Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Communists Infiltrate the Catholic Church?
http://www.chuckmorse.com/communism_catholic_church.html ^ | Chuck Morse

Posted on 07/26/2002 2:35:57 PM PDT by narses

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-356 next last
To: Catholicguy; narses; sinkspur
CatholicGuy,

I've successfully helped friends out of schismatic circles. I understand the teeth grinding frustration that drives them there. Reality in our Church stinks right now. People, good decent honest people are looking for answers. Some of them go astray. They are honest in their zeal but incorrect in their conclusions.

Your approach does not work with them. It drives them further into schism.

Handle them gently, charitably.

Their anger grows from the destruction they see around them. In many ways it is a just anger, but what they see as the solution is not a solution but a dead end.

Pray for them. Their frustration is real, their anger legitimate, but their conclusions are simply wrong. They don't need condemnation, they need help, like a pregnant woman seeking an abortion.

Narses is sincere, even if in certain respects he is partly in error.

Sinkspur is sincere.

You are sincere, I am sincere.

Ascribing motives to narses does not help him. Condemning narses does not help him.

Lay off.

If you cannot engage him with charity and patience, you are doing a disservice to our faith, and driving him deeper into the very errors you perceive him to be in.

The teeth grinding frustration of average Catholics is REAL. We're all searching. We all need to step back and stop judging our neighbor simply because he has reached conclusions out of line with our own.

Such judgementalism and vitriol will never bring them home.

Even if narses is fatally wrong, your approach is just as wrong. Knock it off.

151 posted on 07/28/2002 10:50:31 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; narses
Polycarp, to help set the stage for this exchange, I will reproduce what I think is the first post by Narses. If I am incorrect, narses can easily correct the record.

Narses became a member on 6/22/02. On that very same day, in response to my post that the SSPX confessions are invalid, he beings by attacking The Magisterium. My post was apt as we were discussing Confession on this thread. Narses, introduces a non sequitur, on his first day, in an attack on the magisterium.

If this is not Narses first post as a freeper, he can correct the record. It is undeniable that this was his first day - at least registered under this name. I have no doubt he has been here under another name. He is not newbie who just happened to jump in and start posting from schismatic websites. But, he is smart enough to know that most folks are not as vigiliant as are those who have had flirtations with the schism. He was prolly surprised to find one who could spot his bs so rapidly. The "game" continues and it is shamelesss.

I spotted him right away and I was man enough to withstand him to his face. He posts from infamous websites that publicly oppose the Pope and he attempts to explian this away by saying I am new here and I was just interested.....Please. That is so bogus.

To: Catholicguy A reminder that the SSPX Confessions are invalid http://home.earthlink.net/~gro ssklas/penance.htm 9 posted on 6/22/02 12:37 PM Pacific by Catholicguy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Catholicguy And yet a Mass without the words of the Consecration in a heretical and schismatic church is.

“Last summer the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, with the full agreement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregations for the Oriental Churches, issued a series of guidelines for Eucharistic sharing between the Chaldean church (which is in communion with Rome) and the Assyrian church of the East (which is not). The guidelines are revolutionary in character. For the first time in modern history, the Catholic church has recognized the validity of a eucharistic prayer (the Anaphora of Addai and Mari) without the words of institution (“This is my body. ...This is my blood”), more commonly referred to as the words of consecration.

In the popular Catholic mind, especially before Vatican II, these words have had an almost magical quality. Whenever a validly ordained priest utters them over a large host (often times over a ciborium full of smaller hosts as well) and then over a chalice containing wine, Christ immediately “comes down” from heaven, taking the form of bread and wine to be received by the faithful as holy Communion, that is, His very “body and blood, soul and divinity.”

21 posted on 6/22/02 5:01 PM Pacific by narses [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

152 posted on 07/28/2002 11:12:39 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
"The Church has no business engaging in the same self-deluding Pragmatism which has been the ticket to the West's destruction from within."

Pope Pius XII said some about the big troubles for the Church will really begin when the Vatican is yoked with the diplomat and the statesman and we have been yoked.
153 posted on 07/28/2002 11:24:10 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
HH is of course the Vicar of Christ, however he is not infallible in his daily decisions. Fr. May has valid points in his objections and more evidence can be found in the Chaldean decision I posted. A heretical Rite has been declared efficacious by fiat. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

That was narses on the same first day he was a freeper - I mean the first day he was a freeper under this name. He came loaded for bear and his target was the Pope and The Magisterium.

