An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[Catholicguy]

<> If it does it is unintentional<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Nah. Drstevej is too smart. There has to be another reason. Try again:)<>

[drstevej]

<> Drstevej is too smart. <>

I AM getting scared now! :<O

[Catholicguy]

<> I guess you go out of your way to succor him just for those facts mentioned - and no others.

That does make me wonder why you don't support the many others on here with similar concerns who are in Union with Rome, but I am sure there is a perfectly good reason for that also<>

[drstevej]

***That does make me wonder why you don't support the many others on here with similar concerns who are in Union with Rome***

Define support. I agree with Polycarp's strong stances against the homosexual agenda in the RC church and elsewhere. I support his pro-life passion. We agree and disagree amicably for the most part. Off line we have exchanged prayer concerns.

[Snuffington]

However, when it comes to YOUR kids being badly educated, YOU are not to blame. Oh no. It is the fault of the school.

Maximillian did not absolve himself from responsibility for his children, he simply mentioned unwelcome surprise. And you are certainly a cad to mock a father expressing concern about his children's religious formation. Do you truly think the fact that you disagree with him on points of theology entitles you to mock his parenting?

[Catholicguy]

Define support

<> In the immortal words or Curly, "C'oitenly

Despite the innumerable corrections of his false charges against the Mass, an Ecumenical Council, the Pope ect by Patent,Sitetest, Polycarp, Ninenot, Aquinas Fan, St. Chuck (all Catholic Freepers in Union with Rome) etc, you appear to take his word as accurately describing what is really happening.

You say you read these threads, so I assume you have seen him corrected repeatedly. That is why I was asking why chose to accept the version of Catholic reality from a schismatic who daily attacks the Pope and why it is you appear, to me at least, to support him<>

[drstevej]

With that explanation, my post #520 is my answer.

[ultima ratio]

Oh, no, I don't think that at all. I think it's clearly intentional. Nobody uses allusions to Satan the way you do, unless he's motivated by malice. Nothing complicated about people like you. It's pretty much a part of you.

[Catholicguy]

Excellent point. This was exactly my experience with my older children. After 12 years of Catholic school, they had been so misguided that it's difficult to get through to them with authentic Catholic teaching. I thought I had been teaching them all along, but I was naively unaware of just how mis-instructed they had been at school. They had been getting a totally different message from people in authority whom they were supposed to respect. Someone with a clean slate would be much, much easier to instruct in the faith.

"I was naively unaware..."

That sounds to be like absolving of responsibility.

If, in response to the outrageous claims made against the Pope by these sons of Satan schismatics, one attempts a defense by saying "The Pope can't be expected to know about thus and such, that is routinely rejected by the sons of Satan schismatics.

But, let the same standard be applied to them, in a situation less admitting to a defense of naivete, and one is castigated as a "cad." Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. It appears to be the case the Father of the Church on earth, the Pope, IS responsible for every FR.Tom,FR. Dick, and Fr.Harry in every single Parish on the Planet, but fathers unaware of the beliefs of their own children are not.

As you know, I don't mind the names..cad is fine with me

I wasn't mocking Max. I was doing to him what he and his ilk do DAILY to the Pope.

Sometimes, that sort of shock can bring folks to their senses<>

[drstevej]

BTW, you didn't respond to this point...


***It would seem to me that if 60%+ of RCs either do not understand or do not believe the Real Presence (and I get that number from reading these threads) that the wisest course would be to keep that doctrine central in the Mass. I do not believe the doctrine, but if I did I would want that fact communicated as clearly and unmistakeably as possible. This is what I hear UR arguing.***

[Catholicguy]

Does anything ever come out of your mouth that isn't a put-down of somebody?

<> If it does it is unintentional<>

Oh, no, I don't think that at all. I think it's clearly intentional.

<> earlier, you said I had trouble with thinking clearly. I guess that difficulty is contagious:)<>

[Catholicguy]

<> The Docrine is central in the revised Liturgy.

Your trust in surveys and in the characterisations of a son of Satan schismatic is noted :)<>

[Loyalist]

Isn't it an damning indictment of the state of the Church when a Calvinist cares more about whether Catholics are taught proper Catholic doctrine than most of the hierarchy does!

[Snuffington]

"I was naively unaware..."

That sounds to be like absolving of responsibility.

If it sounds that way to you, it's because you're looking for any ammunition to twist into your next insult. Naive unawareness about all sorts of things is a constant condition in parenting.

If, in response to the outrageous claims made against the Pope by these sons of Satan schismatics...

"sons of Satan schismatics?" Everyone is well aware you consider certain people schismatic. If they're truly schismatic, have you read the Holy Father's writings on ecumenism? How would he like you to deal with those not in union with Rome? Does he desire you to call the "Sons of Satan?" Does he want you to mock them in the same terms you think they mock the pope? Is his opinion on such matters irrelevant to you?

I wasn't mocking Max. I was doing to him what he and his ilk do DAILY to the Pope.

I was under the impression you were strongly opposed to anyone making those sort of statements about the pope. How many wrongs make a right in your book?

[drstevej]

Here's a favorite quote of mine.

"A right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology but to practical Christian living as well. I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.

It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current today [1961] is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity ... The man who comes to a right belief about God is relieved often of a thousand moral problems."

-- Dr A. W Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

[RobbyS]

You have to remember that Latin changed over the centuries also. Sacred language should be in classical form. The translators of the English mass were not fit for ther task of producing lasting English, such as were the translators of the KJV. Fundamentalists have an intuitive understanding of the need for sacred language. There IS something profane about the English mass we are using.

[Catholicguy]

<> Wow, these transitions in logic are occuring at such a rapid pace that I may soon need an iron lung

I'm off to my bed. I have an early day tomorrow and there is hardly anything left of the schismatic hornets nest anyway:)<>

[RobbyS]

One of the marks of the Protestant heresy--the main one--is the insistence that private judgement is superior to that of the official church.

[drstevej]

***I'm off to my bed.***

Sweet dreams of hula masses :0)