Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[otjm]

1.-I do have obedience to Christ’s Church. The Traditional Latin Mass is Christ’s Church.

No, the EF is not Christ’s Church. Christ’s Church is made up of the individuals in it, which includes those on earth, those in heaven, and those in purgatory. The EF is one of the Masses of Christ’s Church; and that also includes several other rites within what is referred to as the Roman or the Latin rite (and includes the OF but is not exclusive to only the OF), it also includes the Dibvine Mysteries of the Eastern rites of which there are significant variations.

2.- I was quoting him on CITH. Nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong with that is that you lack understanding of history sufficient to be able to make a valid comparison. St Thomas expressed an opinion; one that is clearly in contradiciton with both the history of the Church and the final determination of the Magisterium. He said one thing; the Magisterium has said another. Magisterium trumps St Thomas and dragging him out as your authority means either you don’t understand the issue, or you understand it and say that St Thomas’ opinion is superior to the judgement of the Magisterium. St Thomas was undoubtedly gifted by the Holy Spirit; but his works were not guaranteed infallibility, which is a subtle suggestion you ar making when you drag him out as the authority on the matter. The issue is disciplin, not doctrine and the short of it is he was wrong.

3.-But in the TLM there is no CITH. Christ is supposed to hold us, not the other way around. And earlier practices have nothing to do with any of this. I’m talking about the TLM and Novus Ordo.

There is no CITH in the EFcurrently and that is correct; and there was none back to the time of Trent. But as to those who want to make the EF the Mass going back to the Apostles, there was CITH for about 1000 years. And has has been pointed out elsewhere, CITH has been a practice of the Church for 2000 years, although not in the Roman rite. It helps to remember that the Roman rite is not the sum and substance of the Church, but is a part of it.

So you can’t have your cake and eat it. If the EF is the “Mass of ages”, or the “Mass going back to the Apostles” or however you choose to designate it, then CITH has been a part of it for about half the life of the Church.

 

[RockyRoad]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is not sacrilegious; it is a valid Mass of the Roman rite, which has the authority of the Pope behind it. However, it can be celebrated in a sacrilegious manner if the priest deliberately ignores the rubrics; the Mass of Paul VI is beautiful if it is celebrated properly.

However, I think the current OF Mass should be reformed to bring it closer to the EF Mass. The OF can already be celebrated in Latin using the ad orientem posture with incense and gregorian chant; however, I think the priest has far too many options with the OF Mass. The options should be greatly reduced and the manner of celebrating the OF should be more regimented, for example, there should only be one Canon i.e. the Roman Canon. Furthermore, communion in the hand should be abolished and banned. I also think Latin should be a mandatory element in certain parts of the Mass, for example, the phrase “The Lord be with you” could be replaced with “Dominus Vobiscum.”

The Mass of Paul VI is here to stay. I have no problem with this, but I think more rubrics and instructions are needed to make liturgical abuse far more difficult. The priest simply has too many options in the OF Mass, and this makes it easier to celebrate abusive liturgies.

I agree! And the abuses were not a part of V2…but rather disobedience to the intent of V2.

I’m not sure more rubrics are needed. I think the rubrics in place need to be enforced!

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

No, the EF is not Christ’s Church. Christ’s Church is made up of the individuals in it, which includes those on earth, those in heaven, and those in purgatory. The EF is one of the Masses of Christ’s Church; and that also includes several other rites within what is referred to as the Roman or the Latin rite (and includes the OF but is not exclusive to only the OF), it also includes the Dibvine Mysteries of the Eastern rites of which there are significant variations.

What is wrong with that is that you lack understanding of history sufficient to be able to make a valid comparison. St Thomas expressed an opinion; one that is clearly in contradiciton with both the history of the Church and the final determination of the Magisterium. He said one thing; the Magisterium has said another. Magisterium trumps St Thomas and dragging him out as your authority means either you don’t understand the issue, or you understand it and say that St Thomas’ opinion is superior to the judgement of the Magisterium. St Thomas was undoubtedly gifted by the Holy Spirit; but his works were not guaranteed infallibility, which is a subtle suggestion you ar making when you drag him out as the authority on the matter. The issue is disciplin, not doctrine and the short of it is he was wrong.

