Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

[plainswolf]

Just a question in all honesty concerning the authority of , and the protection of the Holy Spirit in every case concerning ecumenical councils.

Didn’t Athanasius lament about how “ecumenical councils” were held during the Arian heresy?

Were there ever any bad councils or councils that we are told to ignore?

Just trying to sort all this out.

Thank you.

 

[Exporter]

HagiaSophia made reference to this webpage, I believe.

truecatholic.org/pope/

October 24, 1998I announce to you a great joy. We have a Pope.
The most Reverend Father Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.
Priest of the Holy Catholic Church
Born April 20, 1918 and ordained a priest on June 5, 1946
Who takes to himself the name Pius XIII.

You will have to read to see if it talks to what Crusader posted.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exporter:

HagiaSophia made reference to this webpage, I believe.

truecatholic.org/pope/

October 24, 1998I announce to you a great joy. We have a Pope.
The most Reverend Father Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.
Priest of the Holy Catholic Church
Born April 20, 1918 and ordained a priest on June 5, 1946
Who takes to himself the name Pius XIII.

You will have to read to see if it talks to what Crusader posted.

This page from that website in particular:

truecatholic.org/v2invalidrites.htm

which starts out: Given here is a brief explanation of the Roman Pontifical for the “ordination” of bishops as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council, and published under the “authority” of (false) Paul VI. Then follows an explanation of the Decree of Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae) where he defines for all time his judgment against Anglican orders as being totally ineffective. *What Leo XIII says in the Church’s binding judgment on the Anglicans can equally be applied against the defects inherent in the Vatican II “ordinations.” **

 

[Exporter]

“Habemus Papam” Announcement of the Election of His Holiness Pope Pius XIII October 24, 1998

Latin****EnglishAnnuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam.

Reverendissimum Patrem Lucianum Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.,

Sanctae Catholicae Ecclesiae Presbyterem

Qui sibi accipit nomen Pium XIII.

I announce to you a great joy. We have a Pope.

The most reverend Father Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.,

Priest of the Holy Catholic Church (Born April 20, 1918 and ordained a priest on June 5, 1946) Who takes to himself the name
Pius XIII.

With these words in Latin and English, the Catholic Church announced to the world the election of the new pope, Pope Pius XIII. After 40 years of the Holy See being vacant, the Church now has a true pope, the successor to the last pope, Pius XII, who died October 9, 1958.

Fr. Pulvermacher was elected on the 1st ballot having received the necessary 2/3 (plus 1) vote from the College of Electors, the worldwide body with the authority and duty to elect the pope. Fr. Pulvermacher accepted the papacy at 1:20 PM, US Mountain Time on October 24, 1998. The pope gave his first Apostolic blessing to the city and the world immediately after his ascension to the Chair of St. Peter.

At the very moment that Fr. Pulvermacher accepted the election, he became the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, with the full power of the Vicar of Christ. Catholics around the world rejoiced and proclaimed the traditional words of devotion, **“Long Live the Pope!” **and words of thanks to God for restoring the papacy, “Deo Gratias!”
truecatholic.org/pope/habemuspapam.htm
Pope Pius XIII was born Earl Pulvermacher of Catholic parents (Hubert Pulvermacher & Cecilia Lenerz) on April 20, 1918, was baptized on April 28, 1918, and received the Sacrament of Confirmation on May 2, 1933. He made solemn vows in the Capuchin Order on August 28, 1942, and was ordained a priest on June 5, 1946. His seminary course was normal: 4 years Minor Seminary, 1 year Capuchin Novitiate, 4 years philosophy, and 4 years theology (the good old course of the Council of Trent).
Religious in the Capuchin Order take a different name to indicate that they have “left the world,” and so he was given the name “Lucian,” which roughly means “Light the Way.”

