The Remnant

[1AugustSon7]

Pope Benedict XVI and his recent visit to Cuba. I don’t know if you saw his interviews. He spoke very strongly on the immorality of Communism. He repeated the same message in his homilies while in Cuba. However, he was never aggressive, rude or arrogant. In fact, his exchange with Fidel Castro looked like a meeting between two old friends.

Okay, that’s just objectively scandalous. It would be like the Apostle Peter having a cup of tea with Nero on the porch of his Imperial Palace at night whilst the roads to Rome were brightly lit with the burning bodies of the crucified Christians. Understandly there is an enormous difference between the two situations and, as far as I know, the government of Cuba isn’t persecuting anyone; nonetheless, it would appear to lend legitimacy to an ideological system that has murdered more Christians in history than any single other thing: no, not even the pagan Roman Empire. Still, Communism is completely atheistic and cannot possibly please God.

Regardless, I am not at all denying that Catholicism is a powerful force for civility, culture, etiquette, good manners, customs and the like; and prudence, naturally, must be observed, such that we don’t misdiagnose the sickness and apply the wrong medicine. We are obliged to avoid notorious heretics, but nonetheless we are also obliged to defend the Faith as such against heresy. Engaging in calumny, for example, would be wicked: we defend the Faith with truth.

I am increasingly concerned that there is a tendency to silence Christians from defending their Faith by portraying such defense as being somehow inappropriate because it might make people feel uncomfortable or some such similar thing. St. Paul wasn’t invited to Athens: he went there and proclaimed the Gospel to the Athenians, drawing largely on arguments from reason and nature. The Church Fathers were not afraid to subject the doctrines of their opponents to ridicule by exposing their latent contradictions and fallacies. Such a practice was wise because it made use of human shame and brought it to bear upon something good: denouncing heresy whilst confirming people in the holy Faith of the Gospel.

I believe such works as Liberalism is a Sin serve as good manuals for appropriate ways of engaging in apologetics and defending the Faith. Admittedly, if done rashly or incompetently it can have the opposite effect and, therefore, we should study our Faith dilligently so as to become competent in it.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, that’s just objectively scandalous.

What’s scandalous, that the Pope was civil? The fact was that the Holy Father did not have to meet with Fidel Castro, since he is no longer the head of state. But rumor got out that Fidel Castro would have liked to greet him. When asked, if he wanted an audience, he said that he did not want to impose on the Pope’s agenda.

Apparently, the rumor made it to the Holy Father, because he asked for the meeting with Fidel Castro. It was very brief, but it was cordial and very effective. The Holy Father had asked Raul Castro if he could declare Good Friday a national holiday. Raul had hesitations. The Holy Father’s kindness to Fidel was reciprocated by Raul Castro. Less than a month later, Good Friday became a national holiday in Cuba. The Holy Father succeeded without an argument, while being rational and civil.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that Paul and the Fathers were aggressive. That is not what we teach. They were effective and zealous, but not aggressive at all. They were always very civil and rational. These men did not go in shooting. They did exactly as Pope Benedict did in Cuba. He was honest, reasonable, polite and kind. I say kind, because at the end of the day, Fidel Castro is a very fragile old man who had expressed an interest in the visit. The Holy Father lived up to the words, “Love your enemies.” He also modeled for the Cuban bishops and clergy how to deal with a tough situation.

There were other very positive results that came from this style of evangelization.

Do you see how it works?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

What’s scandalous, that the Pope was civil?

No. The scandal for me originates largely with the person of Fidel Castro and, by extension, the Communism he represents and the countless millions of innocents that it slaughtered.

The fact was that the Holy Father did not have to meet with Fidel Castro, since he is no longer the head of state.

Ah yes, that’s right, I believe it was his brother who took over for him?

But rumor got out that Fidel Castro would have liked to greet him. When asked, if he wanted an audience, he said that he did not want to impose on the Pope’s agenda.

Apparently, the rumor made it to the Holy Father, because he asked for the meeting with Fidel Castro. It was very brief, but it was cordial and very effective. The Holy Father had asked Raul Castro if he could declare Good Friday a national holiday. Raul had hesitations. The Holy Father’s kindness to Fidel was reciprocated by Raul Castro. Less than a month later, Good Friday became a national holiday in Cuba. The Holy Father succeeded without an argument, while being rational and civil.