There is no CITH in the EFcurrently and that is correct; and there was none back to the time of Trent. But as to those who want to make the EF the Mass going back to the Apostles, there was CITH for about 1000 years. And has has been pointed out elsewhere, CITH has been a practice of the Church for 2000 years, although not in the Roman rite. It helps to remember that the Roman rite is not the sum and substance of the Church, but is a part of it.

So you can’t have your cake and eat it. If the EF is the “Mass of ages”, or the “Mass going back to the Apostles” or however you choose to designate it, then CITH has been a part of it for about half the life of the Church.

I don’t think you understand that CITH has not always been a practice of the Church. It was not even there from the beginning. It was only used in earlier practices for a BRIEF period of time, then was removed after people saw that it was abusive to the Blessed Sacrament. Pre-Vatican II Saints and Popes even spoke out about it. Just because it was thrown back in there doesn’t mean it’s right.

 

[otjm]

I think it would be better if Vatican II was trashed altogether. And all the Sacraments return to Traditional.

Then perhaps you might want to define what you mean by the word “Traditional”. Much of what we have with the changes in how the Sacraments are done is factually “traditional” in that the Church looked back over the centuries at each of the Sacraments and what the ceremonies were and how those ceremonies changed over the centuries; and the Church determined that some of how the Sacraments were being celebrated prior to Vatican 2 did not reflect the full understanding of the Sacrament. A prime example is what we now call the Sacrament of the Sick, and what was before V2 called Extreme Unction. The practice pre V2 had narrowed down the use of the Sacament to only those bascially in immediate danger of death and the Church judged that as too narrow.

So the net is that the Sacraments have returned to the Traditional, in that they follow the traditions of the Church and not just the traditions of say, the last several centuries. Just because we were at a certain place in 1950 does not mean that was the place that reflected a full and complete understanding of the Sacrament in total. Each time the Church makes a change to sacramental rubrics, it cannot be presumed that they are making a reflection upon all aspects of the rubrics; it may simply be a matter that at a certain time and place a certain rubric was deemed appropriate.

And none of that means that the Church was “wrong” about, say, its rubrics in 1950; only that we came to a point where the Church deemed it appropriate to take a longer historical view of the rubrics and see if perhaps they might be in need of change because of historical accretions and/or deletions.

One needs to keep in mind the fact that the Sacraments are not as graphically laid out in the New Testament as we sometimes presume, and that the question of how many Sacraments we have really was not even asked until well and long after the founding of the Church.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Please cite the document and paragrpah from the Council which said that altars should be replaced. And please define altar, since the Church defines what is used at the OF as an altar; you and they seem to have a language problem in terms of definitions.

The fact that the Church had Communion in the hand for approximately 1000 years is established beyone any rational question. That in and of itself establishes its validity. It is no more disrespectful than COTT. What can be disrespectful is the individual receiving, and the disrespect is in the individual, not in the method. And before you dragout some red herring of some other method that is not used by the Church, the discussion of respect or lack thereof is restricted to the methods the Church has used. And by the way - the Church, perhaps to your surprise, has used additional methods, which include the use of a spoon and the use of a straw. So be careful where you go.

I know what your name means; I have taken more Latin than you. Whether or not you have received guidance of the Holy Spirit in terms of which form you attend is not the subject of this discussion and I have not made it so. However, your supposed enlightenment by the Holy Spirit concerning what you propose as facts is subject to scrutiny when it contradicts the Magisterium.

1.-Like they’re really going to put down “We want to remove the altars”. An “altar” is connected to the wall basically, not a separate table. The Vatican II Council simply brain-washed people into thinking that tables and altars were the same thing so nobody would notice a difference. Look at pictures of the “altars” at Novus Ordos and TLMs and then tell me they are the same.

2.-Again, CITH was only used in earlier practices for a short period of time and then was thrown back in at the Vatican II Council. Wherever you learned that is has been a practice since the beginning, that source was wrong.

3.-It doesn’t matter who has taken more Latin, this isn’t a “I know Latin better than you” thread. And by the way, it’s really the “Holy Ghost”. That is what it was reffered to before Vatican II.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think you understand that CITH has not always been a practice of the Church. It was not even there from the beginning. It was only used in earlier practices for a BRIEF period of time, then was removed after people saw that it was abusive to the Blessed Sacrament. Pre-Vatican II Saints and Popes even spoke out about it. Just because it was thrown back in there doesn’t mean it’s right.

