C
- Status
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Crazzeto,
are doing to counter heterodoxy and heteropraxis in the Church. Real Catholic TV’s unconditional (or nearly so) support for the agenda of the Neo-Con Republicans 
and the “Tea Party” crowd just sickens me. The Church is NOT the organ of any particular political movement or party, the murderously war-mongering Republicans or the abortionist Democrats, both of which share each other’s sins, as well, only to a slighter degree than the opposite part of Yankee Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum! Being, thankfully, here in Québec, I don’t have to put up with all of that nonsense, not directly, at least!
I’ll try to track down this Catholic TV on the Internet. It sounds worthwhile and, being Catholic and also from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as a former Bostonian and current Catholic, I would find it enjoyable.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** My reference to Catholic TV wasn’t “Real Catholic TV”, which I am also familiar with. I find “Real Catholic TV” combative and far too negative. If you accept everything they put out, then there is nothing but heretics out there. No no, the Catholic TV I’m referring to is just plain old regular Catholic TV. A real TV station like EWTN. Catholic TV was started by Fr. Robert Reed, and they are based out of Watertown MA. They offer a host of terrific programming. I highly recommend checking it out as well as EWTN. As for so called “Real Catholic TV”… I guess it’s OK, but at least personally I don’t spend a lot of time with it.
Thanks, again. I do take in Real Catholic TV’s daily rants, but mostly because I can hear through them about what the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI are doing to counter heterodoxy and heteropraxis in the Church. Real Catholic TV’s unconditional (or nearly so) support for the agenda of the Neo-Con Republicans and the “Tea Party” crowd just sickens me. The Church is NOT the organ of any particular political movement or party, the murderously war-mongering Republicans or the abortionist Democrats, both of which share each other’s sins, as well, only to a slighter degree than the opposite part of Yankee Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum! Being, thankfully, here in Québec, I don’t have to put up with all of that nonsense, not directly, at least!I’ll try to track down this Catholic TV on the Internet. It sounds worthwhile and, being Catholic and also from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as a former Bostonian and current Catholic, I would find it enjoyable.
Pax, Jerry Parker
C
crazzeto
Guest
Just hit the Website, like EWTN they have a live video stream. EWTN has both TV streams and radio streams on the internet.Crazzeto,
**You wrote: ** My reference to Catholic TV wasn’t “Real Catholic TV”, which I am also familiar with. I find “Real Catholic TV” combative and far too negative. If you accept everything they put out, then there is nothing but heretics out there. No no, the Catholic TV I’m referring to is just plain old regular Catholic TV. A real TV station like EWTN. Catholic TV was started by Fr. Robert Reed, and they are based out of Watertown MA. They offer a host of terrific programming. I highly recommend checking it out as well as EWTN. As for so called “Real Catholic TV”… I guess it’s OK, but at least personally I don’t spend a lot of time with it.
Thanks, again. I do take in Real Catholic TV’s daily rants, but mostly because I can hear through them about what the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI
I’ll try to track down this Catholic TV on the Internet. It sounds worthwhile and, being Catholic and also from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as a former Bostonian and current Catholic, I would find it enjoyable.
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Crazzeto,
I’ll probbly settle for EWTN radio more often than EWTN televsion, since I really am not a “TV sort of guy”; sitting in front of TV makes me restless. It is nice to have the choice.
**You wrote: ** Just hit the Website, like EWTN they have a live video stream. EWTN has both TV streams and radio streams on the internet.
Thanks, again, for these hints re. Catholic broadcasting. I’ll probbly settle for EWTN radio more often than EWTN televsion, since I really am not a “TV sort of guy”; sitting in front of TV makes me restless. It is nice to have the choice.
D
distracted
Guest
D
distracted
Guest
i didn’t know you were a convert… hmmm…
coulda fooled me… Then again, converts and reverts make the best Catholics… 
i should have left the Church a LONG time ago… what with all the liberal priests… rude priests… rude parishioners… uncaring Catholics who look down their noses at the less fortunate (lots of stories on that one…)
but what i get at the RCC is something i can’t get anywhere else… the Real Presence is only There… The Mass !!! How can anyone in his right mind (soul) leave the MASS, where all of Heaven participates… !!!
i irritated someone once by saying tht anyone who leaves the Church never knew Catholicism… but its true…
D
distracted
Guest
i don’t feel the Republicans should be called that…Crazzeto,
**You wrote: ** My reference to Catholic TV wasn’t “Real Catholic TV”, which I am also familiar with. I find “Real Catholic TV” combative and far too negative. If you accept everything they put out, then there is nothing but heretics out there. No no, the Catholic TV I’m referring to is just plain old regular Catholic TV. A real TV station like EWTN. Catholic TV was started by Fr. Robert Reed, and they are based out of Watertown MA. They offer a host of terrific programming. I highly recommend checking it out as well as EWTN. As for so called “Real Catholic TV”… I guess it’s OK, but at least personally I don’t spend a lot of time with it.