Now, I have corrected his errors about this issue three times. patent and sisstetest have also corrected him yet he continues to persevere. He was wrong in labelling a Rite "heretical" which he has repeatedly done. And he was wrong to mischaracterise the decision of the Curial Office which acts in the name and authority of the Pope.

YOU may think he is acting sincerely. I think he came here with an agenda and he has implemented it in a dishonest, craven and duplicitous, unmanly fashion and I called him out.

154 posted on 07/28/2002 11:24:53 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I've successfully helped friends out of schismatic circles. I understand the teeth grinding frustration that drives them there. Reality in our Church stinks right now. People, good decent honest people are looking for answers. Some of them go astray. They are honest in their zeal but incorrect in their conclusions. Those in zealous defense of the Pope and The Magisterium are both honest and correct.

Your approach does not work with them. It drives them further into schism. I disagree. They are not victims. They chose to be in schism. They are adults. Their decisions and the consequences of those decisions ought to be as frankly and honestly addressed as their dishonest characterisations of Rome are supposed to be attended to sympathetically. IMO, their constant badgering of the Pope and The Mgisterium is intended to keep the path to reunion strewn with debris if reunion means they will not get what they desire, a return to the staus quo ante of 1962.

Handle them gently, charitably. Initially, I did. See the thread that Narses began on his first day. But, it didn't take more than a few exchanges to see he was flying the SSPX colors.

Their anger grows from the destruction they see around them. In many ways it is a just anger, but what they see as the solution is not a solution but a dead end. agreed

Pray for them. Their frustration is real, their anger legitimate, but their conclusions are simply wrong. They don't need condemnation, they need help, like a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. Totally inapt analogy. They are abortionists trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth.

Narses is sincere, even if in certain respects he is partly in error. I disagree he is sincere. I have posted my reasons why. He came with an agenda, clearly.

Sinkspur is sincere. agreed. And he acts like a man. He does not mask his intentions or claim to be a neophyte.

You are sincere,agreed I am sincere.

Ascribing motives to narses does not help him. Condemning narses does not help him. It is very helpful to have one with an agenda exposed.

Lay off. No way. Defending the Pope and The Magisterium is my bailiwick. When are you going to lay-on?

If you cannot engage him with charity and patience, you are doing a disservice to our faith, and driving him deeper into the very errors you perceive him to be in. Defending the Pope and The Magisterium, far from being a disservice,is a DUTY. He is spreading falsehoods, lies, distortions, confusion, dissension, antipathy to the Pope and The Magisterium. I am doing the opposite. A "Thank-you" would make more sense and instead I get a caution to adopt quietism in the face of opposition to the Pope and The Magisterium

The teeth grinding frustration of average Catholics is REAL. We're all searching. We all need to step back and stop judging our neighbor simply because he has reached conclusions out of line with our own. I am NOT "searching." I don't even know what the hell that means. I am HOME. He is reaching "comclusions out of line with mine," he is OPPOSING Divinely-constituted authority.

Such judgementalism and vitriol will never bring them home. They must bring themselves back home. They can BEFIN by STOPPING the attacks on the Pope. You seem oddly patient and sanguine with attacks on Divinely-constituted authority yet you seem genuinely moved in your concerns for the preciousness, dignity and feelings of those that attack the Pope. And as for my delicate fellings? Not even a mention

Even if narses is fatally wrong, your approach is just as wrong. Knock it off NO WAY. Hell, I aint even BEGUN yet. Rhetorically, I am just taking off the gloves. wait'll ya get a load of what I have in my ammo dump :)

155 posted on 07/28/2002 11:50:41 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
The teeth grinding frustration of average Catholics is REAL. We're all searching. We all need to step back and stop judging our neighbor simply because he has reached conclusions out of line with our own. I am NOT "searching." I don't even know what the hell that means. I am HOME. He is reaching "comclusions out of line with mine?." NO, he is OPPOSING Divinely-constituted authority

is how that should have read

156 posted on 07/28/2002 12:00:15 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
On your profile you say, "I will counter-attack as though you were Screwtape's Second in Command". And you certainly have. Not just me, I get emails from others you have attacked before.

The rules here are pretty straightforward:

Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

The rules of our Church are pretty reasonable too, at least with regards to conduct in this type of matter:

"2478 To avoid rash judgement, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."

