lumen Gentium , the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church so blatantly contradicts scripture and the very truth the church was founded upon with this very statement:
“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
Vatican II has declared the church on earth a “society” and only “subsists” in the Catholic church. This is heresy and in total opposition to everything Peter himself died for, the one you so continuously try to show your allegiance to.
Christ unlike Elias, who needed a chariot to go to heaven and was raised by God, because Elias was NOT God, unlike Our Lord who raised and elevated himself off into heaven because he IS God, the church as a “society” may presently be dead after Vatican II, but it’s soul will rise again and restored by a Pope who will refute all that is heresy and is not Catholic, as ecumenism and the teachings of Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and the other “periti” who were deemed heretics or suspected of such before Vatican II only to become head “periti” during, will eventually be thrown out as being not Catholic.
Today we opened our newspapers to the front page of a 15.2 Million settlement to only 2 persons, a boy and girl who were abused for years at a church only a few miles from my home by a youth “minister” (was such a title even in existent before Vatican II?), with full knowledge of the pastor who of course covered it up. There are only hundreds of more cases to go. One can only wonder how many more church’s will need to be sold to pay for these sins
“Secondly, the Pope can’t just issue a sweeping excommunication of these politicians. To do so he would need evidence that they actually participated in abortion (I think voting for abortion laws would be enough to do it). But that isn’t Benedict’s job, it’s the job of local bishops. ”
And when asked the question whether these politicians were excommunicated by the Pope you stated:
“Brian posted:
“John, I answered: Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.
Tim J answered: It is an automatic excommunication, John.””
So now you have backpeddled and changed your tune as have the pope, making excuses
John, You’re the one twisting everyone’s words out of context and I don’t appreciate you purposely trying to confuse the readers of this blog. You pulled the paragraph you quoted out of context in order to make it look like I was making two opposing statements. In the paragraph before it I said that there’s a difference between excommunication by Canon Law and excommunication issued by a bishop. Pope Benedict clearly stated that pro-abortion politicians are excommunicated latae sententiae (by the offense itself). If he he said something contrary to this please show me where. This is an a jure (by law) excommunication as opposed to ab homine (issued by a bishop). You were unhappy with the way Benedict affirmed that those who aid abortions are excommunicated by their very act according to Church law and wanted him to issue ab homine excommunications to particular American politicians. In the quoted text above I wrote why I thought he wouldn’t do this, but would leave it to the local bishops.
I haven’t purposely said misleading statements, but I’m no canon lawyer or even an amateur canon lawyer, so if you have something constructive to add and can correct anything I’ve stated incorrectly please do.
For the above the church of Christ was established on this earth, to preach the Gospel and convert the world, instead of ecumenism
Well said, John, spoken like a true Protestant. It’s not either/or it’s both/and. For example, St. Paul was all things to all men and I don’t think you’ll accuse him of compromising on his mission to convert the Gentiles. You create a false dichotomy between preaching the Gospel to the world and ecumenism. True ecumenisim and truly preaching the Gospel are not mutually exclusive.
Brian,
John does not believe that there is any such thing as “true ecuminism,” although the Church has been preaching it for 2000 years. When St. Pope Pius X and other great Popes preached (rightly) against false ecuminism, John translates it to all ecuminism, and then will rant and rave about how the Church has changed and therefore it must be for the worst.
He’s not even a broken record any more. He’s not interested in honest debate. He’s not interested in the truth. He’s only interested in hearing himself type, and, well, that’s just not that interesting. As a participant in this combox, it is well past time for him to be put out of his misery (not to mention what that would do for the rest of the readers).
Anon posted:
“John does not believe that there is any such thing as “true ecuminism,” although the Church has been preaching it for 2000 years”
Is that so? Please show me where the where and in what encyclical,in what teaching was the word used?
Did you not know that ecumenism was invented by the Protestants in the early 1900’s and in fact was no where to be found in the Catholic encyclopedia anywhere until after Vatican II?
So you are the one who does not want to debate, and throw out the false and misleading statements as you and many bent on the distortion and bending of the faith to appease the secular world while still trying to remain “Catholic” but have failed so badly that the church is in one of her worst crisis that was triggered by Modernists, Vatican II and those that want the church to conform to you instead of asking the sinful secular unconverted world who deny Jesus (Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, etc)but instead kiss their korans, pray to Mecca all in appeasement.
Is this your definition of “ecumenism”?.Can you please illustrate for me another example of a Pope praying in a Mosque, temple, etc for 2000 years as you stated?
Of course you cant.
Did you not know that ecumenism was invented by the Protestants in the early 1900’s and in fact was no where to be found in the Catholic encyclopedia anywhere until after Vatican II?
John, I don’t know enough of the early Church documents to cite examples of ecumenism from them. But last I checked The Church is One, which means it has always been Her mission to promote Unity in Christ. From this alone, I find it hard to believe that ecumenism was invented by Protestants in the 20th century. Maybe the false ecumenism of compromising the Truth to create the mere appearance of Unity was, but the Catholic Church has never promoted this type of ecumenism.
Is this your definition of “ecumenism”?.Can you please illustrate for me another example of a Pope praying in a Mosque, temple, etc for 2000 years as you stated?
No, this is not our definition of ecumenism, it’s yours. You’re playing another Protestant trick. First you create your own definition of a word rather than using the Catholic Church’s. Then you find an example that supports your own definition – voila! – the Catholic Church is apostate.
John, I think I’ve figured out how this game works. Let me give it a shot:
When St. Peter walked on water he lost his faith at the slightest breeze and started sinking. Then he denied Christ three times and ran away instead of following Him to Calvary. Then St. Paul had to call him out for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. So obviously the whole Catholic Church has been a ruse from the very beginning. We need to revert back way further than Vatican II.
We’re all human, we all sin and fail to be perfect reflections of Christ to our neighbors. You can’t judge the Catholic Faith solely on the sins of its followers.
John, Dave Armstrong is reporting Another High-Profile Conversion to the Catholic Church: Lutheran Philosopher Robert C. Koons on his site.
Dr. Koons summarized three of the main reasons for his conversion on his blog and I think the second one really highlights the importance of true ecumenism:
(2) the fruits of Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue on justification, expressed most fully in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1997, that greatly clarified for me the subtlety of the doctrinal differences between the two bodies
Through dialogue with the Lutheran churches, we released the Joint Declaration which both showed the points on which Catholics and Lutherans agree on justification and (possibly more importantly) highlighted the differences between the two. This helped to clarify the Catholic Church’s teaching for Dr. Koons and he was able to see the truth in it. This is exactly what ecumenism is supposed to achieve.