Thanks, again. I do take in Real Catholic TV’s daily rants, but mostly because I can hear through them about what the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI
I’ll try to track down this Catholic TV on the Internet. It sounds worthwhile and, being Catholic and also from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as a former Bostonian and current Catholic, I would find it enjoyable.
Pax, Jerry Parker
from what i can tell the Iraq war was necessary because there WERE wmd’s… someone who was THERE told me that…
Saddaam was a possessed mad man… killing people for looking at him funny…
T
Timothy17
Guest
Jesus never organized picnics, so why would His Church?
The Church does as she has been instructed and disciplined to do - socializing was obviously not one of the important points; furthermore, nothing is more likely to breed contempt, nuissance, annoyance, dislike and distrust between people than a constant exposure to them. Mindless action is as useless as idleness, and both breed sin. Christians are taught to submit their actions to contemplation (see St Augustine, City of God); to serve a higher, greater or virtuous purpose. Forced, coerced or pressured socializing is likely to alienate or ward off as many souls as it might comfort.
That being said, societies subject to common Catholic causes or purposes, where the organization is of missionary nature, inclines like minded men (and women) to meet others, thus fostering true Christian fellowship, which is as always and ever subject and under our Lord and Master’s discipline and teaching, under the paternal care and authority of His Church’s magisterium.
The Church does as she has been instructed and disciplined to do - socializing was obviously not one of the important points; furthermore, nothing is more likely to breed contempt, nuissance, annoyance, dislike and distrust between people than a constant exposure to them. Mindless action is as useless as idleness, and both breed sin. Christians are taught to submit their actions to contemplation (see St Augustine, City of God); to serve a higher, greater or virtuous purpose. Forced, coerced or pressured socializing is likely to alienate or ward off as many souls as it might comfort.
That being said, societies subject to common Catholic causes or purposes, where the organization is of missionary nature, inclines like minded men (and women) to meet others, thus fostering true Christian fellowship, which is as always and ever subject and under our Lord and Master’s discipline and teaching, under the paternal care and authority of His Church’s magisterium.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Crazzeto,
**You wrote: ** * I don’t feel the Republicans should be called that…
From what i can tell the Iraq war was necessary because there WERE wmd’s—. someone who was THERE told me that…
Anyway, this is not the place for partisan politics (which, in any event, these comments really are not), but I could not let your comments go unchallenged. As for a specifically Catholic aspect of that miserable and genocidal war (and I mean, above all, on account of the U. S. and the U.K.), have you any idea of how the cause of Catholicism, and of Christianity generally, was set back in Iraq due to Bush’s aggression? Read about it! The Chaldean Catholics, Nestorian, and Presbyterian Christians had attained safety and protection under Hussein as they enjoyed in few other places in the Middle East and Central Asia, but the Muslim reaction to Bush’s “Christian war on Iraq” trumpery has led to terrible persecutions of them, flight of Christian refugees to their respective dispora, and a set-back for Christian missions that alone should be sufficient cause for one to execrate what Bush did to Iraq!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** * I don’t feel the Republicans should be called that…
From what i can tell the Iraq war was necessary because there WERE wmd’s—. someone who was THERE told me that…
Saddaam was a possessed mad man… killing people for looking at him funny—*.