Cite your source that it was not there from the beginning; there is no evidence of either CITH or COTT in the earliest Church. 1000 years is not a brief period of time in my book; and you are still in denial that it has been a contiuous practice in the Church (as opposed to the Roman rite) for 2000 years.

Look, if you don’t want to receive that way, by all means if you are a member of the Roman rite then don’t. The normative way of receiving in the Roman rite is on the tongue and no one can forbid you to receive that way. Even Pope Benedict has said that receiving in the hand is a legitimate way to receive; and it is by indult and the indult can be revoked. You may feel that it is more reverent to receive that way, but you do not have the authority, wisdom or knowledge to judge that it is not valid, sacriligeous, illegitimate, forbidden, or even not traditional, or that others receiving that way are not reverently receiving. You certainly can say you think the Church was unwise to allow it as that is well within the issue of the discretion the Church has and which it has exercised. You can say you think it would be better if we only had COTT. But some of your comments in this thread indicate a great lack of knowledge of sacramental history and theology and/or some very incautious and inaccurate statements. Were you giving such answers on a test, you would be getting something between a D and an F. Your comments about the validity of the OF are a prime example; I will presume you are caught up in an enthusiasm that is causing a “Ready! Fire! Aim!” approach, but enthusiasm should not replace well researched, factual information.

And while we are at it, you have no right to criticize anyone who receives CITH as being not reverent; not that you have made such statements but rather that they would seem to flow out of your comments herein.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

1.-Like they’re really going to put down “We want to remove the altars”. An “altar” is connected to the wall basically, not a separate table. The Vatican II Council simply brain-washed people into thinking that tables and altars were the same thing so nobody would notice a difference. Look at pictures of the “altars” at Novus Ordos and TLMs and then tell me they are the same.

2.-Again, CITH was only used in earlier practices for a short period of time and then was thrown back in at the Vatican II Council. Wherever you learned that is has been a practice since the beginning, that source was wrong.

3.-It doesn’t matter who has taken more Latin, this isn’t a “I know Latin better than you” thread. And by the way, it’s really the “Holy Ghost”. That is what it was reffered to before Vatican II.

Altars in Rome dating back to the earliest centuries of the Church, including the main altar in St. Peter’s itself, are not up against the back wall. Some are even out in the middle of the Church in an elevated space called the “ambon.” Often times the congregations stood “around” these altars during the entire Mass. At the time of the Consecration everyone would turn and face East. So the people often times ended up with their backs to the priest (and to Christ in the Eucharist ). Point is, altars against the wall are not the “ancient tradition” of the Church. Not by way of comparison, but by way of pointing out fact, the Eastern Churches still have their altars separate from the wall. This is to facilitate moving around the altar during the incensings. Presumably this is also why Roman altars were traditionally separate from the rear wall as well.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Dempsey1919]

Vatican II is an ecumenical council and will never be abolished; it’s teachings and directives are here to stay; Vatican II has its place alongside the Council of Trent and the other councils of the Church.

However, I think the Church will eventually come to a true interpretation of the Council documents; the abuses and false interpretations will end, and the truth of the Council will stand for all to see. I believe the true value of the Council will not be known for at least another 45 years; by then, the Church should have killed the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and sorted through the mess.

The disorientation we have all experienced since Vatican II is coming to an end and I believe we will see the re-imergence of a more traditional and conservative Church; the main fruit of this renaissance will be more reverent liturgies and the growth of traditional customs and practices. The reform of the reform spearheaded by Benedict XVI will meet resistance, but in the end, the Church will be better off.

The EF Mass is a treasure that will impact the wider Church; it will definitely reshape the liturgical landscape, and in the process, strengthen the faith of many people.

We will not see a return to pre-Vatican II ways because a lot has happened since then; however, I believe we will take the fruits of that generation, add them to the fruits of this generation and the future of the Church will be bright. We will see the coming together of traditionalism with post Vatican II practices and a stronger more faithful Church will emerge from the ashes.