“> Oops, let me try again:
John, Dave Armstrong is reporting Another High-Profile Conversion to the Catholic Church: Lutheran Philosopher Robert C. Koons on his site.
Dr. Koons summarized three of the main reasons for his conversion on his blog and I think the second one really highlights the importance of true ecumenism:
(2) the fruits of Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue on justification, expressed most fully in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1997, that greatly clarified for me the subtlety of the doctrinal differences between the two bodies
Through dialogue with the Lutheran churches, we released the Joint Declaration which both showed the points on which Catholics and Lutherans agree on justification and (possibly more importantly) highlighted the differences between the two. This helped to clarify the Catholic Church’s teaching for Dr. Koons and he was able to see the truth in it. This is exactly what ecumenism is supposed to achieve.
Brian,
Do you really think that what you’ve posted above will convince myopic (as well as closed-minded) John?
He’ll just (mis-)interpret it as being yet another compromise made by the Catholic Church to accomodate Protestant doctrine.
… in order to make the Catholic Church more pleasing and acceptable in the eyes of non-Catholics all in the name of ecumania — as John would snidely put it.
Although, this bit from John I find rather interesting:
those that want the church to conform to you
It’s funny since he is the one that wants the Catholic Church to conform to him!
We’ve already covered several of the early church teachings on the topic of ecumenism, in fact, quite repeatedly in the past.
John’s ignorance, narrow-mindedness, self-absorbed delusions and stubborn disregard for Traditional Church Teachings are a lethal combination that nobody can break through.
Although, I wish you luck in your attempts.
Do you really think that what you’ve posted above will convince myopic (as well as closed-minded) John?
I’m expecting a response about how the converts are swimming the Tiber to Protestantize the Church. But I thought that readers might benefit from a real-life, current example of the fruits of ecumenism.
Looking back, I see myself as myopic and close-minded before I returned to the Catholic Church. For me it took an experience I couldn’t have planned for to clear that cloud around head and allow me examine the Catholic Church objectively. It can’t hurt to keep trying, who knows what may cause that with John. In a sense, I admire John’s faith in God even though I think he has headed down a wrong path with his near-rejection of the Church since Vatican II. I don’t think my faith is strong enough that I could believe in God apart from the Church.
Personally, I believe that it is not unusual to witness such conversions into the Catholic Church, especially during these somewhat dark times that we seem to find ourselves in.
The Lord knows of those who are tearing down the Church from either end: the liberals on one side, the rad trads on the other.
Thus, God may be sending Catholic converts (as well as reverts previously lost only to rediscover the Church and her treasures with an even greater zeal and faith in her) as a sort of cavalry to give aid to those genuine faithful Catholics still in the Church and for the Church herself, now under the weight of such divisive forces attempting to destroy her very foundation.
Yet, what people don’t seem to understand is that it is, in fact, Our Lord who is that foundation (He who is Our Saviour is the very foundation upon whom the Catholic Church was built as it was He who established it — Mt 16:18) and it is He who is still looking after His Church even unto today just as He promised.
“Father, I pray that they may be one, as You and I are One.” Spoken by the inventor of ecumenism.
bill912, great quote!
Coincidentally, the Reading for yesterday’s Liturgy of the Hours was the following from St. Gregory of Nyssa:
Reading From a homily on the Song of Songs by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, bishop
The glory you gave to me, I have given to them
When love has entirely cast out fear, and fear has been transformed into love, then the unity brought us by our saviour will be fully realised, for all men will be united with one another through their union with the one supreme Good. They will possess the perfection ascribed to the dove, according to our interpretation of the text: One alone is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only child of her mother, her chosen one.
Our Lord’s words in the gospel bring out the meaning of this text more clearly. After having conferred all power on his disciples by his blessing, he obtained many other gifts for them by his prayer to the Father. Among these was included the greatest gift of all, which was that they were no longer to be divided in their judgement of what was right and good, for they were all to be united to the one supreme Good.
As the Apostle says, they were to be bound together with the bonds of peace in the unity that comes from the Holy Spirit. They were to be made one body and one spirit by the one hope to which they were all called. We shall do better, however, to quote the sacred words of the gospel itself. I pray, the Lord says, that they all may be one; that as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, so they also may be one in us.
Now the bond that creates this unity is glory. That the Holy Spirit is called glory no one can deny if he thinks carefully about the Lord’s words: The glory you gave to me, I have given to them. In fact, he gave this glory to his disciples when he said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Although he had always possessed it, even before the world existed, he himself received this glory when he put on human nature. Then, when his human nature had been glorified by the Spirit, the glory of the Spirit was passed on to all his kin, beginning with his disciples. This is why he said: The glory you gave to me, I have given to them, so that they may be one as we are one. With me in them and you in me, I want them to be perfectly one.
Whoever has grown from infancy to manhood and attained to spiritual maturity possesses the mastery over his passions and the purity that makes it possible for him to receive the glory of the Spirit. He is that perfect dove upon whom the eyes of the bridegroom rest when he says: One alone is my dove, my perfect one.
Wow. That quote is only one hundred years old? I could’ve sworn I’d seen it somewhere earlier than that….Somewhere….well, it escapes me, but I’m sure it’s a Protestant book.
This John guy, he sure is a wealth of information!
Wow. That quote is only one hundred years old? I could’ve sworn I’d seen it somewhere earlier than that….Somewhere….well, it escapes me, but I’m sure it’s a Protestant book.
This John guy, he sure is a wealth of information!
Anon (Dont you have the guts to post under a name?);
In taking a look back at the published versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, back to 1908 the word “Ecumenism” does not even appear (in direct conflict with your so called 2000 year statement!!)
Then you go to the 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia where seven pages are devoted to the “Ecumenical Movement’. Is that not amazing?
The ecumenical movement as it exists today comes right from a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to “evangelize” the pagan world. In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. Then from this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.
Ecumenism ,clearly embraced by those like Esau who are Protestant was a Protestant invention clearly refuted by the pre Vatican II popes. Why then? Could they have been in error? Of course not.
Canon 1258 #1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not permitted at all for the Faithful to assist in any active manner, or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” Why was this deleted from JPII’s 1983 version? Brian you should be asking this question
Then we have Gaudium et Spes, which teaches that Christ united himself in some way with every man because of His Incarnation:
“Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man”.