Really, Crazzeto, you take what the mainstream media (and the pro-Zionist sectarian Fundamentalist and “Neo-Evangelical” crazies) in the U. S. of A. say much too seriously. **There WERE NO WMDs **(although there was plenty of oil to confiscate and although there had been nuclear armaments in Iraq some years previously, which Iraq abandoned at international behest) by the time of the Second Gulf War (and well before that). Only Americans hang on to that delusion so widely! (I’m in Canada, a country with less biassed media included on the airwaves.) Because of my involvement with the Kurdish cause, I have followed Saddam Hussein’s sorry career for a long, long time and, yes, I have been in Mesopotamia, too, and I have dozens of Kurdish and Chaldee friends from Iraq. Saddam was an opportunist and a thug, but he was not the monster (except when gassing Kurds) on the large scale that the American media made him out to be. He kept the peace among the restless Muslim sects in his country, that is quite evident (and to be congratulated). Bush was a ruthlessly unprincipled egotist who sought to wage war on Iraq and Afghanistan to go down (ignominiously, as it turned out) as a “war president”. The devastation that Pres. Clinton had made of Iraq, by a decade of daily bombings, even before Bush became (alas!) president (and after the elder Bush had done his share of harm) was augmented to hideous degree by Bush Junior. This whole sorry affair has tainted Democrats and Republicans alike.Anyway, this is not the place for partisan politics (which, in any event, these comments really are not), but I could not let your comments go unchallenged. As for a specifically Catholic aspect of that miserable and genocidal war (and I mean, above all, on account of the U. S. and the U.K.), have you any idea of how the cause of Catholicism, and of Christianity generally, was set back in Iraq due to Bush’s aggression? Read about it! The Chaldean Catholics, Nestorian, and Presbyterian Christians had attained safety and protection under Hussein as they enjoyed in few other places in the Middle East and Central Asia, but the Muslim reaction to Bush’s “Christian war on Iraq” trumpery has led to terrible persecutions of them, flight of Christian refugees to their respective dispora, and a set-back for Christian missions that alone should be sufficient cause for one to execrate what Bush did to Iraq!
Pax, Jerry Parker
C
crazzeto
Guest
Wait wait wait… Are you completely sure I wrote that JP? That doesn’t sound like something I would say, I was actually against the Iraq war since before it started in fact… I remember arguing the point with my father who assured me that GW Bush would never do anything that stupid.
My dad is no longer a staunch republican it should be noted.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Crazzeto,
**You wrote: ** *Wait wait wait—. Are you completely sure I wrote that JP? That doesn’t sound like something that I would say; I was actually against the Iraq war, since before it started, in fact—. I remember arguing the point with my father, who assured me that G.W. Bush would never do anything that stupid.
No, it was Distracted who wrote the ill-considered words about the War on Iraq which I quoted and refuted! My eyes must have gotten postings and quotes therein by various and sundry confused, going between screens! Sorry! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—.
What I said regarding the substance of Distracted’s words themselves nevertheless stands as true! Usually you, Distracted (basically a nice guy), and I agree about things.
I’ll use this opportunity, after straightening out the blunder, to remind readers of C.A. Fora that Pope John-Paul II protested the Iraq War. He was especially concerned, rightly as it turned out, about the fate of the Chaldean Catholics caught in the toils of that mess, and at how that American-British quest for conquest did not meet the criteria of what constitutes a “just war” in Catholic ethical thought, but the U.S. and U.K. authorities gave him little heed and the U.S. media practically even less and certainly no heed for very long or very prominently.
Congratulations on your percipience
at the time of the Second Gulf War about the true nature of that needless and cynical conflict! Congratulations to your father, too, for coming eventually to see the truth of the whole sordid matter (among others of the rather amoral Bush-Cheney administration). You and the Pope (and I) were “on the side of the angels” in this matter, to the extent, at least, that such can be true amidst all the moral ambiguities and inner contradictions of anything relating to politics or military actions.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** *Wait wait wait—. Are you completely sure I wrote that JP? That doesn’t sound like something that I would say; I was actually against the Iraq war, since before it started, in fact—. I remember arguing the point with my father, who assured me that G.W. Bush would never do anything that stupid.
My dad is no longer a staunch Republican, it should be noted. *
What a goof I made! No, it was Distracted who wrote the ill-considered words about the War on Iraq which I quoted and refuted! My eyes must have gotten postings and quotes therein by various and sundry confused, going between screens! Sorry! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—.What I said regarding the substance of Distracted’s words themselves nevertheless stands as true! Usually you, Distracted (basically a nice guy), and I agree about things.
I’ll use this opportunity, after straightening out the blunder, to remind readers of C.A. Fora that Pope John-Paul II protested the Iraq War. He was especially concerned, rightly as it turned out, about the fate of the Chaldean Catholics caught in the toils of that mess, and at how that American-British quest for conquest did not meet the criteria of what constitutes a “just war” in Catholic ethical thought, but the U.S. and U.K. authorities gave him little heed and the U.S. media practically even less and certainly no heed for very long or very prominently.
Congratulations on your percipience
at the time of the Second Gulf War about the true nature of that needless and cynical conflict! Congratulations to your father, too, for coming eventually to see the truth of the whole sordid matter (among others of the rather amoral Bush-Cheney administration). You and the Pope (and I) were “on the side of the angels” in this matter, to the extent, at least, that such can be true amidst all the moral ambiguities and inner contradictions of anything relating to politics or military actions.Pax, Jerry Parker
D
distracted
Guest
nothing is more likely to breed contempt, nuissance, annoyance, dislike and distrust between people than a constant exposure to them
.
geeze… i could have written this…
is there actually someone in the world LIKE ME??
scary…
D
distracted
Guest
i am not a guy, for oneCrazzeto,
**You wrote: ** *Wait wait wait—. Are you completely sure I wrote that JP? That doesn’t sound like something that I would say; I was actually against the Iraq war, since before it started, in fact—. I remember arguing the point with my father, who assured me that G.W. Bush would never do anything that stupid.