157 posted on 07/28/2002 12:03:52 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: narses
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved

It isn't working, Narses. Folks are catching on to ya. Name a SINGLE post you have produced that gives the Pope the benefit of the doubt in any controversy. I have asked you this repeatedly - along with other pertinent questions - and you refuse to answer.

You can't successfully play the victim card now that I have trumped you with the historical record of your own actions.

BTW, thanks a lot for making me do all that work instead of you owning-up to who you are and what your agenda is. But, it is there for ALL to see. You began your (current) Freeper career by launching an attack on the Pope. Explain how that fits in with what you just cited to me?

Your double standard, where I must treat you with deference, respect and courtesy while you are free to attack the Magisterium and Pope with unopposed alacrity is evident to all who can read the English language.

I know you think you are gaining sympathy with this pleading but each time just gives me the opportunity to illustrate your hypocrisy. That you can't cite a SINGLE post of yours to illustrate you accord the Pope the same courtesy you demand a fellow layman extend to you only underlines the hypocrisy.

158 posted on 07/28/2002 12:20:48 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
NO WAY. Hell, I aint even BEGUN yet. Rhetorically, I am just taking off the gloves.

Well then, fire away. Wisdom ain't your strong suit, despite your impressive vocabulary.

Pity. When we reach the pearly gates, we'll see who won more souls.

159 posted on 07/28/2002 12:48:44 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I am NOT "searching."

You are a prideful fool if you think you know all the answers. I am still searching, and every real Catholic I know is still searching.

If you don't know what we are searching for, you are such a spiritual neophyte you should not be attempting apologetics here.

Go read Garrigou-LaGrange.

160 posted on 07/28/2002 12:51:27 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Too funny, you "examine" my posts selectively, try, condemn and sentence me and THEN want me to "prove" you wrong. You are confused and you are lacking in both judgment and charity. Given that, I don't pay attention to your clumsy and antagonistic attempts at fraternal correction.

You also fail to answer my questions and ignore my wants but I will try one more time.

Stipulating for the sake of this discussion, and in fact denying this otherwise, let us say I have an anti-Catholic agenda here. I don't, but to examine this, let us say I do. Who put you in charge of rooting that agenda out and attacking me? What canon of Church Law or rule of the Catechism gives you that prerogative? Carry you a crozier that I should kiss your ring? What special dispensation from the rule against personal attacks here have you? Try hard, answer my questions with honesty and charity.

161 posted on 07/28/2002 1:02:46 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; narses; sinkspur; sitetest; Mike Fieschko
They are abortionists trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth.

You are much better at ascribing motives and judging souls than apologetics, CatholicGuy.

From your profile page:

Thanks be to God, I am Catholic. At one time I had one foot in schism and I credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity

While you had your foot in schism, were you yourself trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???

When you credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity did those who aided you in your return use the same insulting and judgemental tactics as you use here, or were they gentle, patient, kind and charitable?

Did your wife and her mentors accuse you of trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???

If they had, would that have been fair to you at the time, you who at the time were simply searching for honest answers to difficult questions and scandals and lack of catechesis that you could not comprehend?

Look in the mirror at yourself back then.

There you will see narses and the others you scorn here.

Were those who aided you as uncharitable with you and as impatient with you and as judgemental and ascribing motives as you?

I doubt it.

As I said, grow up.

You've received better from those who helped you out of schismatic thought than you are willing to dish out here to others in the same place you were then.

Charity in all things, CatholicGuy, especially when you're trying to bring home souls.

162 posted on 07/28/2002 1:10:19 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Thanks be to God, I am Catholic. At one time I had one foot in schism and I credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity

While you had your foot in schism, were you yourself trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???

Like many in that self-willed movement, and I was just on the fringes of it, I tought private judgement about "Tradition" was permissible.

When you credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity did those who aided you in your return use the same insulting and judgemental tactics as you use here, or were they gentle, patient, kind and charitable? I read myself back to sanity. I give as good as I get and I am defending the faith against unjust, unfair, inane, and bizarre attacks. I notice that you ascribe foul motives to those that defend the Pope and The Magisterium while profferring excuses for those that attack Pope and Magisterium

your wife and her mentors accuse you of trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth? They are not as adept with the language as I am

they had, would that have been fair to you at the time, you who at the time were simply searching for honest answers to difficult questions and scandals and lack of catechesis that you could not comprehend?