Therefore every man, inasmuch as he is united to the Word by virtue of His Incarnation only, is a member of the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is nothing else than the whole human race without any exception. Thus the goal of Vatican II is to make religious differences dissapear.
How sad that anyone could ever buy into this. Find a traditional church with traditional Catholic teachings as this is not Catholic
Canon 1258 #1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not permitted at all for the Faithful to assist in any active manner, or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” Why was this deleted from JPII’s 1983 version?
Because it was overbroad to the point of being nonsensical.
(The-poster-formerly-known-as-anon-now-posting-as-Jim-because-he-is-so-troubled-that-John-thinks-he-doesn’t-have-“guts”-because-he-hasn’t-heretofore-posted-under-a-fake-name.)
John,
A truly traditional Church follows Peter and his successors. While I certainly prefer a well-done Latin Rite Mass over a slovenly celebrated N.O. Mass, my sensibilities have not been so dulled that I believe my aesthetic preferences are more important than faithful obedience to the Vicar of Christ and the shepherds of the Church selected by the Holy Spirit.
In my weaker moments I am convinced that they would be better off if they listened to me, in my saner moments I am convinced that obedience is better than arrogance, and humility better than pride.
You provide anecdotal evidence in support of my saner thoughts. Thanks
“How sad that anyone could ever buy into this. Find a traditional church with traditional Catholic teachings as this is not Catholic “
Who would be bishop of these parishes?
In taking a look back at the published versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, back to 1908 the word “Ecumenism” does not even appear (in direct conflict with your so called 2000 year statement!!)
John, the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible and only a brilliant theologian could figure out the concept of the Trinity from the Bible alone without Tradition. But that doesn’t mean that the concept of the Trinity isn’t in the bible. I gave the ecumenical example of the way St. Paul would meet men on their level (all things to all men) in order to preach the Gospel. Jim (formerly Anon) quoted our Lord, “Father, I pray that they may be one, as You and I are One.” And according to Wikipedia (feel free to dispute this I know Wikipedia isn’t always reliable) the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were working on reuniting way before Vatican II: “It might be alleged that the two churches actually reunited in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Basel), but in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole.” The word ecumenism may be not have been commonly used until the past hundred years, but that doesn’t mean the concept of it hasn’t.
In fact, John, why are you on this web site? You’re engaging in dialogue with Protestants in Catholic clothes in order to teach them what you believe. That’s ecumenism.
The ecumenical movement as it exists today comes right from a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910.
As I said before, the Catholic Church has its own definition of ecumenism which is working for true Unity – reuniting the splintered Christian Churches back into Herself. This is done by sticking to the Truth, not abandoning it. If you want to attack ecumenism, attack the Catholic Church’s definition of it.
Canon 1258 #1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not permitted at all for the Faithful to assist in any active manner, or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” Why was this deleted from JPII’s 1983 version? Brian you should be asking this question
Is the 1917 code of canon law online anywhere? Maybe someone better at googling than I am can find it so I can see this in context. But without the context this looks like it would seriously prevent conversions to the Catholic Faith. How can you convert a non-Catholic without praying with them. I wouldn’t even be able to say grace with my wife. Maybe in context “worship” refers specifically to worship services and I’m making too big a deal of this. But whatever it means, we live in a world surrounded by non-Catholics. We need to show them the light of Christ rather than to hide it because they disagree with us.
If you don’t mind me going off on a bit of a tangent… I almost wish more Protestants were interested in stopping by to see what Catholic Mass is all about. Maybe if parishes knew they had regular visitors they’d perform Mass more reverently. And maybe if more people went to a Mass that clearly demonstrated our faith in the Real Presence they would be converted. The Eucharist is a much better apologist than I’ll ever be. (No, I’m not saying Protestants or unrepentant Catholics should receive the Eucharist so please don’t twist my words here).
Then we have Gaudium et Spes, which teaches that Christ united himself in some way with every man because of His Incarnation:
“Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man”.
John, As far as I know this has always been the Teaching of the Catholic Church. If you can find a Pope or Church Father who speaks against it please correct me. This is the very reason why Christianity is nearly impossible for other monotheistic religions to accept. Who can fathom God becoming man? “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all.” Hebrews 2:9 It’s one of the great mysteries of the Church.
Now here’s your interpretation of what that passage from Gaudium et Spes says:
Therefore every man, inasmuch as he is united to the Word by virtue of His Incarnation only, is a member of the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is nothing else than the whole human race without any exception. Thus the goal of Vatican II is to make religious differences dissapear.
Where does it say that every man is a member of the Church of Christ? Where does it say that the Church is nothing but the whole human race? Where does it say that the goal of Vatican II is to make all religious differences dissappear? Maybe you’ve had some type of training in reading Church documents which is beyond my capability to follow, but I’m never able to see how you come up with your interpretations of the documents you quote.
A truly traditional Church follows Peter and his successors. While I certainly prefer a well-done Latin Rite Mass over a slovenly celebrated N.O. Mass, my sensibilities have not been so dulled that I believe my aesthetic preferences are more important than faithful obedience to the Vicar of Christ and the shepherds of the Church selected by the Holy Spirit.
In my weaker moments I am convinced that they would be better off if they listened to me, in my saner moments I am convinced that obedience is better than arrogance, and humility better than pride.
Thus, the difference between a ‘TRUE’ Traditionalist (Jim) and an Imposter (John).
Just as Pre-Vatican II Catechesis teaches:
“Catholics should possess solid piety, a sound knowledge of the Catholic Faith, and unquestioning obedience to the Pope and the hierarchy.”
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
“It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.”
“All members of the Church are under a strict obligation to obey her laws and regulations; DISOBEDIENCE to the Church IS disobedience to HIM Who authorized her rule, Jesus Christ, God.”
Keep up the Faith, Jim, as I’m sure His Holiness, Benedict XVI, will restore Order to the Liturgy.
God bless you, Sir!
Brian,
God bless you for your charity and patience.
“I’m never able to see how you come up with your interpretations of the documents you quote.”
John only accepts the authority he gives people. He reads wacky websites that say what he wants to hear and he chooses to ignore the authoritative interpretation that the Church established by Christ gives.
John, like Martin Luther, makes himself his own pope.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In fact, John, why are you on this web site?
Actually, Brian poses a very good question here.
On many posts, John has criticized and put down this blog as well as the people who visit it, saying how terribly ‘Protestant’ and ‘Liberal’ this blog is and that its people are same. He’s even gone on to say nasty things about Jimmy Akin himself as well as Catholic Answers on various occasions.