 

[Bing]

I’ve read many of the posts on this topic and don’t find much debate on the actual words of the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican 2. I’d like to get some comments on the specifics of the document. Some of the wording in the document seems to be ambiguous. For instance: from Chapter 1:
--------------------------------------------------------------
…very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

( in regard to liturgical action)…these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.

…separated Churches and communities as such…have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, these words can be taken to mean that these separated churches are guided by by the Holy Spirit to lead members to salvation; that the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are dispensed in these churches. Why then, would I want to convert Protestants?
Heck, these churches are even “significant and important” in the mystery of salvation. Does this mean they are part of God’s ordaining will?

I have seen ecumenism at work in my local diocese: A syndicated writer in our diocesan newspaper says we no longer want to convert Protestants because ecumenism has taken the place of evangelization. My wife tries to get the religion curriculum changed to a more solid Catholic program through the school board, only to be told by the diocesan representative that we won’t allow anything too traditional.

Since ecumenism it seems anything that defends the Faith is called triumphalism. It seems only things that are lukewarm are allowed anymore.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I think you missed the point of the document. It is certainly true that God works where He will and that we cannot limit God in His work. It is also true that whatever is good is of God. Therefore, when a Protestant minister preaches about the mercy of God, or about the salvific action of Jesus on the cross, of Jesus as the Son of God he is preaching truth, and that is of God.

Therefore, we as Catholics recognize this action of the Holy Spirit in the life of that Protestant community. Yet what is missing? They don’t have the sacraments! They don’t have the fullness of Truth. Therefore, we work with them to first affirm what they have right, and then to help them to understand what is missing. In doing this we try to lead them to the fullness of faith that is found in the Catholic Church.

So, why would you want to convert a Protestant? Because of the way the Church is now using the term “convert” – you wouldn’t. You would want to “complete the conversion.” If they already believe in God, in the Trinity, in the Virigin Birth (some of the so-called “fundamentals” of Protestant teaching) there is nothing to convert them to. But there is a completion that is possible, and that is coming into full communion with the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[katherine2]

excellent post, deacon.

 

[jman507]

How often it was that the Hebew who were saved from the Egyptians did not walk with the faith while in the desert and thus never entered the Promised Land. How often it was that the Hebrew that Jesus came for often rejected His message, and the Gentiles graciousily took the crumbs. Just because you are apart of the Church that is headed by Jesus, does not mean your automatically saved and as in the way you’d like to be. Look at the Jewish, some accepted Jesus and other did not. How often was it in the Old Testament did the figures out of their own sinful behavior later come to make enemies with their brother, Covenant or no Covenant. Is it really surprsing that their would be so many schisms, and whose fault is that? It is our own fault. Now is not the time to be prideful, now is the time to try to make peace with our brothers. We all should be one, can we do this on our own? No, but only with the help of our Lord. But we must first try to make a faithful attempt.

Does Ecumenism mean not learning all of what the faith teaches? No, it’s not an excuse to be lazy. It’s just the opposite, it means learning it even better. First you need to know the faith well enough, that when you are talking to the others, you know what is essential and never comprising on that. Then you need to figure out where the problems are with the other accepting. Maybe it’s the theology, maybe they have just plain grievences and don’t trust. We are called to be faithful not necessarily sucessful.

 

[CrusaderNY]

Deacon

I also agree that your answer was good and made good sense, the only problem is that it is not being used that way, it is actually being used, by Kasper and the like to covert catholics to Protestantism or at least make us accept them almost as equals (I dont mean on the human level of course, as we are to Love all) but equal as what they propose and revere as Protestants, Buddhists, Moslems and the like is equal and that we should not be trying to bring them into the fold.
That is the problem with the V2 documents, as even Cardinal Ratzinger has stated many times that the documents can be read one way or another way and two persons can get two different meanings sometimes from the same document.
Deacon Ed:

I think you missed the point of the document. It is certainly true that God works where He will and that we cannot limit God in His work. It is also true that whatever is good is of God. Therefore, when a Protestant minister preaches about the mercy of God, or about the salvific action of Jesus on the cross, of Jesus as the Son of God he is preaching truth, and that is of God.