Well one cannot argue with good news. But let’s not forget why Good Friday wasn’t a national holiday to begin with.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that Paul and the Fathers were aggressive.

I did not describe them as being generically aggressive; they were, however, aggressive toward error and heresy and zealous in promoting the Faith. I described what they did and one can surmise their attitudes based on their writings. They did, in fact, engage in polemics and some of them were very gifted at it.

That is not what we teach. They were effective and zealous, but not aggressive at all. They were always very civil and rational. These men did not go in shooting.

I do not know what you mean here by “go in shooting.” If you mean they were rash or behaved like Hollywood’s rendition of American cowboys, then of course not; and that’s what I meant when I earlier spoke about the appropriate application of medicine. If, however, you mean they were not exhaustive in their denunciation of error, then I will have to deny that: they frequently demonstrated error and exploded it with many, various arguments, even subjecting doctrines to ridicule or pointing out hypocrisy, contradiction and the like.

They did exactly as Pope Benedict did in Cuba.

I don’t know of any record describing Saint Augustine, the Apostles or their successors meeting with the officials of the pagans, at least not in detail, so I cannot know if there is any real parallel. Where there was a willingness to hear or learn the Faith or investigate its teachings, the Apostles and their successors were, of course, certainly happy to share it and demonstrate its goodness and how agreeable it was; i.e., not a threat to the State. They were, in fact, willing to die for it if necessary. The object, of course, was defending the goodness of the Faith, refuting any calumnies that were everywhere found against it and possibly converting the authorities.

He was honest, reasonable, polite and kind. I say kind, because at the end of the day, Fidel Castro is a very fragile old man who had expressed an interest in the visit.

He was also a killer and someone who espouses atheism. Hardly good examples to set for your country. That may not bother you but it bothers me, and the fact he didn’t have to meet him doesn’t make it any less bothersome.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Do you see the difference that men like Francis, Dominic, Anthony and even Thomas Aquinas were trying to make? None of them were known for street brawls with heretics. They walked away from them.

Well, St. Nicholas did punch Arius in the face at the Council of Nicaea

The heresy of Arius was destroying the Faith… I imagine Nicholas had heard about as much as he could stand, knowing what was at stake. If the story is to be believed, Jesus and Mary visited Nicholas in the jail after his “bar room brawl” and he told them that he was in jail because he loved them. They freed him and returned his clerical vestments. Sounds like Our Lord and Our Lady had had enough of Arius, too

But yes, civility is always to be commended.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

Well, St. Nicholas did punch Arius in the face at the Council of Nicaea

The heresy of Arius was destroying the Faith… I imagine Nicholas had heard about as much as he could stand, knowing what was at stake. If the story is to be believed, Jesus and Mary visited Nicholas in the jail after his “bar room brawl” and he told them that he was in jail because he loved them. They freed him and returned his clerical vestments. Sounds like Our Lord and Our Lady had had enough of Arius, too

But yes, civility is always to be commended.

• PAX

I’ve often wondered about that story. I believe that he punched him. People are not born holy, mature and self-disciplined. That takes practice. I’ve often wondered about the apparition in the jail. The Church does not really talk it.

There were saints who had horrible tempers and had to learn to tone it down. St. Jerome’s superiors would not let him leave the house without another monk, because Jerome was hot headed. Jerome spent a lot of time doing penance for his lack of self-discipline.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri was mouthy. You’ll have to ask a Redemptorist for the exact story. I only know that his own community was so fed up with him that they wanted him to just go away. I have heard that they kicked him out of the house once. That’s the part that I don’t know if it’s true. Only a Redemptorist would know.

What we do know about Alphonsus and Jerome is that by the time they died they hid disciplined themselves to be forthright and civil at the same time. They were no longer bulls in china shops.