Thus, if a person despises this blog so much, why does would he insist on coming back to it time and again?
A sane person would simply have avoided this blog altogether rather than re-visit it if, in fact, he abhors it so much as John has expressed in several of his posts.
Thus, if a person despises this blog so much, why does would he insist on coming back to it time and again?
Lots of people do things they don’t want to do, hopefully the reason John comes here is because he thinks it’s the right thing to do.
The question I was asking is about an apparent contradiction in John’s logic:
He claims ecumenism is wrong.
He claims converts are in reality is Protestant.
Yet he engages in conversation with these so-called Protestants.
I don’t understand why John is allowed to participate in ecumenical dialogue but the Catholic Church isn’t.
oops that should be: He claims converts are in reality still Protestant
Brian,
You are a good man — you seem to have the patience of Job.
Having read your posts above, I can’t help but notice and admire the charity evident in them and in how you have conducted yourself likewise towards John.
Actually, there was a time where John and I saw eye to eye on some matters in past posts.
However, I guess after having experienced some nasty comments from him regarding the Church (such as the time when he publicly declared JP II and B16, among others, as Apostates), I got turned off and became heavily cynical toward him.
You might say I couldn’t help but take up the manner of Paul in Galatians 3 where he became so furious with the Galatians:
1 O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?
3 Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
4 Did you experience so many things in vain?–if indeed it was in vain.
God bless and hope that the Holy Spirit guides you in these matters.
Esau and Inocencio,
I can’t take too much credit, I often want to say nasty things to John but bite my tongue. The way to coax the truth out is through dialogue and you can’t do that by throwing insults at each other. Besides, I don’t doubt John’s sincerity one bit. He doesn’t post on here merely to give us a hard time like the trolls who pop in and out. He has concrete beliefs which he clearly states for everyone to comment on. I’d much rather talk religion with him than a relativist or cafeteria Catholic (if there’s a difference between the two) any day.
The way to coax the truth out is through dialogue and you can’t do that by throwing insults at each other.
If you go back to our earlier posts from last year, we didn’t throw any insults at him at all.
It was only after several months later when he (let’s just say) started getting on our nerves and spouting the most atrocious things about the Church.
Besides, I don’t doubt John’s sincerity one bit. He doesn’t post on here merely to give us a hard time like the trolls who pop in and out. He has concrete beliefs which he clearly states for everyone to comment on.
Brian,
I think you fail to understand that our dialogue with him since 2006 have resulted in him merely dishing out the same complaints over and over again without him having the courtesy of even reading our responses to them.
In fact, we’ve covered several of the same topics that he’s listed yet again on this very thread.
For example, how many times have we treated the topic of ecumenism with him?
Inocencio, Ryan C., bill912, Mary Kay, Rosemarie, and others (including myself) have covered it countless times with him, presenting him with multiple materials not only from past popes (pre-Vatican II, I might have) but also from Patristic sources, only to have him ignore them and repeat the same pattern of behaviour where he regurgitates the same old complaints on a new thread.
After awhile of this (as well as his vile comments about the Church), it becomes all too tiresome and pointless.
Correction:
… (pre-Vatican II, I might add) …
After awhile of this (as well as his vile comments about the Church), it becomes all too tiresome and pointless.
I agree that talking to John is usually like having a conversation with your echo. No matter what you say it bounces back all distorted. I also agree that he at times resorts to personal attacks. But at times he also states his views and provides evidence as to why he holds them (I will admit that I almost always fail to see how the evidence provided supports his views).
I don’t mind interacting with John even though I know its unlikely he’ll change his views. But if the rest of you think its best that I don’t, I’d be happy to stop.
Inocencio, Ryan C., bill912, Mary Kay, Rosemarie, and others (including myself) have covered it countless times with him
Esau, you left David B off this list. Are you sure you and him aren’t the same person? 😉
I don’t mind interacting with John even though I know its unlikely he’ll change his views. But if the rest of you think its best that I don’t, I’d be happy to stop.
Brian,
I do hope that’s a rhetorical question; because if you’re truly up to it, then by all means please proceed.
Who knows?
You might actually be successful where others have failed.
It’s just that I don’t see how after having been presented with such extensive evidence refuting many of the things John has spewed about the Church and its Teachings ad nauseam — as those provided by the commentors I mentioned as well as many others like Tim J. and even Jimmy Akin himself at one time (not to mention, relatively newcomers like Shane, Esquire, and the like); I don’t know exactly what it will take to convince John that his views are clearly not only contrary to the Traditional Teachings of the Church, but also in direct opposition to Christ Himself.
I’m just hoping the spirit in which you are engaging John now will remain ever as charitable in the end.
Esau, you left David B off this list. Are you sure you and him aren’t the same person? 😉
shesssh! That’s our little secret! ;^)
(David B. is going to kill me, I know!)
Esau,
Meet me on top of the Empire State Building on 7/7/07 and let’s end this with an all-out Peter P. vs. Harry O.-esque apologetics duel.
Meet me on top of the Empire State Building on 7/7/07 and let’s end this with an all-out Peter P. vs. Harry O.-esque apologetics duel.
Okay, David B., you’ve completely lost me.
What was this a reference to?
Now you’ve got me curious! <=^O huh?
Spidy three, thou comic-book ignorant fo! Where Peter Parker and Harry osborn duke it out! high above New York!
Is a “fo” like a “foo'”?
So I guess that so called “obedience”, like the “obedient” children who belived fully in the sanctity of the clergy and were entrusted in their hands were abused sexually and subsequently covered up as is now being revealed by Bishops, Cardinals and even Cardinal Ratzinger as was just reported in the BBC and European Papers yesterday
When abuse of any kind is observed, liturgical or sexual, it is the duty of the faithful to correct their bishops and demand reverence. This is not being holier than the Pope but sound catholicism
When someone who is a Traditionalist, and I just call them Catholic, refuses to Change and reform, who is really the schismatic? Forcing someone to change their beliefs as was handed down for centuries in order to appease the modern world instead of Christ?
Traditionalists dont want or need a Pope who teaches error, nor do they reject the church, they are faithful Catholics who want to hold fast to the faith and teachings as handed down, have been blessed to have an incredible amount of young faithful priests being ordained and a full seminary to carry on these teachings so that our children can learn the faith untainted by compromise until the church as a visible organization (or society as Vatican II now calls it) is restored as the One True Church on earth without the fallacy of teaching that all faiths have truth and that it is ones duty to search for such
Either the Popes before V2 were wrong or they are wrong now. One can not have it both ways
Either the popes before Vatican II were right AND the popes after Vatican II were right, or Jesus got it wrong when He said “the Gates of Hell will never prevail” and, therefore, cannot be God. One cannot have it both ways.