Therefore, we as Catholics recognize this action of the Holy Spirit in the life of that Protestant community. Yet what is missing? They don’t have the sacraments! They don’t have the fullness of Truth. Therefore, we work with them to first affirm what they have right, and then to help them to understand what is missing. In doing this we try to lead them to the fullness of faith that is found in the Catholic Church.

So, why would you want to convert a Protestant? Because of the way the Church is now using the term “convert” – you wouldn’t. You would want to “complete the conversion.” If they already believe in God, in the Trinity, in the Virigin Birth (some of the so-called “fundamentals” of Protestant teaching) there is nothing to convert them to. But there is a completion that is possible, and that is coming into full communion with the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

CrusaderNY,

You write:

I also agree that your answer was good and made good sense, the only problem is that it is not being used that way, it is actually being used, by Kasper and the like to covert catholics to Protestantism or at least make us accept them almost as equals (I dont mean on the human level of course, as we are to Love all) but equal as what they propose and revere as Protestants, Buddhists, Moslems and the like is equal and that we should not be trying to bring them into the fold.

What I wrote is based upon my own experience being involved in the ecumenical process. It follows the guidelines issued by the Church. I’ve never seen anything from Cardinal Kasper that comes even close to what you are suggesing.

Anything can be twisted to mean just about whatever you want it to mean. For example, do you want biblical proof of the existence of vampires? Consider, for a moment that vampires work only at night, are stronger than most human beings, and are not of this world (since they are undead). Now, with that in mind, consider this passage from Scripture:

Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When the man saw that he could not prevail over him, he struck Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the hip socket was wrenched as they wrestled. The man then said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

Proof?

Deacon Ed

 

[CrusaderNY]

Yes I am sure you can find reference material anywhere to support anybodys point of view, but the Pope, as the successor to Peter, has it as his responsibility to protect and uphold church doctrine and the mission of the Apostles as bestowed upon him by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Ecumenism was not even a word that the church acknowledged in the early 1900’s as it is another Modernistic agenda. In theory having “diaglogue” with all of these other faiths is all well and good, but like so many Popes before Vatican II, as Pope Pius IX said, to participate in these all Loving Ecumenical Councils gives off the appearance that the church does not hold all of the answers, and then is not the One True Faith as Our Lord stated.

We know that the religion of Shiva is part of the Hindu religion, and that it is Pagan. If the Roman Catholic Pope is “Jesus Christ’s Vicar On Earth”, and if he is infallible when he is performing his duties as Pope, then how can he sanction the false religion of Hinduism? How can he allow a ceremony in which he not only receives a mark on his forehead, but he allows himself to take part in a ceremony which clearly identifies himself as being subservient to the Shiva priestess? Has Pope John Paul II forgotten our Lord’s Words on this matter of other religions?

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6] In other words, Jesus is declaring that His Way to Heaven is the only way, and that Christianity is the only valid religion on earth! By the way, this exclusivity used to be cardinal doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church, for centuries!

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the . **Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” **[Acts 4:10-12]
Deacon Ed:

CrusaderNY,

You write:What I wrote is based upon my own experience being involved in the ecumenical process. It follows the guidelines issued by the Church. I’ve never seen anything from Cardinal Kasper that comes even close to what you are suggesing.

Anything can be twisted to mean just about whatever you want it to mean. For example, do you want biblical proof of the existence of vampires? Consider, for a moment that vampires work only at night, are stronger than most human beings, and are not of this world (since they are undead). Now, with that in mind, consider this passage from Scriptureroof?

Deacon Ed

 

[GaryZak]

MT 9:13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."

MT 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.
(MOST PEOPLE THINK ,“BEING RIGHTEOUS HAS TO DO WITH SELF, AND ONE’S OWN SELFISH STATE, NOT DOING THE WILL OF THE LORD AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.”) If one/you do your ,“own will and desire,” all of the time even though you do NOT sin intentionally, What the heck are you doing for the LORD, and his father’s will?