In Franciscan history there is a story, which no one can prove or deny, that there was a friar who really meant well, but did poorly in these situations. When he ran into a heretic he provoked him. He would start to preach to the heretic, before the person even said, “Hello.”. St. Anthony, who was his superior, was so embarrassed, that he gave the brother a simple command. He was to turn around and walk while praying for the heretic who had narrowly escaped his sharp tongue. This was Anthony’s way of avoiding arguments. Apparently he turned his back many times. That part is actually recorded more than once . . . that Anthony turned his back rather than argue. He was known for his brilliant preaching and for his gentleness of manner.

I always think of modern saints like Bl. Teresa of Calcutta. What I observed in people like her is that they knew their faith very well. They were not going to be shaken by someone else.

She had great love for every person whom she met, so she always saw the face of Christ, not that of a Muslim or a Hindu.

She was quick to the draw, disarming people with a simple on line statement that no one could argue against, whether they were Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Atheist. This gift came from prayer and the scriptures. She developed common sense that attracted many people and made many converts without conflict.

Some people accuse her of being indifferent, but they have not stopped to consider that almost 90% of the sisters and brothers in her two congregations are converts to Christianity. There are thousands of them. I bet that there are others who never entered religious life.

We have to develop that kind of love and it will only come through prayer, penance, the Eucharist, scripture and discipline. Teresa of Calcutta is a great example to all of us on that score.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[TempleServant]

Well, you know, there’s no harm at all in going up to a priest and asking him he’d mind not doing X or Y.

I think most people vote with their feet, however.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The concerns were officially addressed by the Vatican in the revised General Instruction (G.I.) that ultimately accompanied the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O.) of Paul VI. Some (who desired to see substantial changes to the actual rubrics of the N.O, and not only to the G.I.) claim that these changes failed to meet all of the concerns raised by the Intervention. Cardinal Ottaviani was quite old by this time, blind and I do not think he had much longer to live; nonetheless, the majority of those with concerns (at least in the higher places) appear to have been satisfied with the alterations made in the G.I.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

If only I could agree. The fact is that the introductory notes were revised, but the actual text was not changed in the slightest – a textbook example of a cosmetic change. If the Moderator will allow me to report the following (which is now fully documented; this is not a personal attack, but recorded history) – Cdl Ottaviani told Pope Paul that if he did nothing, he (Ottaviani) would call a convention of Cardinals and call for the impeachment of the Pope for attempting to promulgate the original G.I. which constituted a formal heresy. The Holy Father did change the Introduction, but not the text which was inspired by the First Draft of the G.I. This information was made public only after the deaths of all concerned.
The Mystical Body of Christ deserved better.

 

[JReducation]

Well, you know, there’s no harm at all in going up to a priest and asking him he’d mind not doing X or Y.

I think most people vote with their feet, however.

If only I could agree. The fact is that the introductory notes were revised, but the actual text was not changed in the slightest – a textbook example of a cosmetic change. If the Moderator will allow me to report the following (which is now fully documented; this is not a personal attack, but recorded history) – Cdl Ottaviani told Pope Paul that if he did nothing, he (Ottaviani) would call a convention of Cardinals and call for the impeachment of the Pope for attempting to promulgate the original G.I. which constituted a formal heresy. The Holy Father did change the Introduction, but not the text which was inspired by the First Draft of the G.I. This information was made public only after the deaths of all concerned.
The Mystical Body of Christ deserved better.

I’ve read some of this stuff. I would take it with a grain of salt. Bl. John Paul once made a passing reference to this situation in his address to the Major Superiors of men. My gues is that someone must have brought it to his attention. His comment was simply that whatever the truth was, it was not in those documents. He highlighted one single point and moved on. “We knew our predecessor. He was not a man to succumb to pressure. Whatever he did, he did because he believed.” Pope Benedict has also come out on a similar note. He too was asked about this in an interview and he waved it off as “a lot of information, but too many unanswered questions.” Basically, he was not going to pay much attention to it, until someone could fill in the blanks. The truth is that neither Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have never paid these documents much attention. Apparently it is one-sided record keeping.

That’s why I suggest, take it with a grain of salt. The truth is often under the layers of mystery and allegations. Besides, the Ordinary Form of the Mass has been revised several times since then. The focus right now is on the correct implementation of the rubrics as they stand for each of the missals in the Roman Church, of which there are at least 15, the Roman Missal being the most commonly used, but not exclusively used.