John,
Either popes before and after Vatican II had and have the authority given by God or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
At least you are honest in admitting you don’t want or need a pope whom you judge to teach error. Must be pretty convenient to think you are personally infallible.
Your poor reading comprehension and inability to think for yourself indicate otherwise.
God have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Either the Popes before V2 were wrong or they are wrong now. One can not have it both ways
John, if Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes are wrong then the institution that today claims to be the Catholic Church is an imposter. Please show me the true Church. One can not have it both ways.
I am as enraged by the sins of Catholics, especially the sins of those who have taken Holy Orders, as you are. But I somehow make a distinction between what the Church preaches and the actions of its members. I must, because if I don’t I have no Church. I would be happy to leave the Church of clown masses and spineless bishops that you so often describe on this blog. But if I do I have nowhere else to go.
Wow, maybe Bill, Inocencio and I are all the same person and there really are only like 3 people on this blog.
Brian,
Just go to the “church” as defined and declared by John. He will gladly tell you who is “catholic” and who is not. He will also personally assure you that he is right and salvation comes only from the “teaching and preaching” of John.
He won’t answer questions and if you do ask questions you will be declared a heretic.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Brian, or it could be that three different people thought the same about John’s post and responded almost at the same time.
For most people, that would make them pause and think why that is.
Inocencio, don’t worry I’m confident in my faith in the Church. But if somehow John did have incontrovertable evidence that the Catholic Church isn’t what She claims to be and could show me the true Church that Christ founded I would have no choice but to follow the true Church. So I’m always willing to listen… very critically.
Mary Kay, Sorry I was just playing around. I thought it was funny that all three of us had almost the exact same response that the person who’s having it both ways is the one who claims the Church is Christ’s Church but is somehow apostate after Vatican-II.
I agree with you that the uniformity of our responses should make people pause and think.
Brian,
His evidence is incontrovertable because he says so!
I was only kidding about going to John. And yes we need to seek the Truth in all things. Even when we can not understand we have faith and trust that God has established His Church to guide us to eternal life with Him.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Brian, yes I got that’s what you were saying.
I must be having trouble with the “I’m just teasing” key on my computer lately.
Mary Kay, I’ll attribute the misunderstanding to the reader (me) rather than the writer. I think I err on the side of thinking someone in the combox is serious, rather than brush off their comments as a joke if I’m not absolutely sure.
Brian,
Do you even realize what John is saying here and who he actually sounds like?
John says:
When someone who is a Traditionalist, and I just call them Catholic, refuses to Change and reform, who is really the schismatic? Forcing someone to change their beliefs as was handed down for centuries in order to appease the modern world instead of Christ?
Don’t you think Martin Luther thought exactly the same about the Catholic Church way back then?
That having observed all the abuses (far more reprehensible than those we see today, I might add) by clergy and how the Catholic Church was conforming itself more to the modern world of those times (both politically and ideally) rather than Traditional Teachings (at least, what his concept of traditional teachings was); Luther thought that the Church then was not the ‘True’ Church as it had abandoned, in his view, the ‘True’ Teachings of the Church as handed down through the ages.
If you actually think that John is innovative in his thoughts here, might I recommend that you actually read about Martin Luther?
When John says:
When abuse of any kind is observed, liturgical or sexual, it is the duty of the faithful to correct their bishops and demand reverence. This is not being holier than the Pope but sound catholicism
I cannot help but think that Martin Luther must have been, indeed, the saviour of Christianity since not only did Luther bring to light all the abuses of the Catholic Church then (sexual, liturgical, corruption, politics, etc.), but he also stuck to the ‘True’ Teachings of the Catholic Church (at least, his understanding of them anyway) as handed down from the Apostles.
I think that’s what makes Sola Scriptura a very convenient and secured means of authority because of the fact that you do not look up to men but to the preserved Word of God unadulterated by the possible corruption of men.
If that’s the case, John should reach the inevitable conclusion and just go ‘Protestant’ as he’s already a closet one by far as made evident by his thoughts.
I mean, if he’s already saying that the Church has gone apostate since it ‘invented’ Vatican II and all the teachings that went along with it, who’s to say that the very office of the pope itself was also an invention of the Catholic Church as well as many other things Catholic?
I would challange John to provide us exactly his Catholic beliefs and to defend his version of Catholicism and, if he really still believes in a Catholic Church, then where exactly is this Church since he believes the one now is apostate and, therefore, cannot be the ‘True’ Church?
Do you even realize what John is saying here and who he actually sounds like?
Esau, I know exactly who John sounds like. But he’s not going to listen to us telling him that. That’s why I ask John to lead me through his beliefs. By explaining them to us he might reflect on the methods he uses to come to his conclusions. In doing so he may notice a flaw or two in his logic. I feel like debating with John helps me to find flaws in my own logic.
I think it’s more likely that John will listen to himself than to us. Isn’t there some phrase about how teaching a subject is the best way to learn it? If there’s not I’ll make one up.
John,
I’m not sure my two cents add much at this point, but on the off chance you’re interested in a logic lesson, here goes:
If you actually believe the Church is wrong, they could be wrong at both times. The way you have posed the issue, you can have it both ways. In fact, if you believe that the the Church is wrong in what it claims about itself post-Vatican II, I would submit that it would be far more logical for you to take the position that the Church was wrong both before and after Vatican II.
What I assume you meant to say was something along the lines of the following:
This, of course, would only be true if what the Church taught infallibly before V2 is irreconcilably in conflict with what was taught at and after V2. You obviously believe that to be the case. But that leads to another possibility:
But actually, we all know, again, that you can have it both ways. You can be wrong about what the Church taught before Vatican II, and you can be wrong about what the Church taught after Vatican II.
I would submit that there is incontrovertible evidence that this is actually the case, you are simply mistaken about what the Church teaches and has taught. But even if you’re only wrong about one or the other, the premise for your statement or even your intended statement fails. Assume, for example that you’re right about what the Church taught pre-Vatican II:
Isn’t there some phrase about how teaching a subject is the best way to learn it?
Yes, indeed there is:
Docendo discimus
That is, “We learn by teaching”.
Esquire,
Thank-you for resuming posting such comments on this blog.
I’ve got to admit, I’ve really missed these sorts of comments from you and truly hope you’ll proceed to post more of your thoughts similarly enlightening in the future.