In as much as the self-actuatuazation pyramid exists, and one CANNOT endeavor to help others if one cannot help one’s self, THERE EXISTS SEVEN DEMONS OF THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS, which WILL LEAVE A PERSON’S HOUSE, (his/her dwelling place), IMPOSSIBLY self-serving in VAIN, no matter what the INCOME, without the ,“GIVEN SPIRIT of GOD/Grace,” to see beyond self…

1. Selfish Pride and Vanity
2. Unloving Anger
3. Sensual Lust
4. Inordinate Gluttany (accumulation of things)
5. Sloth (the adversion to work, and depression assoc.)
6. Greed (the never ending wanting of more, never satiated).
7. Envy (the never ending desire for known others have regardless of the existance of heaven).

MK 2:17 Jesus heard this and said to them (that), “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

If you think your PERFECT THEN CONDESCEND freely with the caviat:
MT 7:2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

MK 4:24 He also told them, "Take care what you hear. The measure with which you measure will be measured out to you, and still more will be given to you.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

CrusaderNY:

Yes I am sure you can find reference material anywhere to support anybodys point of view, but the Pope, as the successor to Peter, has it as his responsibility to protect and uphold church doctrine and the mission of the Apostles as bestowed upon him by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Ecumenism was not even a word that the church acknowledged in the early 1900’s as it is another Modernistic agenda. In theory having “diaglogue” with all of these other faiths is all well and good, but like so many Popes before Vatican II, as Pope Pius IX said, to participate in these all Loving Ecumenical Councils gives off the appearance that the church does not hold all of the answers, and then is not the One True Faith as Our Lord stated. Modernistic? Perhaps. Modernism? Absolutely not. We are dealing with a discipline, and Pope John XXIII decided that the previous disicplines not only didn’t work, but did just the opposite of what was intended (to lead the “seaprated brothers and sisters” back to the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church).

We know that the religion of Shiva is part of the Hindu religion, and that it is Pagan. If the Roman Catholic Pope is “Jesus Christ’s Vicar On Earth”, and if he is infallible when he is performing his duties as Pope, then how can he sanction the false religion of Hinduism? How can he allow a ceremony in which he not only receives a mark on his forehead, but he allows himself to take part in a ceremony which clearly identifies himself as being subservient to the Shiva priestess? Has Pope John Paul II forgotten our Lord’s Words on this matter of other religions?

The only problem with this statement is that the rite in question was Aarti – a rite of greeting which is common in Indian culture (in Hindu culture it has an element of worship assocaited with it, but this was not the intention here since the woman in question was Catholic and was greeting the pope at the beginning of the entrance procession).

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6] In other words, Jesus is declaring that His Way to Heaven is the only way, and that Christianity is the only valid religion on earth! By the way, this exclusivity used to be cardinal doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church, for centuries!

There is still a teaching in that Catholic Church that one must be connected with the Church in order to be saved. What is currently under discussion is what this connection must be. Since we profess one faith, one baptism it follow that all who are properly baptized are, in some way, connected to the Church and, therefore, may be saved (without the sacrament of confession, however, this is problematic).

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the . **Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” **

[Acts 4:10-12]Yes, Jesus saves whom He will.

One final thought here… When a priest is assigned to a parish he is given the *cura animarum *(care of souls) for all the people who live in his parish (Catholic or not). This is also true for deacons. Bishops have the care of all the souls (Catholic or not) in his diocese, and the pope has that responsiblity for the world. Is it any wonder that he wants to call as many to the Chutch as he can – as long as he does so without compromising the faith?

Deacon Ed

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Deacon Ed:

The only problem with this statement is that the rite in question was Aarti – a rite of greeting which is common in Indian culture (in Hindu culture it has an element of worship assocaited with it, but this was not the intention here since the woman in question was Catholic and was greeting the pope at the beginning of the entrance procession).