 

[cecilia97]

And you’re trying to sell Eastern Churches to the Traditional forum? What are you, some kind of superior church who’s supposed to set Western standards? Sure CITH was an ancient practice but it worked under different circumstances and was prohibited later. If CITH works for you today, fine, but that doesn’t mean all cultures need to adopt it. The Vatican never specified it as a universal custom so I suggest you respect our traditions as you get to keep yours.

Goodness, ProVobis…I don’t think anyone here has insisted that you or anyone else adopt CITH. It’s nice weather in most of the States today; maybe some gardening or a walk with the rosary beads is in order for all of us here?

 

[cecilia97]

We must not say that the EF is the true Mass and then slander another form of the Mass. Both the OF and the EF are equally valid and both deserve our respect. It is fine if you prefer one form over the other, but this must not cause you to begin attacking a legitimate Mass of the Church.

However, I see no problem in comparing both forms of the Mass in order to determine which best articulates the Catholic faith. In my opinion, the prayers of the EF express the Catholic faith more clearly; and in my opinion, the EF Mass is better because its prayers and gestures strengthen the faith and encourage greater reverence to the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. For these reasons, I think the Church would benefit if every parish offered at least one EF Mass every so often.

Absolutely beautifully put, Dempsey!

 

[cecilia97]

No, the Novus Ordo is valid in the sense that it is a Mass. But in a way it’s sacreligious. **We’re not supposed to hold Christ. He is supposed to hold us. **Validity is not all that matters about a Mass.

Where is this teaching in the Catechism, please? We become Tabernacles of Christ when we receive Him in the Blessed Sacrament. How is that not “holding” Christ within our very bodies and souls?

 

[cecilia97]

What is wrong with that is that you lack understanding of history sufficient to be able to make a valid comparison. St Thomas expressed an opinion; one that is clearly in contradiciton with both the history of the Church and the final determination of the Magisterium. He said one thing; the Magisterium has said another. Magisterium trumps St Thomas and dragging him out as your authority means either you don’t understand the issue, or you understand it and say that St Thomas’ opinion is superior to the judgement of the Magisterium. St Thomas was undoubtedly gifted by the Holy Spirit; but his works were not guaranteed infallibility, which is a subtle suggestion you ar making when you drag him out as the authority on the matter. The issue is disciplin, not doctrine and the short of it is he was wrong.

Thank you, otjm, for putting that better than I could have. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas said this:

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I SUBMIT ALL TO THE JUDGMENT AND CORRECTION OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

…what a lovely example of humility and obedience.

 

[otjm]

1.-Like they’re really going to put down “We want to remove the altars”. An “altar” is connected to the wall basically, not a separate table. The Vatican II Council simply brain-washed people into thinking that tables and altars were the same thing so nobody would notice a difference. Look at pictures of the “altars” at Novus Ordos and TLMs and then tell me they are the same.

Please cite to the document and pargaraph or paragrpahs which are brainwashing as to the altar. As in, why don’t you actully try reading the documents? It appears you have never done so.

2.-Again, CITH was only used in earlier practices for a short period of time and then was thrown back in at the Vatican II Council. Wherever you learned that is has been a practice since the beginning, that source was wrong.

Either you do not read well, or simply do not understand what you read. Unless you have a citation, it is my understanding that there is no evidence whatsoeverof either CITH or COTT in the early Church. And the earliest evidence I have seen is about COTT, not about CITH. Unless you have a citation that no one else seems to have, you cannot say when COTT began; I know that I certainly can’t. I can only make logical deductions about possiblities, and it is entirley possible based on Scripture That CITH was the original practice adn that COTT came some time later. There simply is no Scriptural evidence of COTT.

And it is entirely possible that both were practiced by the Church from the beginning; but there is no evidence I have seen showing that it was even an issue to be decided by the early Church. IF you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Simply saying that it was practiced for a short time is a stement that makes no sence; 1000 years is not a short time.

3.-It doesn’t matter who has taken more Latin, this isn’t a “I know Latin better than you” thread. And by the way, it’s really the “Holy Ghost”. That is what it was reffered to before Vatican II.

You are hilarious. “Ghost” is English, not Latin, from Middle English, gost, or gast, from Old English, gast, akin to Old High German geist.