Now, you are the one making assumptions and ascribing motives. The problem lies in the will, not the intellect.

Look in the mirror at yourself back then. I have. I never resented the opposition I recieved. I expected to have others come back at me as hard as I went at them. I am a man.

There you will see narses and the others you scorn here. i am glad we are in agreement that he is not in union with Rome. But, why is it ok for you to note that but if I do, I am judgemental?

Were those who aided you as uncharitable with you and as impatient with you and as judgemental and ascribing motives as you? LOL That content of that sentence contains within it the very thing you supposedly reject.

I doubt it. You are so woried about "feelings." As I say, my skin is as think as Roseanne Barr's ass is large. I expect to get as good as I give. I am a man

As I said, grow up. I am not the one whining. I withstand folks to their face and I have no hidden agendas. THAT is how an adult man operates; at least the ones I know and respect. You've received better from those who helped you out of schismatic thought than you are willing to dish out here to others in the same place you were then. You have NO idea of how it is I pulled back from the brink. I was able to through prayring the Rosary and reading for myself the authentic Catholic Documents and texts the schismatic liars falsified.

Charity in all things, CatholicGuy, especially when you're trying to bring home souls. You are wsting your breath on me, Poly. I have repeatedly said what it is I consider to be my bailiwick. I am here to defend the Faith. If you are here for another reaasson, fine. But, your goals are not normative. You are free to act as you desire and you can caress and commiserate with those that attack the Faith even while you condemn and criticise those that Defend the Faith. I know that for some, that is considered virtue. I just find it an incomprehensible confusion

163 posted on 07/28/2002 1:49:19 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: narses
Too funny, you "examine" my posts selectively,. I read them all and if I hadn't and posted the facts about them to source my point, you'd have accused me of "judging" you without proof. try, condemn and sentence me and THEN want me to "prove" you wrong. You are confused I am not the one who is confused and I think that is why the opposition to my pointed defense is so diffuse and melts away into addressing emotive concerns rather than the substance. Youhave yet to respond to my points. You can't. You have NEVER given the Pope the benefit of the doubt. and you are lacking in both judgment and charity. Given that, I don't pay attention to your clumsy and antagonistic attempts at fraternal correction. your constant reference to fraternal is intersting in that you are the one who shows none to the Pope.

You also fail to answer my questions and ignore my wants but I will try one more time. Frankly, that IS the locus of the problem. YOUR "wants." You want to attack the Pope unopposed. I won't tolerate that. You NEVER give the Pope the benefit of the doubt while you badger a layman to treat you as though you were the Pope.

Stipulating for the sake of this discussion, and in fact denying this otherwise, let us say I have an anti-Catholic agenda here. I don't, but to examine this, let us say I do. Who put you in charge of rooting that agenda out and attacking me? Me What canon of Church Law or rule of the Catechism gives you that prerogative? As I have noited on a few occasions, it is a Confirmational Duty. Carry you a crozier that I should kiss your ring? There is something else of mine that you can kiss. What special dispensation from the rule against personal attacks here have you? I treat you as you treat the Pope, except, I do it directly to you, using my own words. I withstand you to your face. Try hard, answer my questions with honesty and charity. I always am honest. I don't misrepresent myself. You signed-up as a Freeper on June 22 and that same day, I think it was the FIRST post, you ATTACKED The Magisterium. Name for ma another 'catholic" that has acted that way?

164 posted on 07/28/2002 2:04:18 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
You are a prideful fool fool? tsk, tsk. And here I thought you were the one that addressed others with charity if you think you know all the answers. I don't know ALL the answers. For instance, I don't know who the guy was that took Platformate out of my gasoline. I am still searching, and every real Catholic I know is still searching. Ask me. I know. Rome is Home

If you don't know what we are searching for, you are such a spiritual neophyte you should not be attempting apologetics here. well, well, well..some of us DO have an elevated opinion of ourselves. I have said only aboiut a million times what I consider my presence here is all about. I know you do not apporve. C'est le vie

Go read Garrigou-LaGrange Isn't he like a foreigner or something?

165 posted on 07/28/2002 2:10:27 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Well then, fire away. Wisdom ain't your strong suit, despite your impressive vocabulary. And being as critical of those that defend the Faith as you are solicitious of those that attack the faith is one of your very weak points. It reminds me of the approach that certain liberals take to foreign policy. "Our" side is always capable of being criticised whle the opponents must be "understood."