And Deacon, you can tell the rad-trads that till the Savior comes in His Glory and they will still ignore what you’ve said and the reasonableness of the explanation because they’re already convinced that the Vicar of Christ on Earth is a heretic who has sold Holy Mother Church down the river to hell. I seen all sorts of places where this assertion about the “Hindu” lady (you’re right, she was a Catholic) has been refuted, but they will not accept it.

 

[katherine2]

JKirkLVNV:

And Deacon, you can tell the rad-trads that till the Savior comes in His Glory and they will still ignore what you’ve said and the reasonableness of the explanation because they’re already convinced that the Vicar of Christ on Earth is a heretic who has sold Holy Mother Church down the river to hell. I seen all sorts of places where this assertion about the “Hindu” lady (you’re right, she was a Catholic) has been refuted, but they will not accept it.

There are many reasons for ecumenism and irenic interfaith relations. Not all of the reasons are religious or theological. The Church has made the point that some resistance to ecumenism is simple old fashioned prejudice. The strident objections to the actions of the woman in India is not that she is Hindu, but that she has a culture that is foreign to certain westerners and they don’t like that. Is more than sad, its sinful.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

katherine2:

There are many reasons for ecumenism and irenic interfaith relations. Not all of the reasons are religious or theological. The Church has made the point that some resistance to ecumenism is simple old fashioned prejudice. The strident objections to the actions of the woman in India is not that she is Hindu, but that she has a culture that is foreign to certain westerners and they don’t like that. Is more than sad, its sinful.

Katherine,

You are absolutely correct! For some reason that I cannot fathom, people have equated the Catholic Church with a European/North American culture. As a result, they have a problem with anythind that deals with a different culture (for example, the topless reader in Papua, New Guinea; American Indian customs that have been uncorporated into the Mass, etc. I’m sure if they were to attend a Ge’ez liturgy (an Egyptian Catholic Church) they would go ballistic – dancing, drums, etc.

Deacon Ed

 

[CrusaderNY]

Do we need an Eleventh Crusade? The parallel between the persecution of Christians in the Moslem lands in the 11th century and the 21st century is amazingly similar.
In the 11th century, the Crusades were undertaken to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. All peoples and sovereigns were united under the direction of the popes as, for example, the First Crusade under Pope Urban II. All crusades were announced by preaching. For example, the Seventh Crusade was preached by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. St. Francis of Assisi accompanied the Fifth Crusade.

The avowed purpose of the Crusades was not to take territory or to conquer lands. In the 10th century Christians, moved by devotion, were accustomed to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem.

For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted and enslaved. In 1070 the Mohammedan infidels took Jerusalem and Asia Minor, and all of Syria became the prey of the Mohammedan Turks. The Crusades were organized to protect the safety of Christian pilgrims and to protect the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom.

Mohammedan mobs from Africa to the Balkans to Indonesia have been openly massacring Christians in order to enslave them to Allah. You see, Christian doctrine is that man has free will and must voluntarily convert to the true Faith; otherwise, the conversion is pointless. In Mohammedan doctrine, “infidels” are to be converted by the sword if necessary.