Latin - which you seem to think so highly of, is Spiritus which translates to Spirit. Given some of your penchants for thinking so highly of Latin, one would think you would want a pure translation that comes from the Latin root, not a substituted different word that comes from or is related to German. Of course, we have the translation of the OF which is widely acknowleged to be inaccurate; the irony seems to have missed you. LOL!:extrahappy:

 

[Malleus_01]

I do follow it! I have tried to lead you to Truth. I have not used force or coercion. I have used reasoned arguments. The document you quote ant any rate is not directed towards individuals who use arguments to evangelize, but towards those that have the power to attempt to force conversion, a kind of power I do not have.

Malleus: Thats is where you err. What YOU Say is the TRUTH is not the TRUTH for me. So if I dont follow what you percieve to be the TRUTH then you attempt to coerce me to follow what you say is the TRUTH by saying the things you say and using the Tactics you use here in the Traditional forum. This is not the OF forum. It is geared towards Catholics who gravitate towards TRADITION. And you just admitted that you are here to EVANGELIZE us havent you. Did it ever occur to you that we dont need to be evangelized - that we have already arrived at the TRUTH and that your inability to see the TRUTH is a problem you have to come to terms with? Now reread what it says in Dignitatis Humanae especially the part about what a persons RIGHTS ARE ONCE THEY ARRRIVE AT THE TRUTH. I have arrived at the TRUTH. So what exactly do you think - gives you the RIGHT to infringe on my right to cling to the TRUTH I have arrived at according to the very precepts of that which you say you hold as TRUE in Dignitatis Humanae? I say - you are in violation of its precepts not respecting my RIGHT to MY BELIEF which has been arrived at PRIOR to VATICAN II itself. My question to you , sir - is WHY do you infringe on that right . Do you pretend to give it and then take it away? Or dont you really hold to it. Which is it?

 

[Malleus_01]

Another excellent post! [SIGN]I agree![/SIGN]

<<<< People who were not part of the Church before Vatican 2 have rose-colored glasses on when they nostalgically look back on what they think was a far better time, just as the history students have no real clue what life was like back when the USSR was doing its best to take over the world. We don’t need to go back; we need to authentically live out the Gospel. That does not preclude the EF in any way, but it does mean, for example, that people by and large knew little about the rubrics when the OF was introduced, but immediately appreciated the use of the vernacular. And failing to understand the power of the vernacular is going to frustrate those who love the EF and can’t understand why it makes so little overall impact. There is room for both, and as Benedict 16 said in his accompanying letter, he hoped that both forms would learn form the experience of the other. He invisioned changes to the OF; in that letter he also said he invisioned changes to the EF. >>>>>>>

Malleus: One thing you have failed to realize is simply - nostalgia has nothing to do with TRUTH and nothing to do with FAITH. Modernist always envision change. As do Heretics.

But those who already possess the pearl of great price seek only to retain it.

Pax

 

[RockyRoad]

<<<< People who were not part of the Church before Vatican 2 have rose-colored glasses on when they nostalgically look back on what they think was a far better time, just as the history students have no real clue what life was like back when the USSR was doing its best to take over the world. We don’t need to go back; we need to authentically live out the Gospel. That does not preclude the EF in any way, but it does mean, for example, that people by and large knew little about the rubrics when the OF was introduced, but immediately appreciated the use of the vernacular. And failing to understand the power of the vernacular is going to frustrate those who love the EF and can’t understand why it makes so little overall impact. There is room for both, and as Benedict 16 said in his accompanying letter, he hoped that both forms would learn form the experience of the other. He invisioned changes to the OF; in that letter he also said he invisioned changes to the EF. >>>>>>>

Malleus: One thing you have failed to realize is simply - nostalgia has nothing to do with TRUTH and nothing to do with FAITH. Modernist always envision change. As do Heretics.

But those who already possess the pearl of great price seek only to retain it.

Pax

Are you saying that those who attend the NO are heretic? Please say it ain’t so Joe.

 

[Malleus_01]

Vatican II is an ecumenical council and will never be abolished; it’s teachings and directives are here to stay; Vatican II has its place alongside the Council of Trent and the other councils of the Church.