Ottaviani and company had not influence in those other 14 missals. They wee produced outside of the Vatican and then submitted to the CDW for approval. There is a lot of overlap between them and the Roman Missal. It kind of puts a dent on the idea that these folks had such power over Pope Paul, when there are other liturgical commissions doing their own missals, of which Ottoviani and the pope have no knowledge until the CDW approves them and makes them public. Why didn’t they intervene there as well?

There are definitely missing pieces in these documents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TempleServant]

I have read that Ottaviani was very elderly and blind. I also read that he tried to make a speech at the Second Vatican Council, ran over the alloted time and they turned his mike off. To laughter and cheering.

I wouldn’t expect much of someone in that condition.

 

[ProVobis]

If only I could agree. The fact is that the introductory notes were revised,

Yes, this was pointed out in Gamber’s book The Reform of the Liturgy, which then-Cardinal Ratzinger prefaced in the French edition.

Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as “the Lord’s Supper of the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal.The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painful obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.

Footnotes:

Original text: Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum, Article 7, Editio typica, p. 15

Abendmahl: literally translated as “Evening Meal,” or “Supper”; generally referred to as “The Lord’s Supper.”

The revised text is: In missa seu Cena dominca populus Dei in unum convocatur, sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum (“In the Mass, or Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (Article 7, Missale Romanum, Editio typica, Vatican, 1970), p. 29

The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Gamber, 1993, Una Voce Press

 

[numealinesimpet]

I have read that Ottaviani was very elderly and blind. I also read that he tried to make a speech at the Second Vatican Council, ran over the alloted time and they turned his mike off. To laughter and cheering.

I wouldn’t expect much of someone in that condition.

He didn’t run over the allotted time; he was just switched off. Ottaviani was treated to the New Spirit that was now sweeping the Church.
The points raised in the Ottaviani Intervention are objective facts about the official text of the Novus Ordo Missae.

 

[pnewton]

That’s why I suggest, take it with a grain of salt. The truth is often under the layers of mystery and allegations.

Even more than a grain of salt, we are forbidden by or faith to engage in rumor-mongering and commended instead to always take the most favorable interpretation of the actions of others. If the title of the the newspaper wasn’t distasteful enough for me, I do not understand how charity can allow the persistant gossip about the council and those involved in it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

If only I could agree. The fact is that the introductory notes were revised, but the actual text was not changed in the slightest – a textbook example of a cosmetic change. If the Moderator will allow me to report the following (which is now fully documented; this is not a personal attack, but recorded history) – Cdl Ottaviani told Pope Paul that if he did nothing, he (Ottaviani) would call a convention of Cardinals and call for the impeachment of the Pope for attempting to promulgate the original G.I. which constituted a formal heresy. The Holy Father did change the Introduction, but not the text which was inspired by the First Draft of the G.I. This information was made public only after the deaths of all concerned.
The Mystical Body of Christ deserved better.

I suspect you misread me, sir.

I addressed what you said in my report of the situation as far as I know it historically. What you refer to as the introductory notes is *the General Instruction *that I reffered to in my original post;- and it did undergo modification as a result of the Ottaviani Intervention, and became what I refer to as *the revised General Instruction *(though not officially called that: it simply retained the name of the General Instruction). I believe a Preface of some sort might have also been added (to the G.I.).

I also included the fact that the actual rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae themselves, which the G.I accompanied, were not altered. I then added that this appeared to satisfy enough of those who had original objections, such that ‘the resistance’ thereafter ended: the reason why I say it appeared to end ‘the resistance’, so to speak, was that there were no more subsequent *Ottaviani Interventions * after the aforementioned *revised General Instruction * was promulgated as well as, and along with, the (unchanged) Novus Ordo Missae.

The original group that consisted of the *Ottaviani Intervention *appears to have disappeared. Determining the extent of that group to begin with is difficult. Either they gave up or were satisfied by the revised G.I.; regardless, their part in history consists of *the Intervention *itself, (which results in the revised G.I.) and then it falls off the radar of history - at least as far as I know.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Even more than a grain of salt, we are forbidden by or faith to engage in rumor-mongering and commended instead to always take the most favorable interpretation of the actions of others. If the title of the the newspaper wasn’t distasteful enough for me, I do not understand how charity can allow the persistant gossip about the council and those involved in it.