• In Iraq on August 1, terrorists detonated car bombs outside five Catholic churches in Mosul and Baghdad. A dozen worshipers perished. Scores of women and children were injured.
• In Syria, Christian refugees to Damascus from Iraq “tell of Christian shopkeepers killed by Mohammedan gangs for daring to sell alcohol, of family businesses sold to ransom stolen children.”
• From Lebanon, scores of thousands of Catholics have fled in recent decades, leaving those behind as a shrinking minority in a Mohammedan land where they once flourished and, indeed, led.
• In Nigeria’s second city, Kano, in May, Mohammedan youth went on a midnight rampage with cutlasses, clubs, and machetes, massacring 600 Christians and leaving their bodies in the streets. Sixteen churches were burned to the ground. The senior Mohammedan cleric in the city ordered all Christians out. Some 30,000 were driven from their homes. (We have yet to hear Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman of the B’nai Brith, who falsely accused Mel Gibson of anti-Semitism, issue a statement of sympathy for these expelled Catholics. Or perhaps he figures that only Jews have suffered explusion in history.)
• In Kosovo in March, Albanian Mohammedan mobs looted and torched 17 monasteries, churches, and convents. To protect these same Mohammedans, the Clinton administration launched a 78-day bombing campaign on Belgrade and Serbia in 1999.
• In the southern Sudan, millions of Christians have suffered torture, slavery, mutilations, rapes, starvation, massacres, and exile at the hands of Sudanese soldiers after Khartoum declared Mohammedan law for the nation.
• In Indonesia, between 1974, when Indonesia invaded East Timor, and 1999, when East Timor voted for independence, the United Nations has documented at least 120 massacres, with many involving hundreds of dead in this small Catholic country. After independence, Indonesian troops slaughtered over 1,000 East Timorese in rage over their decision to break free of Jakarta.
• In Egypt, the 6 million Christian Copts have begun openly to protest persecution by Muslim fanatics and local authorities.
• Egyptian Christian killed in New Jersey by a Moslem.

We are rapidly returning to the conditions of the 11th century and the cause for the Crusades. If, as the 21st-century Pope JPII has assured us, “Islam is a religion of peace,” and “we all worship the same God,” what is going on? This is the false “Ecumenism” that we are led to believe that all is well in the Land of Oz.

Many would love to see the pope should face reality and get in line with his more discerning predecessor popes, one of whom commanded that annually on the Feast of Christ the King, Catholics all over the world should pray for “those who are still mired in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.”

With the cooperation of Pope JPII, the Mohammedans may well achieve what they were not able to do under his predecessor popes: bring Christendom under the yoke of Mohammed and his law.

Think about it

 

[HagiaSophia]

CrusaderNY:

Do we need an Eleventh Crusade?..
Think about it

Your post definitely calls for thinking about things:

I think— that on a continuing basis you present as your original posts and thoughts the work of others to whom you refuse to offer credit nor will provide a reference url.

I think— that in reviewing a couple of them, I undersand why. One which is promoting the cause of Pope Pius XIII who lives in a cabin somewhere and this latest one about an 11th Crusade from a website which also has the following items of interest on it:"

…"The Novus Ordo service is popularly known as “NO Mass,” and the Novus Ordinarians, who have lost their Catholic wits, have only cookie crumbs, which they take into their filthy hands and tread upon on the floor. Valid? Not way! The actions of the Novus Ordinarians demonstrate that even they don’t think so. "

…"When everyone else around was kowtowing to the New Order and its ecclesiocrats, TRADITIO was telling the full truth of the matter. Now, as the Church of the New Order and its Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan counterfeit service crumbles into heterodoxy, immorality, and even inanity, TRADITIO’s courageous stand these last ten years has been fully vindicated. "

…"While a few “conservative” Novus Ordinarians try to have Newchurch bishops withhold the Novus Ordo cookie from pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, a new survey indicates that they are whistling in the dark. "

“…Pope Tries to Fix “Abuses” of the Vulgar-Tongued New Mess”

traditio.com/comment/com0408.htm

I think—that this would almost be funny if it were not so terribly sad.

I think—that you owe yourself something more than you continue to portray on these boards and,

I think—that you need to recognize that the forum management has requested that SSPX et al, not be discussed in the CA forum. and that you should perhaps rethink your own agenda in continuing to post from these sources, spread anti-Catholic source material and try to pass it off as something else.

Every member of this forum has something to positively contribute, and that includes yourself. One can either represent the majority opinion in a thread, or be a voice of loyal opposition. To continue to misrepresent yourself, the Church and what she teaches and holds by continuing to post this “stuff” serves no one well.