However, I think the Church will eventually come to a true interpretation of the Council documents; the abuses and false interpretations will end, and the truth of the Council will stand for all to see. I believe the true value of the Council will not be known for at least another 45 years; by then, the Church should have killed the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and sorted through the mess.

The disorientation we have all experienced since Vatican II is coming to an end and I believe we will see the re-imergence of a more traditional and conservative Church; the main fruit of this renaissance will be more reverent liturgies and the growth of traditional customs and practices. The reform of the reform spearheaded by Benedict XVI will meet resistance, but in the end, the Church will be better off.

The EF Mass is a treasure that will impact the wider Church; it will definitely reshape the liturgical landscape, and in the process, strengthen the faith of many people.

We will not see a return to pre-Vatican II ways because a lot has happened since then; however, I believe we will take the fruits of that generation, add them to the fruits of this generation and the future of the Church will be bright. We will see the coming together of traditionalism with post Vatican II practices and a stronger more faithful Church will emerge from the ashes.

Malleus: Vatican II was a Pastoral Council.

There is not a single anathema. Its language is ambiguous and it has been misinterpreted ad nauseum. So you can talk all day about Vatican II or “Changing CATHOLICISM” to your hearts content and it still will not matter. GOD remains. His TRUTH is eternal. And what was TRUE in 100 AD is TRUE in 1000 AD is TRUE in 2010 AD and will be TRUE in 3010 AD The TLM will always be TRUE Unchanged.

I just love it when the modernists say how much they love the EF but then add the caveat about how they just cannot wait to change it. Change Change Change. Always with Change.

And why? Because they need to continue their search for the Truth. They remain unsatisfied. Their journey is not over.

The Pearl of great price remains elusive.

But we in Tradition - we simply go to Mass - partake of the Unchangeable Sacraments - keep our souls in a State of Grace as best we can and wait for Judgement day.

Why change.

Why try to fix it if it isnt broken.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

Are you saying that those who attend the NO are heretic? Please say it ain’t so Joe.

Malleus: I am saying that there are HERETICS loose in the Church. Are you saying that there are no Heretics loose in the Church?

I gravitate towards Tradition BECAUSE there are Heretics loose in the Church and because I dont bury my head in the sand. .

 

[RockyRoad]

Malleus: I am saying that there are HERETICS loose in the Church. Are you saying that there are no Heretics loose in the Church?

I gravitate towards Tradition BECAUSE there are Heretics loose in the Church and because I dont bury my head in the sand. .

There are heretics in the Church. They’ve been there for 2000 years.

 

[Malleus_01]

Are you saying that those who attend the NO are heretic? Please say it ain’t so Joe.

Malleus: And let me add one more thing. When I read all these posts in here - it seems apparent to me - that most of the people who come here are hypocrites. Corrrect me if I am wrong - but isnt this the TRADITIONAL FORUM?

When I come here I come here to discuss TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM not to be evangelized by those who apparently hate it.

Perhaps all of you “Good Catholics” who come here to INSIST we bow and scrape to you because you are “Superior” and or “Modern” ought to go find a mirror and look into it.

I never made a single statement regarding anyone who attends the “NO” because if I were to even use the term NO - those who attend the OF would completely flip out about it wouldnt they.

As for who is or isnt a Heretic - simply read the Topics that are discussed here. Do some of the topics here disturb you? They should. Some deny Scripture. Some deny the Real Presence. Some accuse others of being in DISOBEDIENCE because they want to attend a CATHOLIC MASS From a Validly ORDAINED Priest in violation of DIVINE LAW itself and the Supreme law of the Church Herself.

Why even yesterday I talked to an individual on here who denied Baptism of Desire and Blood and attempted to discredit the Angelic Doctor St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Ligouri not to mention contradictiong the Council of Trent itself.

Now do any of you see me in other Threads insisting that you believe as I DO?

Go ahead - point those contributions out to me. No - I only post here. And for my trouble I get accused of all manner of things. Or disengenuous leading posts are made meant to stir up Controversy are posted.

So you say it anit so , Joe. Because we both know that Heresy is rampant in the Church right now and it is never more evident than here on a daily basis.

What else really has to be said.

Pax