Pity. When we reach the pearly gates, we'll see who won more souls.

I didn't even realise a competition was underway. Well, if there is one underway, I concede to you here and now. I am hoping I can just drag my sorry ass to Confession weely. I have no illusions about how many souls I will have "won."

. I know I am rather deficient on the "wisdom" side but I have always credited Jesus with winning souls :)

166 posted on 07/28/2002 2:26:10 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
And being as critical of those that defend the Faith as you are solicitious of those that attack the faith is one of your very weak points.

I'm not critical of anyone who defends the faith well.

I am certainly not solicitious of those that attack the faith.

I have spent just as much time and energy on this forum defending the faith against schismatics over the last year as you have.

I also realize that the current massive crisis and multiple scandals have lead some folks recently into asking questions they never otherwise would have asked and drawing erroneous conclusions they never otherwise would have drawn. In other words, things have changed over the last 6 months.

I'm not willing to paint every Catholic who enters the fray here as a hidden schismatic with a nefarious agenda. First, its counterprioductive, and second, its ascribing motives and judgemental. Third, your approach is strong on vocab words, bluster, and slur, but weak on wisdom and results.

167 posted on 07/28/2002 3:30:31 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
even while you condemn and criticise those that Defend the Faith

You are wielding the Truth as a 2x4, smacking folks up side the head with it. No one converts on the receiving end of a 2x4. They just put up their own offensive and fight back.

Speak the Truth in Charity. Flavor it with humility.

That is all I'm asking.

168 posted on 07/28/2002 3:34:25 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Go read Garrigou-LaGrange

Isn't he like a foreigner or something?

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, mentor of JPII (as well as my own spiritual director) on mystical and spiritual theology. Read his works. You'll like them.

169 posted on 07/28/2002 3:39:00 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Thank you Doc and thanks to the many kind souls who CG has abused in the past and have emailed me their stories. Knowing what kind of an attack mentality exists here, I intend to no longer post to CG. If he keeps attacking me I will simply complain to the moderators.
170 posted on 07/28/2002 3:59:32 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
In response to remarks I made on this thread: "It Didn't Go Out with Vatican II", you sent me the following e-mail, posted below. In this e-mail, which you have asked me to post on this thread, you told me that I need professional help. You were incensed and basically told me to mind my own business because I had the temerity to respond nicely to something you had posted to narses, and I disagreed with. Funny that you feel free to respond to a post on this thread, written by me and not addressed to you. The same courtesy is not extended to me by you. Notice I didn't tell you to mind your own business.

I remembered you in my prayers today at Mass, I prayed to God that He grant you the gifts of charity and love towards your brothers and sisters in Christ with whom you do not agree with. This one man mission of yours is a waste of time and horribly destructive. I pray that it stops. I don't want to be a part of it. God Bless.

------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: It Didn't Go Out with Vatican II
From Catholicguy | 2002-07-16 07:46:13

You clearly were offended which is why you told me not to say you had lost Faith. Post 21 was directed to Narses not you. With all due respect and with no intention to judge or diagnosis you, I suggest you seek some help with your boundary issues.
Peace be with you, Goodbye, Ma'am

171 posted on 07/28/2002 4:19:02 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
Big'ol_bump...Interesting article

172 posted on 07/28/2002 5:00:16 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"I also realize that the current massive crisis and multiple scandals have lead some folks recently into asking questions they never otherwise would have asked and drawing erroneous conclusions they never otherwise would have drawn. In other words, things have changed over the last 6 months."

Excellent point...and who knows to what degree that is sensus fidei bubbling up too as we are practicing and faithful and all the wondering has been deeply couched in prayer as we ask God to help us through this strange valley. I keep asking St. Francis of Assisi for his assistance as he traveled through similar terrain.
173 posted on 07/28/2002 5:13:49 PM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; Catholicguy
"Speak the Truth in Charity. Flavor it with humility."

Humility is a form of Truth.
174 posted on 07/28/2002 5:16:19 PM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Since you are so loyal to the Pope, do you really believe that the Pope would approve of your responses on this thread? Do you think our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II would actually conduct himself so?