God bless.
That is, “We learn by teaching”.
When it’s the blind teaching, is that learning or just more stumbling about in darkness.
When it’s the blind teaching, is that learning or just more stumbling about in darkness.
Margo, I don’t see how your comment applies to this particular conversation. The saying “we learn by teaching” means that when we have to teach something we learn it better through the act of preparing our thoughts and explaining them to someone else. Implied in the quote is that the one doing the teaching has some level of “blindness” or else he would not be able to learn the subject better by teaching it. The saying doesn’t refer how much the student will learn from the teacher.
The saying doesn’t refer how much the student will learn from the teacher.
Learn from a blind teacher? Jesus said, “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
Learn from a blind teacher? Jesus said, “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
I agree with you. But that’s not what the saying is talking about.
Margo,
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
and
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
We must be obedient to the authority Christ established even though they are fallen men like us. Just as the Catechism of Trent taught:
The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls. Nay, more. Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
What fun. Now the blind are claiming to be Pharisees and Apostles.
Oh I get it. I think Inocencio’s post helped me see what you’re saying. Is your point that we shouldn’t learn anything (at least concerning faith) from others because we all have incomplete knowledge?
Margaret, if you’re right and we shouldn’t learn from other men, why should we let you teach us?
If you have a reason why we should let you teach us, could you please explain the point you’re trying to teach a little more in depth? You seem to be trying to convince me of a concept that is foreign to my world view and I’m having a hard time grasping it merely from one-liners.
Jesus says one time, “Leave them; they are blind guides.” But another time, “Practice and observe whatever they tell you.” Both times, he was speaking in regard to Pharisees.
Sorry Margo, I apologize for calling your Margaret. It was a slip of the tongue… er… fingers.
Now the blind are claiming to be Pharisees and Apostles.
Excuse me, Margo, but who exactly here is claiming that?
Margo,
You’re not suggesting that the “them” to whom Jesus was referring when he said “leave them” was the Apostles, are you?
Margaret, if you’re right and we shouldn’t learn from other men, why should we let you teach us?
You hear something and think someone is wanting to teach you? As far as I’m concerned, consider what you hear to be noise or your own breath. I don’t care. I’m not here to teach anyone anything.
Excuse me, Margo, but who exactly here is claiming that?
Why not see for yourself.
I don’t care. I’m not here to teach anyone anything.
Margo,
What are you doing here?
Why not see for yourself.
See what, exactly?
You’re not suggesting that the “them” to whom Jesus was referring when he said “leave them” was the Apostles, are you?
When the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” Jesus replied, “Leave them; they are blind guides.”
I’m not here to teach anyone anything.
Margo, those are the truest words you’ve said yet. Thanks for the riddles, but I think I’ll pass on trying to figure them out. If you ever have something substantive to say, I’d be happy mull it over.
What are you doing here?
Why not see for yourself.
See what, exactly?
Did I say there’s anything to see?
When the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” Jesus replied, “Leave them; they are blind guides.”
Your point?
Margo,
Good. You would agree, I assume, that Jesus did want his disciples to listen to Peter and the other Apostles to whom He gave the power of binding and loosing?
In other words, “leave” the Pharisees but “stay” with the Apostles.
If you ever have something substantive to say, I’d be happy mull it over.
What does the Body of Christ say when you mull it over.
Margo,
I get it. We have “heard” your gnostic type of noise before. Please do not be shocked if you read Catholic Teaching on a catholic website.
Let me guess your next comment…I am rubber you are glue?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Can someone inform me as to why gnostics always speak in riddles? Does the same person come to this site fortnightly and leave mysterious comments under a different name each time? Or is this how gnostics really communicate with each other (and if it is how do they ever catechize their children and new members)?
What does the Body of Christ say when you mull it over.
Mt 18:17:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
In other words, “leave” the Pharisees but “stay” with the Apostles.
Will a white cane with a red tip help tell one from another?
Will a white cane with a red tip help tell one from another?
What is the sound of silence?
If you build it, they will come.
Let me guess your next comment…I am rubber you are glue?
No. That was your comment.
Margo, I admire your courage and conviction in coming here to be a missionary. But in order to succeed you need to speak our language. I’m sure that what you’re saying is very profound, but to us Catholics who discuss religion in a much different style than you do it sounds like gobbledygook.
Margo,
You tell me. You seem to be more familiar with the instruments that help the blind see.
(Not to mention that you’ve begged the question.)
Margo,
And you are stuck with it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Margo is Mark is Mary.
Inocencio posted:
“”He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
We must be obedient to the authority Christ established even though they are fallen men like us. Just as the Catechism of Trent taught”
Oh is that so? You are on one hand quoting the Gospel, the Son of God, and on the other saying we must follow “fallen men”, Bishops, Cardinals and even Popes who after Vatican II are promoting error, have embraced Modernism denounced as heresy and excommunicated as per Pope St Pius X, and covered up for pedophilia.
What great advice. No, you should go back to your teachings of what is and what is not Catholic and the church is never supposed to change with regards to the deposit of faith, the Pope per Vatican I is only supposed to safe guard such
You are obviously blind and leading others off the cliff with you
AHhhh!
No wonder:
Mar-go is Mar-k is Mar-y.
Could the consistency in what might be perceived as the prefix “Mar” indicate this person is actually from Mars? ;^)
John,
Grammatically correct nonsense would be easier to follow. If you actually care about making sense, that is.
Never mind.
Oh is that so? You are on one hand quoting the Gospel, the Son of God, and on the other saying we must follow “fallen men”
Okay, Brian —
Now tell me that he doesn’t, in fact, sound like Martin Luther!
Also, if you consider the clergy during Luther’s time, they were far worse than they are today and committed several other atrocities including pedophilia.
So, please, John, prove to me that Luther was actually wrong about the Catholic Church then and that the Catholic Church isn’t, in fact, an apostate church ever since!
You are obviously blind and leading others off the cliff with you
John I think the proper conclusion from your statements is that the Catholic Church is blind and leading others of the cliff with Her. Inocencio is just following what the allegedly blind Vatican II Church is telling him. If this is the case, please lead me to the true Church so that I may follow Her.
sorry
I’m sure that what you’re saying is very profound… But in order to succeed you need to speak our language.
Profound: coming from, reaching to, or situated at a depth.
I speak from a depth common to all.
So is the whole riddle thing just mark/mary/margo’s personal style or is that how orthodox gnostics (an oxymoron if there ever was one) express their beliefs?
I speak from a depth common to all.