Facts are not gossip, and attempting to ascertain or verify facts does not constitute rumour-mongering.

Please remember that one of the greatest anti-Catholic carnards used against conversion to the Church is that Roman Catholics are supposedly not allowed to think in the Church. But facts are facts and the Church does not protest the facts (if they are rightly called facts). Catholics are perfectly free to gather facts and assemble history. Common sense tells us to distinguish, however, between the facts and people’s opinions based on those facts, or their interpretation of those facts as to their meaning or significance.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I suspect you misread me, sir.

I addressed what you said in my report of the situation as far as I know it historically. What you refer to as the introductory notes is *the General Instruction *that I reffered to in my original post;- and it did undergo modification as a result of the Ottaviani Intervention, and became what I refer to as *the revised General Instruction *(though not officially called that: it simply retained the name of the General Instruction). I believe a Preface of some sort might have also been added (to the G.I.).

I also included the fact that the actual rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae themselves, which the G.I accompanied, were not altered. I then added that this appeared to satisfy enough of those who had original objections, such that ‘the resistance’ thereafter ended: the reason why I say it appeared to end ‘the resistance’, so to speak, was that there were no more subsequent *Ottaviani Interventions * after the aforementioned *revised General Instruction * was promulgated as well as, and along with, the (unchanged) Novus Ordo Missae.

The original group that consisted of the *Ottaviani Intervention *appears to have disappeared. Determining the extent of that group to begin with is difficult. Either they gave up or were satisfied by the revised G.I.; regardless, their part in history consists of *the Intervention *itself, (which results in the revised G.I.) and then it falls off the radar of history - at least as far as I know.

Tnx for the clarification. The General Instruction was only the icing on the cake. In its original form it did constitute, in the eyes of Cdls Ottaviani, Bacci et al., a formal heresy; but the real issue was the text of the New Missal itself. As the text remained, so did the objections. But since the General Instruction at least was revised to allow a Catholic Interpretation, it was considered tolerable although regrettable. Enough that it was no longer necessary to threaten an impeachment of the Pope - which it seems they were prepared to proceed with. But since the text remained, so did the objections. I have heard that Archbp. Lefebvre was a major contributor to the ‘Intervention’. Yet he himself would not allow it to be rashly said that the New Missal was invalid; he dismissed the seminarians who continued to make such claims. Indeed, Lefebvre did say that those who wished to assist only at the Old Rite of Mass, who were physically unable to be there, and who would be troubled in conscience by missisng Mass altogether, would be better to attend a Novus Ordo than to be troubled in conscience. But to repeat, the difficulties with the Novus Ordo remain. Since Pope Paul clearly had no intention of changing the missal, and did not so much as reply to the Intervention, they knew a lost cause when they saw one and concentrated their energies on other things.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I’ve often wondered about that story. I believe that he punched him. People are not born holy, mature and self-disciplined. That takes practice. I’ve often wondered about the apparition in the jail. The Church does not really talk it.

So Saint Nicholas was being unholy, immature and ill-disciplined when he finally had enough of an Arch-heresiarch’s incessant sophistry, semantics and subversion, which would finally cause incalculable harm to the whole Church and result in systematic persecution of all Catholics? In the Middle Ages, Arius would have been burned : a punch in the face, for me, says Saint Nicholas let him off easy.

There were saints who had horrible tempers and had to learn to tone it down. St. Jerome’s superiors…

Are not saints.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri was mouthy. You’ll have to ask a Redemptorist for the exact story. I only know that his own community was so fed up with him that they wanted him to just go away. I have heard that they kicked him out of the house once. That’s the part that I don’t know if it’s true. Only a Redemptorist would know.

So far we have established a track record of Saints through history who took their Faith seriouly, and that a lot of people objected to the behaviour of Saints - even those who should have most loved them.

What we do know about Alphonsus and Jerome is that by the time they died they hid disciplined themselves to be forthright and civil at the same time. They were no longer bulls in china shops.