It would be one thing if you asked Narses to clarify himself, or address certain issues. I'm sure you have some valid criticisms, but you seem to have gotten to the point where you are the lone valid interpreter and defender of the Pope and the Catholic Church. I'm sure reality is more comples than that, but most of us don't claim to speak infallibly for the Pope. There are certainly people on this site who make indefensible statements about the Pope. If Narses is really is the schismatic or heretic you claim him to be, it should be easy enough to make that clear to all. Why don't you come up with a loyalty oath to the Pope and the Church and see who takes it? You told me that you would give me a $1 million if I could find anyone more loyal to the Pope on all of Free Republic. I wish you the best, but how do I know your statement is true?

I also have to ask, since you said you once had one foot in schism: should those who of us who never went near schism consider ourselves superior to you because you did? Should we consider you suspect because you did? Personally, I don't. But you act as if you are the one true defender of the faith, and it's only interpreter.

You said:In the early Church one was FORBIDDEN to kneel at Mass and one received Communion in the hand. I guess this Communist Conspiracy is more insidious than we initially thought. It predated the Communist Revolution by nearly 19 Centuries

Have you read the CCC? What does it say in regard to these matters? Are you suggesting that the early Church is more valid than it was in successive centuries? How come you're allowed to question the Magisterium? Since this Pope and Magisterium are correct, aren't all the proceeding Popes and decisions of the Magisterium equally correct? Pope John Paul II has never condemned earlier Popes' teachings, right?

I also want to ask you about the apparent contradiction in your thinking about Assissi. If you agree with Assissi, then how can you believe that such attacks on those who don't agree with you are okay?

Also, liberation theology has been condemned by the Pope. If someone attack liberation theology, how can you claim they are being unfaithful to the Pope?

I do my best to defend the Pope, but I don't claim to even know everything he thinks, teaches and believes. How can you infallibly judge every Catholic?

God bless you

175 posted on 07/29/2002 1:04:19 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; narses
Sorry, I meant to include you in the previous post.
176 posted on 07/29/2002 1:06:36 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I wonder why, if he's Jewish, he's not focusing on his own people, who largely support socialism, both in Israel and in the United States.

Do you have any proof, that those who practice the religion of Judaism support socialism?

177 posted on 07/29/2002 1:07:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Thanks.
178 posted on 07/29/2002 1:23:02 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Catholicguy
I'm sure you have some valid criticisms, but you seem to have gotten to the point where you are the lone valid interpreter and defender of the Pope and the Catholic Church. I'm sure reality is more comples than that, but most of us don't claim to speak infallibly for the Pope.

There are certainly people on this site who make indefensible statements about the Pope....But you act as if you are the one true defender of the faith, and it's only interpreter.

This approach sounds hauntingly familiar. But the last two FReepers who carried on this way, "EditorTCRNews.com/"theotokos" and "Cathway"/"StillSmallVoice" have since been banned.

CatholicGuy,

We don't want you to get yourself banned too for following the same unwise approach. Please consider carefully the constructive criticism offered to you here.

179 posted on 07/29/2002 1:33:37 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; narses; Catholicguy; sitetest; Mike Fieschko
To view a home page, enter a screen name:
 
  Q: Why are the home pages ugly in this 'improved' version?
A: Because I'm working on the system. It will look better when I am finished.

cathway signed up 2001-12-24.
This account has been banned.
To view a home page, enter a screen name:
 
  Q: Why are the home pages ugly in this 'improved' version?
A: Because I'm working on the system. It will look better when I am finished.

StillSmallVoice signed up 2002-07-05.
This account has been banned.
180 posted on 07/29/2002 1:39:22 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; nickcarraway; narses; Catholicguy; sitetest
For what it's worth, I received an email from Stephen Hand after StillSmallVoice was banned. Jim Robinson and [adjective] [adjective] moderators are persecuting Mr Hand. Egads.

Someone who takes the names 'mother of God' and from I Kings 19:12 .... A sense of humor to call myself the voice of God?
181 posted on 07/29/2002 3:30:56 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Go read Garrigou-LaGrange

Isn't he like a foreigner or something?

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP,

:) Yes, I know who he is. I was jes jesting in my response. I do hope to get to him eventually, but, I always start at the beginning and I am working my way alphabetically through the theologians and I am still on the "A" list reading Aquinas and Augustine.

182 posted on 07/29/2002 4:47:38 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
And being as critical of those that defend the Faith as you are solicitious of those that attack the faith is one of your very weak points.

I'm not critical of anyone who defends the faith well.

I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective. I expect folk's rhetoric will match their personality and I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith. Scientists have discovered an "arguing" gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed.

I am certainly not solicitious of those that attack the faith. Your actions disprove that.