Margo, does a depth common to all mean absolute truth? If it does, or even if it doesn’t, that’s the type of thing I’m talking about. We have a hard time understanding what you mean by “a depth common to all” but if you use terms we’re familiar with we might understand you much better.
Around here we usually use a form something like: I believe X and my evidence is A, B and C. Then the rest of us can decide if we accept your evidence (A, B and C) and if we accept the conclusion you draw from that evidence (X). If we’re both operating under the premise of absolute truth, or a depth common to all as I think you call it, this method of dialogue usually works pretty well.
I see that a blind-fool, gnostic troll has come by to spout the same old boring gnostic vagueries since last I logged on. Pray for them, that God may fill their emptiness.
So is the whole riddle thing just mark/mary/margo’s personal style or is that how orthodox gnostics (an oxymoron if there ever was one) express their beliefs?
You might want to ask a gnostic.
It is, quite evidently, a deep emptiness.
John,
Are you now claiming that the Catechism of Trent is heretical? I quoted it verbatim. Is the Council of Trent also a false council now?
I look forward to your response but do not really expect one.
I am not sure if John or Margo makes more sense? I guess it is a toss up.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Margo, I’m sorry if I wrongly accused you of being a gnostic. Your manner of conversation leads one to believe that, and you seem to be reluctant to give details as to what you actually believe. Is there some general term that describes what you believe? Or a church you belong to or something like that?
Please excuse my ignorance. As I’ve asked several times, if you don’t mind, could you tone your style of conversation down to a level that even someone like me can understand? I see that you’re kind of pushing me to ride the same bike you are, but I need a little instruction on how to get off my training wheels first.
It is, quite evidently, a deep emptiness.
Jesus emptied himself.
Is there some general term that describes what you believe?
“Absolute truth” is as good a term as any, but does the term describe it?
I see that you’re kind of pushing me to ride the same bike you are, but I need a little instruction on how to get off my training wheels first.
I don’t ride a bike, so it’s not a problem. I speak from a depth not encumbered by language. “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
“Absolute truth” is as good a term as any
Qui Veritas est?
Fortunately, God has provided us with the gifts of language and reason to communicate His goodness to others. It is a worthless steward who shuns — or abuses — the gifts provided by God.
Fortunately, God has provided us with the gifts of language and reason to communicate His goodness to others.
Silence is true speech unobstructed by words. His goodness is communicated in the space between words.
Silence is true speech unobstructed by words. His goodness is communicated in the space between words.
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you.
I speak from a depth not encumbered by language.
Christ is the Logos. When creating the world, God spoke and it was. Language is one of the most important ways we know God.
Do you have something to say, Margo, or are you just here to tease us. You can see that there are several people willing participate in dialogue with you. Do you also speak in riddles to your family, friends, and colleagues?
…And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisperd in the sounds of silence.
John,
Open your eyes, you can not reconcile your beliefs with Pope Pius X clear teachings.
You said: Bishops, Cardinals and even Popes who after Vatican II are promoting error, have embraced Modernism denounced as heresy and excommunicated
Pope Pius X said:
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).” May 10, 1909
You can not reconcile your works and beliefs with the pope you pretend to speak for or the Council and Catechism of Trent.
You win you make less sense than Margo.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Margo,
Can you keep the “noise” from your “depth” down I am trying to hear the sound of one hand clapping.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau, I didn’t know you knew Simon and Garfunkle.
Inocencio, 🙂
Language is one of the most important ways we know God.
Silence is the greatest language.
You can see that there are several people willing participate in dialogue with you.
I am ever speaking, even if you are ever not hearing.
Do you also speak in riddles to your family, friends, and colleagues?
There is no riddle to those who hear what I say.
Can you keep the “noise” from your “depth” down I am trying to hear the sound of one hand clapping.
That’s the sound of confirmation, when the bishop slaps you with one hand.
Margo,
Your silent depth is the noisest I have ever heard.
“That’s the sound of confirmation, when the bishop slaps you with one hand.”
Thanks for the wonderful stroll down memory lane.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
No really, Margo. When a friend of yours asks you to clarify what you’re talking about, do you respond with esoteric one-line sentences?
We’ve all been very patient to give you a chance to say what you want to say. Maybe you’re afraid to say anything that could actually be measured against logic and reason.
Margo,
Technically, you are correct, because you have nothing to say.
Your words bear a cunning resemblance to a great theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar:
He also quotes Ignatius of Antioch:
That, of course, is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg, as volumes have been written in the Church about the value of silence. I will not criticize, nor question, your silence in the presence of the Word.
But, in fact, you have not been silent. Anything but. If silence is to have meaning, it must be … silent. For one to scrape their fingers down a chalkboard and claim they are being silent is, again quite evidently, nonsense.
Your silent depth is the noisest I have ever heard.
I echo your thoughts.
Thanks for the wonderful stroll down memory lane.
Peace be with you.
Margo
I dont know exactly your belief but like the pharises ganged up on Our Lord who stood for the truth, I see the Protestant militant led by Esau and his cohorts are ganging up on you as they came for our Lord at Gethsemene
Hold fast to the Catholic faith, her traditions and doctrines uncompromised by the Scott Hahns (wanting to make a buck off of luke warm Catholics as he milked the Protestants for so long) and ye shall find the truth
John,
Don’t forget the Popes and Ecumenical Councils! You obviously meant to say:
And listen carefully. That “silence” is Margo’s agreement with you.
Inocencio posted:
“Pope Pius X said:
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).” May 10, 1909
You can not reconcile your works and beliefs with the pope you pretend to speak for or the Council and Catechism of Trent.”
Trent was called because for approximately a century before the Catholic clergy including the papacy was bordering on heresy with confusion and a council needed to be called to refute the reformation and confirm all that is and was Catholic. Of course Pope St Pius V later released his papal bull “Quo Primium” which required the Traditional Latin Mass (as there were many different masses being performed all over Europe and Africa)like today with the New Mass with countless combinations (due to the incredible amount of different choices being left for the priest from the greeting all the way up to the 4 different forms of consecration, quite amazing!!)
40 years of incredible apostasy and heresy in the church as has taken place since Vatican II is really a snapshot in the history of the church and this like the times before Trent cant last for long as who would ever follow a Pope that kisses korans and prays to Buddah and actually issues statements congratulating Hindus on their feast day. With those like Mahoney and other corrupt Bishops in charge of some of the largest dioceses, with them selling off chancerys to pay for pedophila, it is only a matter of time
You have to laugh at this all as it is actually quite amusing. Each day one opens the paper or goes to Spirit Daily you are bombarded with the incredible unchecked corruption that is going on with no rebuke from Rome
Has B16 finally clarified his statement on excommunicating pro abortion politicians yet or like what happened with the Moslems, is he going to go and visit with Nancy Pelosi and kiss her ring like JPII kissed the ring of the heretic Archbishop of Canterbury?
Esquire, right on target, as always.
John, how do you know that Margo etc. is Catholic?
Margo or whoever you are, as I said in a previous thread, people who really wish to make their meaning known, actually do so. Your posts are nothing but smoke and are not taken seriously.
Margo reminds me of the wise words of Vroomfondel and Majikthise; “It SOUNDS good without tying you down to actually MEANING anything…”
When a friend of yours asks you to clarify what you’re talking about, do you respond with esoteric one-line sentences?
If people need a tidbit to chew on, I give them a stick of gum. But eventually it loses its flavor and they’re back to wanting more.
For one to scrape their fingers down a chalkboard and claim they are being silent is, again quite evidently, nonsense.
I don’t claim to be whatever notion of silence you hold.
Margo or whoever you are, as I said in a previous thread, people who really wish to make their meaning known, actually do so. Your posts are nothing but smoke and are not taken seriously.
Mary Kay, like I said in a previous post, as far as I would be concerned, consider what you hear to be noise or your own breath. I don’t care. I’m not here to teach anyone anything. If you want to smoke over it, it’s only yourself that smolders.
Margo,
Again, you’ve got me. By defining the “silence” in question to be “whatever notion” of it that I hold, you can quite accurately state that you “don’t claim to be” that silence.
Your “wisdom” will play fine to a worldly generation that can’t figure out what “is” is, that applauds loudly when someone “boldly” asks “what is truth,” and that thinks it a matter of great philosophy to wonder, “can anyone really know what silence is?”
We’re not hearing you, Margo, but it’s most certainly not because you’re silent (whatever that is).
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to scream “fire,” is it really silent?
(If you’re really, really deep — so deep as to be seemingly empty — you’ll hear the echo of the Almighty in what I’m saying, if you have the right notion of “deep” that is, and are really careful not to be interrupted by what the Bishop says.)
(And if you don’t understand it, I’m sorry, that’s not my problem. It’s not my fault, and it’s not my job to teach you. It’s my job to be “silent” — and if you can’t figure out what I’m saying — well, we already covered that. It’s not my fault. Nobody’s going to hold me accountable for not preaching the Gospel! And if they ask me why I didn’t, I’ll just tell them I did! Quietly. Or not. Whatever. It’s not my job.)
(Got it.)
If you want to smoke over it
Margo, either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are being deliberately obtuse. I said before and I’ll say again, your posts are not taken seriously. This is unwinding after a long day by giving attention to someone who obviously craves it.
I don’t care. I’m not here to teach anyone anything.
Well then, why are you here? You don’t care, you’re not teaching anyone and you’re not really saying anything.
We’re not hearing you, Margo, but it’s most certainly not because you’re silent (whatever that is).
I’m silent to all who hear me.
I said before and I’ll say again, your posts are not taken seriously
Your response is not taken seriously.
SILENCE!
John,
You are trapped by your own words. You know it and we know it.
I am amazed that you responded at all. You cannot reconcile your works and beliefs with the words of Pope Pius X or the Catechism of Trent.
As Pope Pius X said “then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.”
You should have the integrity to admit you are wrong and clearly acting against Catholic Teaching. You have no authority at all and it makes you say the silliest things.
Be humble and reconcile yourself to the Church founded on the Rock of the Papacy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I said before and I’ll say again, your posts are not taken seriously
Your response is not taken seriously.
Then we’re all having a frivolous time. I’m all for frivolous times, they provide a change of pace from more serious matters.
But I did notice that you didn’t answer my question: Why are you here? By your own words, you don’t care and you’re not here to teach anyone. I’m curious why you’re exerting the energy to be here if you don’t intend to make a contribution and your posts are full of nonsense – not even fun nonsense at that. Why are you here?
you didn’t answer my question: Why are you here?
I am the foundation for your question.
I’m curious why you’re exerting the energy to be here
I exert no more energy to be here than silence exerts to be silent.
Margo, are you by any chance a bureaucrat or politician? You certainly talk like them. By any chance related to someone with username Brio, whose posts you also sound like?
btw, you’re giving yourself too much credit if you believe yourself to be the foundation of anything. Shifting sands and all that.
I see the Protestant militant led by Esau and his cohorts are ganging up on you as they came for our Lord at Gethsemene
John, why are you engaging in ecumenical dialogue with us Protestant militants while at the same time condemning the Church for doing so? By your logic the only possible result will be the watering down your traditional beliefs?
Trent was called because for approximately a century before the Catholic clergy including the papacy was bordering on heresy with confusion and a council needed to be called to refute the reformation and confirm all that is and was Catholic.
You still haven’t answered Inocencio’s question. Either you’re obedient to the Church of the Apostles founded by Jesus Christ or you aren’t. If you are indeed obedient to the true Church, show it to us, because you certainly aren’t obedient to the Catholic Church.
If you can clear up the apparent contradiction on these two issues we may have an easier time following your line of reasoning.
“I am the foundation for your question.”
AHHhhh….. but do you question your foundation, Grasshopper?
“I exert no more energy to be here than silence exerts to be silent.”
But, does silence exert energy, or does… exertion silence energy? AHHhhh… or does silence energize exertion? Or maybe… wait, let me start over (toking noise – coughs)… Okay, let’s say the universe is like a big cloud…
I have a question on ecumenism, and since we were last discussing it with John in this thread I’m asking it here.
The Catholic Church defines ecumenism something like working to unite the Protestant churches back into Her.
The Protestant definition is usually more like ignoring our doctrinal differences so we can work together.
So where does Catholics and Evengelicals working together on the pro-life cause fall? This seems to fall under the bad type of ecumenism, yet it can’t be bad to work together for such a cause. How’s this work? Have I gotten my definitions of good and bad ecumenism wrong?
Oh, I’ve been thinking about it and might be able to somewhat answer my own question. We can work together despite our differences, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re ignoring our differences. While working together we can still profess the fullness of faith to our Protestant brothers and even learn from them without compromising the truth.
But please add your comments. I’m just guessing here.
I think you nailed it, Brian. We should work with our Protestant brothers without either of us ignoring our differences. For either of us to ignore our differences would be dishonest.