Perhaps so, but let us not mistake that it was their fiery passion for their Faith that ultimately lead them on the paths to Sainthood.

I always think of modern saints like Bl. Teresa of Calcutta. What I observed in people like her is that they knew their faith very well. They were not going to be shaken by someone else.

Yes that’s fine for them, but the original concern is for those who do not know their Faith that well and can be beguiled by the cleverness and smoothness of heretics. To simply sit by and watch some simple person be deceived by lies, calumnies or errors is to suffer their souls to be robbed from them without protest. The Saints knew this and therefore fought to expose heretics and their errors.

Frankly, it appears to me that you have decided on your own, personal and preferential policy as how best to operate and have placed it above all other methods, as if those methods or practises were somehow obsolete or illegitimate and regardless of how many Saints or Popes have practised it and even encouraged it; and those that provide the alternate example you singularly take issue with, even taking a dismissive and, frankly, utterly haughty tone toward them. Not too many people on this forum would willy-nilly run around calling Saints “mouthy” or “hot-heads” with “horrible tempers” or implying that they were immature, ill-disciplined or wanting holiness.

 

[1AugustSon7]

… they knew a lost cause when they saw one and concentrated their energies on other things.

I believe that’s a likely and reasonable explanation based on the evidence.

 

[pnewton]

Facts are not gossip, and attempting to ascertain or verify facts does not constitute rumour-mongering.

Please remember that one of the greatest anti-Catholic carnards used against conversion to the Church is that Roman Catholics are supposedly not allowed to think in the Church.

The comments I refer to as gossip are not facts. They are unsustained, and unknowable, accusations.

If it reads like a Jack Chick tract, Catholics should not be spreading it, in my opinion. Legitimate use of Occam’s Razor is thinking, anticatholic rhetoric notwithstanding.

 

[JReducation]

Frankly, it appears to me that you have decided on your own, personal and preferential policy as how best to operate and have placed it above all other methods, as if those methods or practises were somehow obsolete or illegitimate and regardless of how many Saints or Popes have practised it and even encouraged it; and those that provide the alternate example you singularly take issue with, even taking a dismissive and, frankly, utterly haughty tone toward them. Not too many people on this forum would willy-nilly run around calling Saints “mouthy” or “hot-heads” with “horrible tempers” or implying that they were immature, ill-disciplined or wanting holiness.

First of all, how did this become about me?

Second, I am very familiar with ascetical and mystical theology as well as hagiography. As a formator for religious and priests, it’s my job.

Third, I’m not asking anyone to lose souls. Do you believe that a man like Anthony of Padua lost souls, because he would not have a face to face confrontation with heretics? Instead, he let them build their house and then went in and tore it down with his superior knowledge of scripture and his superior gentleness of manner.

Would Francis of Assisi let souls get lost, because he walked away from any argument?

Would St. Vincent de Paul lose souls, because he preached that the best antidote to heresy was charitable works?

Jerome is famous for being a hothead. And Alphonsus is famous for being mouthy. In part, it may have been due to his training as a lawyer, but we know that he disciplined himself to be a gentleman who could be forthright without being rude or coming across like sandpaper.

Saints are not born saints. It’s a journey of a lifetime. Most people tend to look at saints and focus on the finished product. Religious formators and theologians look at the journey, because that’s what’s helpful to the young religious or young seminarian. He or she needs to see that there is a life long journey to holiness and that there is no resting place on earth. He or she needs to see that part of being a saint is being a civil human being. Civility does not take away from truthfulness.

As superior, if I saw any of my brothers be rude to anyone of any faith, even in an attempt to defend the faith, I would discipline him and I would remind him what the rule says about handling such situations. Truth does not justify rudeness or aggression. Zeal is not the same as impulsiveness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Even more than a grain of salt, we are forbidden by or faith to engage in rumor-mongering and commended instead to always take the most favorable interpretation of the actions of others. If the title of the the newspaper wasn’t distasteful enough for me, I do not understand how charity can allow the persistant gossip about the council and those involved in it.

Are you criticizing the Remnant? Don’t you think we should always take the most favorable interpretation of the actions of others? Oh, right. That’s what you just said.