I have spent just as much time and energy on this forum defending the faith against schismatics over the last year as you have.

I don't keep a tally so I will concede that point. See, I can be as generous as the next guy :)

I also realize that the current massive crisis and multiple scandals have lead some folks recently into asking questions they never otherwise would have asked and drawing erroneous conclusions they never otherwise would have drawn. In other words, things have changed over the last 6 months.

Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you? I see no connection but I do see some in the Crowd rushing to pile additonal burdens on the Cross this Pope bears so gracefully.

I'm not willing to paint every Catholic who enters the fray here as a hidden schismatic with a nefarious agenda. Nor am I. I singled out this gentleman because his very first post, I think, was to me and it was a non sequitur response to a post of mine linking to a site that warned readers that SSPX confessions are invalid. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for a link to source his point and things took off from there. I know I didn't BEGIN my Freeper career by attacking The Magisterium on my very first day in my very first post, but, maybe you did. I highly doubt it though. And I cannot think of another Catholic Freeper who joined up and the very first post on the very first day attacked The Mgisterium. So, call me overly-suspicious if you desire. I think of myself as a perceptive realist.

First, its counterprioductive, and second, its ascribing motives and judgemental. It is called identifying what you see before you. It is calling a spade a spade.

Third, your approach is strong on vocab words, agreed bluster, Just a tip - next time try "Your rebarbative rhetoric is reprehensible. It is alliterative and memorable and slur, My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't but weak on wisdom and results I have already admitted a deficency in wisdom and I know mine doesn't even approach your manifested wisdom, so, I admit my weakness and play to my strength but by freeper mailbox is not without praise and encouragement from both participants and lurkers.

I can be thought of as a "Popeye" Catholic. I yam what I yam..and I do the best with what God has given me to Defend the Faith that I love. It appears I have been a disappointment to you. C'est le Vie. One can't please everyone :)

183 posted on 07/29/2002 5:24:37 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Thanks for posting the link. I am happy to let others be the judge of the exchange.
184 posted on 07/29/2002 5:39:57 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Which Free-speech advocate gets to put the "Hand is Banned" Trophy on the wall of their den?
185 posted on 07/29/2002 5:44:33 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I am happy to let others be the judge of the exchange.</>

I don't think anyone else cares.

186 posted on 07/29/2002 5:50:32 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
It is sad to realise you think that. An Ecumenical Council was planned by the Commies? Good Lord, I think your tinfoil hat has fallen off.

The British Establishment found the idea of Communists subverting some of their best and brightest, especially those in the security services, equally as laughable.

Only now are we realizing that many of the supposedly most baseless charges of Communist infiltration in the West were, in fact, quite well founded. There is no reason to believe that the Kremlin would have not infiltrated the Church as well.

187 posted on 07/29/2002 5:53:30 AM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
I don't think anyone else cares.

Oh, ok. You resurrected this post because you sensed a disinterest :)

188 posted on 07/29/2002 6:20:59 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

"I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective."

The posters here who are responding to your style see you in a light that you don't see yourself. You could learn from them by trying to see yourself through their eyes.

"Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you?"

For all your insults and ill-treatment, the poster in question didn't give an inch to you. How effective. Additionally, because you didn't take the time to engage the poster in a well-mannered way, you didn't even make clear why the Church is right, and the poster was wrong. How very effective.

On the other hand, Catholicguy, if you dig up the exchange between the poster and myself, you'll find that after a relatively short, polite, but fact-focused exchange, the poster in question conceded the point, that the Assyrian Church of the East is not heretical, thus vitiating his claim that our Holy Father had introduced intercommunion with a heretical rite.

Now, you may be right that at times the poster in question has posted aggressively. You may be right that we aren't required in natural justice to always treat him gently. But that really isn't the question. The question is whether or not we are using our gifts as best as we can, rather than how we want to use them.

All good Catholics here acknowlege your: knowledge; intelligence; wit; love of faith, Church, and the Holy Father.

We only wish that you would learn enough self-discipline to engage others in a way that serves them in charity, rather than in some other way, for who knows what reasons.

"...I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith."

Well, yes. In fact, posters walk away from you in bitterness and disgust, not because of what you have to say, but how you say it. Even when they may agree with you. That's just about the opposite of being effective.