My dad is no longer a staunch Republican, it should be noted. *
What a goof I made!
What I said regarding the substance of Distracted’s words themselves nevertheless stands as true! Usually you, Distracted (basically a nice guy), and I agree about things.
I’ll use this opportunity, after straightening out the blunder, to remind readers of C.A. Fora that Pope John-Paul II protested the Iraq War. He was especially concerned, rightly as it turned out, about the fate of the Chaldean Catholics caught in the toils of that mess, and at how that American-British quest for conquest did not meet the criteria of what constitutes a “just war” in Catholic ethical thought, but the U.S. and U.K. authorities gave him little heed and the U.S. media practically even less and certainly no heed for very long or very prominently.
Congratulations on your percipience
Pax, Jerry Parker
and i have heard convincing evidence that Pope JP II believed in weird things that the Church doesn’t teach… so i don’t automatically put anything he says on my list of Things i Can Trust…
he is supposed to have taught that you don’t have to be a Chritain to get to Heaven… that all religions lead one to God…
which, as most christians know… totally contradicts the Word…
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Distracted,
You wrote: *I am not a guy, for one, and I have heard convincing evidence that Pope JP II believed in weird things that the Church doesn’t teach, so I don’t automatically put anything he says on my list of Things I Can Trust.
However, J.-P. II was on solid ground regarding what he stated about Catholic Just War Theory and about the plight of the Chaldean (and other) Christians as the Second Gulf War impended on these matters. As John-Paul II was not always right, neither was he always wrong!
Sorry to have assumed you to be a guy! It can be tricky with pen-names like “Distracted”, which do not convey anything about gender. We guys do tend to fall into the kind of error that I made on that matter! Anyway, I’ll rephrase what I said about you that involved the mistaken words**:** you basically are a nice gal. Again, we usually do agree about things, too!
You wrote: *I am not a guy, for one, and I have heard convincing evidence that Pope JP II believed in weird things that the Church doesn’t teach, so I don’t automatically put anything he says on my list of Things I Can Trust.
He is supposed to have taught that you don’t have to be a Christain to get to Heaven [and] that all religions lead one to God, which, as most Christians know, totally contradicts the Word.*
Yes, Distracted, you were (and remain) right to be wary of some of what John-Paul II said. It is a good thing that he did not fob off as infallible the erroneous personal opinions of his which you mention here. I have made the same clear in my words about J.-P. II’s serious errors of syncretism.However, J.-P. II was on solid ground regarding what he stated about Catholic Just War Theory and about the plight of the Chaldean (and other) Christians as the Second Gulf War impended on these matters. As John-Paul II was not always right, neither was he always wrong!
Sorry to have assumed you to be a guy! It can be tricky with pen-names like “Distracted”, which do not convey anything about gender. We guys do tend to fall into the kind of error that I made on that matter! Anyway, I’ll rephrase what I said about you that involved the mistaken words**:** you basically are a nice gal. Again, we usually do agree about things, too!
P
Protestant101
Guest
Sounds like JP II taught some of the same things as Oprah.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
No need to be insulting here, Protestant! I’d really be steamed if you compared anyone I like to Oprah! LOL I’d consider that quite the put-down indeed!
Sounds like JP II taught some of the same things as Oprah.
T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
However, J.-P. II was on solid ground regarding what he stated about Catholic Just War Theory and about the plight of the Chaldean (and other) Christians as the Second Gulf War impended on these matters. As John-Paul II was not always right, neither was he always wrong!
As to the above first statement, Pope John-Paul ll was correct. I was in 4th Grade in aCatholic School when Baptism of Desire was discussed throughly and since I was the
only one who said that one could get to heaven even if they weren’t Catholic or
Christian, I have never forgotten. If one grows up never meeting a Christian in a jungle,
say, but that person had a longing to do what God wants, that person can be saved.
So you might say that at that point he/she is technically a Catholic, but the Pope was
correct and his statement was taken out of context.
John-Paul ll was giving his opinion and it was not a teaching and he did give the
statement that the final decision was to the prudential authority. People forget that
several prominent democrats, like Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy and 1 or 2 others also
said (after reading the reports) that there were WMDs in Iraq. They said
it before they didn’t say it. LOL
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
TexCatholic,
So you might say that at that point he/she is technically a Catholic, but the Pope was
correct and his statement was taken out of context.
John-Paul ll was giving his opinion and it was not a teaching and he did give the statement that the final decision was to the prudential authority. People forget that several prominent democrats, like Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy and 1 or 2 others also said (after reading the reports) that there were WMDs in Iraq. They said it before they didn’t say it. LOL **
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, Tex, may whichever of is right be right. I long have been aware of the Catholic teaching on “Baptism by desire”, but it often seemed to me when Pope John-Paul II was referring to the salvation of non-Christian believers, he went well beyond that wholesome teaching means. Frankly, from the statements of this sort which I have read, John-Paul II really does seem to have been a theological “universalist”. Sorry, but I have tried to read his words in the light of the “Baptism of desire”, but that really does not seem to have been to what John-Paul II was referring. He was a defective teacher in many ways, even when it is clear that his heart was “in the right place”.
What Christian would not prefer to believe in “universalism”, if it really were what the Sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition meant over the ages? But, hard truth that it is, some folks, whatever the strength of their pagan faiths and of their good characters, simply are not saved, unless they really did attain to what Catholicism means by the “Baptism of desire”.
So, Tex, your Catholic school mates were wrong and you were right, but it really seems to be the case that John-Paul II was in error, at least on some of the kinds of occasions when he uttered kindly, but not necessarily orthodox, words on this matter. He was not speaking ex cathedra, which both of us know to be the case, so the extent of harm done was limited, but nonethess lamentable.
As for those Democratic politicians and where they once stood on the war of aggression on Iraq, in ill-considered unity with the Republicans, and since then stand now, disputing those same Republicans, they are a whole lot more fallible, and far more conniving, than any 20th century pope has been!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You, I, and Distracted wrote: Distracted: He is supposed to have taught that you don’t have to be a Christain to get to Heaven [and] that all religions lead one to God, which, as most Christians know, totally contradicts the Word.
**Jerry: However, J.-P. II was on solid ground regarding what he stated about Catholic Just War Theory and about the plight of the Chaldean (and other) Christians as the Second Gulf War impended on these matters. As John-Paul II was not always right, neither was he always wrong!
***Tex: *As to the above first statement, Pope John-Paul ll was correct. I was in 4th Grade in a Catholic School when Baptism of Desire was discussed throughly and since I was the only one who said that one could get to heaven even if they weren’t Catholic or Christian; I have never forgotten. If one grows up never meeting a Christian in … say … a jungle … but that person had a longing to do what God wants, that person can be saved.So you might say that at that point he/she is technically a Catholic, but the Pope was
correct and his statement was taken out of context.
John-Paul ll was giving his opinion and it was not a teaching and he did give the statement that the final decision was to the prudential authority. People forget that several prominent democrats, like Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy and 1 or 2 others also said (after reading the reports) that there were WMDs in Iraq. They said it before they didn’t say it. LOL **
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, Tex, may whichever of is right be right. I long have been aware of the Catholic teaching on “Baptism by desire”, but it often seemed to me when Pope John-Paul II was referring to the salvation of non-Christian believers, he went well beyond that wholesome teaching means. Frankly, from the statements of this sort which I have read, John-Paul II really does seem to have been a theological “universalist”. Sorry, but I have tried to read his words in the light of the “Baptism of desire”, but that really does not seem to have been to what John-Paul II was referring. He was a defective teacher in many ways, even when it is clear that his heart was “in the right place”.
What Christian would not prefer to believe in “universalism”, if it really were what the Sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition meant over the ages? But, hard truth that it is, some folks, whatever the strength of their pagan faiths and of their good characters, simply are not saved, unless they really did attain to what Catholicism means by the “Baptism of desire”.
So, Tex, your Catholic school mates were wrong and you were right, but it really seems to be the case that John-Paul II was in error, at least on some of the kinds of occasions when he uttered kindly, but not necessarily orthodox, words on this matter. He was not speaking ex cathedra, which both of us know to be the case, so the extent of harm done was limited, but nonethess lamentable.
As for those Democratic politicians and where they once stood on the war of aggression on Iraq, in ill-considered unity with the Republicans, and since then stand now, disputing those same Republicans, they are a whole lot more fallible, and far more conniving, than any 20th century pope has been!
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
josie_L
Guest
Hi, Jerry Parker have you read “Lumen Gentium”, and if you have would you liken what was stated in this document with J. P. II opinions (I am unaware of what his opinions are)?
Edit: I cannot believe that J.P. II would be able to speak in the manner you have stated, so can you direct me to a source?
- Status