 

[CrusaderNY]

If you would spend half as much effort in defending those helpless Christians from those Moslems who have slaughtered them, then maybe they would be alive today, I like to negotiate from a position of strength and not selling out my faith or religion. If the Pope called tomorrow for a call to arms to defend the faith, it would be people like you, the Cafeteria Catholics who would run the other way, you can rant and rave about all this Ecumenism and throw around the St pius X name hoping to pin something like that on anyone who disagrees with you hoping to get them kicked off so you can have the entire website to promote your Catholic bashing liberal agenda, but most people are to smart to fall into your trap, you are the “wolf in sheeps clothing” Our Lord warned the faithful about.

And Cardinal Kasper is a converted Methodist who is in charge of this entire Ecumenical effort? It is like having an ex Communist negotiate with the Russians on Arms Control, sorry, but I do smell something rotten in Denmark on this “effort”

HagiaSophia:

Your post definitely calls for thinking about things:

I think— that on a continuing basis you present as your original posts and thoughts the work of others to whom you refuse to offer credit nor will provide a reference url.

I think— that in reviewing a couple of them, I undersand why. One which is promoting the cause of Pope Pius XIII who lives in a cabin somewhere and this latest one about an 11th Crusade from a website which also has the following items of interest on it:"

…"The Novus Ordo service is popularly known as “NO Mass,” and the Novus Ordinarians, who have lost their Catholic wits, have only cookie crumbs, which they take into their filthy hands and tread upon on the floor. Valid? Not way! The actions of the Novus Ordinarians demonstrate that even they don’t think so. "

…"When everyone else around was kowtowing to the New Order and its ecclesiocrats, TRADITIO was telling the full truth of the matter. Now, as the Church of the New Order and its Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan counterfeit service crumbles into heterodoxy, immorality, and even inanity, TRADITIO’s courageous stand these last ten years has been fully vindicated. "

…"While a few “conservative” Novus Ordinarians try to have Newchurch bishops withhold the Novus Ordo cookie from pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, a new survey indicates that they are whistling in the dark. "

“…Pope Tries to Fix “Abuses” of the Vulgar-Tongued New Mess”

traditio.com/comment/com0408.htm

I think—that this would almost be funny if it were not so terribly sad.

I think—that you owe yourself something more than you continue to portray on these boards and,

I think—that you need to recognize that the forum management has requested that SSPX et al, not be discussed in the CA forum. and that you should perhaps rethink your own agenda in continuing to post from these sources, spread anti-Catholic source material and try to pass it off as something else.

Every member of this forum has something to positively contribute, and that includes yourself. One can either represent the majority opinion in a thread, or be a voice of loyal opposition. To continue to misrepresent yourself, the Church and what she teaches and holds by continuing to post this “stuff” serves no one well.

 

[CrusaderNY]

As Posted on another string…

Catholic World News, giving out our Lords body is supposed to be given only to persons who are in good standing with the church and not in mortal sin. Cardinal Kasper, as in Catholic World News (he is a former Methodist) wants to give it to Non-Catholics, calling it, check out this liberal phrase “Eucharistic Hospitality”. Is that for real???

***Cardinal Kasper backs “Eucharistic hospitality” ***

Vatican , Jun. 18, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has said that “Eucharistic hospitality” is licit in some circumstances.

Speaking at a major conference of German Catholics in the city of Ulm on June 18, Cardinal Kasper said that “there are circumstances when a non-Catholic can receive Communion at a Catholic Mass.”

JKirkLVNV:

And Deacon, you can tell the rad-trads that till the Savior comes in His Glory and they will still ignore what you’ve said and the reasonableness of the explanation because they’re already convinced that the Vicar of Christ on Earth is a heretic who has sold Holy Mother Church down the river to hell. I seen all sorts of places where this assertion about the “Hindu” lady (you’re right, she was a Catholic) has been refuted, but they will not accept it.