I'm sure you have your supporters, though I wonder whether they might not be folks similarly inclined to argue in a like manner. I also wonder how many posts you receive from folks who started far from faith but who have been brought a little closer as a result of your words. Your words can be great fun if one is a member of the choir to which you're preaching. I doubt many outside the church (literally and figuratively) are so moved.

Let the scandal be the Cross of Christ, not your "style".

"Scientists have discovered an 'arguing' gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed."

I know that you're kidding, because such an argument would be beneath you. However, in light of the current conversation, I don't know if anyone other than you is laughing.

"My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't."

Many who are reading the exchange don't really care about your complaints being sourced, proven and unresponded to. Your style is so offensive, that little else comes through, and so folks have sympathy for the other guy, whether he's right or wrong. Many who are reading the exchange don't expect another poster to respond substantively to the substance that you mix with vitriol and insults. People believe, rightly, that no one should be expected to respond substantively in the face of such abuse.

Finally, with regard to your exchange, and then e-mail, to Colleen, I was a little surprised to find you act in such an ungentlemanly manner.

sitetest

189 posted on 07/29/2002 6:20:59 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Finally, with regard to your exchange, and then e-mail, to Colleen, I was a little surprised to find you act in such an ungentlemanly manner.

Given all that preceeded this statement, shouldn't it read, "I am not surprised...?"

I have to disagree with you judging it "ungentlemanly." I wouldn't change a word of it.

I appreciate the time you took to draft your post and I don't want to engage you in a point by point rebuttal, so, I will just say we will agree to disagree.

190 posted on 07/29/2002 6:31:44 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
oops, forgot to add. I suspect I won't be around much longer. I think that even now the Free-Speech advocates are preparing another plaque :)
191 posted on 07/29/2002 6:33:52 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Which Free-speech advocate gets to put the "Hand is Banned" Trophy on the wall of their den?

He went after the Jim Robinson and the moderators: attacking them.

You spit in your host's face, so you get thrown out of his house.

I have stillsmallvoice's last post, swiped and pasted from my browser cache.
192 posted on 07/29/2002 6:40:17 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

"Given all that preceeded this statement, shouldn't it read, 'I am not surprised...?'"

I have a high opinion of devout Catholic men. When they behave in ways which betray that opinion, I'm surprised.

"I appreciate the time you took to draft your post and I don't want to engage you in a point by point rebuttal, so, I will just say we will agree to disagree."

Thank you for your response. It's pleasant to see you respond without all the invective. It would be nicer to discuss politely what was posted, but I'll take what I can get.

sitetest

193 posted on 07/29/2002 6:44:28 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

LOL.

As to "Free-Speech" advocates, and plaques and things, the problem is that at times your posting behavior has been so over-the-top, it has merited hitting the abuse button. I'm a little surprised no one has done so to-date.

But you apparently haven't made the same mistake as Mr. Hand / StillSmallVoice / theotokos / whomever, in that I haven't seen you obnoxiously flame the proprietor. That's a real one-way ticket to Free Republic Hell. So, maybe you'll last.

sitetest

194 posted on 07/29/2002 6:45:28 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Honestly, I wonder at the naivete (to be kind) of someone who would DENY that communists infiltrated the Church over the last century after they had read Dr. Alice von Hildebrand's interview in the Latin Mass Magazine.
195 posted on 07/29/2002 7:09:38 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Thank you for your response. It's pleasant to see you respond without all the invective. It would be nicer to discuss politely what was posted, but I'll take what I can get.

It was an heroic effort on my part. But, wasn't it BORING? I think you'd have appreciated it much more had I responded with some Titanuim-tinged tergiversations.

196 posted on 07/29/2002 7:48:58 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

"It was an heroic effort on my part."

I recognize it and appreciate it.

"But, wasn't it BORING?"

No, it wasn't to me.

"I think you'd have appreciated it much more had I responded with some Titanuim-tinged tergiversations."

LOL.

No, in honesty, I'd have just walked away.

sitetest

197 posted on 07/29/2002 8:18:29 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
If you think Commies planned Vatican Two do you also think that Pope John 23rd was a Commie?
198 posted on 07/29/2002 8:35:39 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
I was on vacation while that happened. I wish I had seen the posts
199 posted on 07/29/2002 8:38:13 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

Perhaps we ought to entertain the idea that the commies thought to plan Vatican II.

However, it's apparent that the Wind blew in and the whole thing got away from them.

sitetest

200 posted on 07/29/2002 8:45:10 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-356 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson