Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $18,014
20%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 20% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by jo kus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The little book that will cause a great storm ('Dominus Est' by Bishop Schneider) (Catholic Caucus)

    12/18/2008 9:36:49 AM PST · 8 of 83
    jo kus to Pyro7480
    After recalling the development of the reception of Communion on the tongue as a fruit of "a deepening understanding of the truth of the Eucharistic mystery...", the Instruction declares that "this method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained...."

    It also warned: "A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it...the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

    No kidding. Makes you wonder what the Liturgistical liberals were thinking when they allowed communion in the hand. Did they think "in the mouth" vs "in the hand" was the same symbol and sign? Did they think people would retain awe and reverance when they could take the wafer from the priest's hands and walk off non-chalantly???

    Regards

  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 5:59:59 PM PST · 56 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I guess I felt I had been roped into the “moron” group. If that is not what you intended then I misunderstood.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is quite offensive to me and it is impossible to believe they didn't know what they were doing. Can't we have something that is sacred without some people looking to make a quick buck and ruining it?

    Regards

  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 12:12:42 PM PST · 54 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I realize it was printed for Mexican people. I was speaking for MYSELF.

    Thanks for your opinion... But why did you become so offended when I was not even refering to you???

    Here is my post. Note, the context is the audience of the magazine, not you - since you are not Mexican or Catholic. "We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried... Since you are neither, my comments don't apply to you...

    Regards

  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 10:20:05 AM PST · 51 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I am NOT in Mexico, I am NOT a Spanish speaker and I am NOT Catholic!

    So what? The magazine cover was printed for the MEXICAN public. Not for you. ANY Mexican would immediately make the connection, since they understand Spanish and practically all of them have some Catholic background - and know who our Lady of Guadalupe is. Anyone who spoke Spanish would know. Anyone who had been in a church with stain-glass windows and statues would know... Anyone who knew of the symbols on the cover would instantly make the connection.

    Regards

  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 4:40:15 AM PST · 47 of 79
    jo kus to GOPJ
    We don’t have to riot if we can get the rumor going that Playboy was going after Muslim women in a very subtle way...

    The Muslims revere Mary more highly than any other woman in the Koran, to include Mohemmed's mother. If they were alerted, I'm sure they could provide some interesting 'rebuttal' to Playboy and their crap. Remember what some did when someone dared to put Mohemmed in a bad light in a comic?

    Regards

  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 4:35:49 AM PST · 46 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I don’t know if that picture would have reminded me of the Virgin Mary if the title of this thread hadn’t told me. I could see some girl coming out from under the sheets before the VM.

    Do you know what "Te Adoramos Maria" means? Note the background and the pose.

    "We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried...

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/17/2008 4:29:58 AM PST · 447 of 462
    jo kus to annalex
    The same pattern obtains with Novus Ordo Masses. Where the Mass is said reverently, the homily is orthodox and refers to the scripture readings, traditional Catholic pieties like perpetual adoration are encouraged, pro life activities are on a permanent basis, -- the church is full and the parishioners are younger.

    The simple rule of thumb is, the younger the priest, the more conservative he is, both liturgically and politically.

    Bland, protestantized cafeteria Catohlicism of the 80s is a dying trend.

    I agree. It has been tested and found wanting. Younger people especially are looking for something to stake their principles upon, something real and is able to draw a line in the sand without caving in to relativism. Conservative Catholicism provides that, as I see in my RCIA classes.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 2:27:05 PM PST · 413 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    I think you are right. While the laity are certainly concerned about what they see as unOrthodox dogmas, innovations, I believe there is sufficient knowledge, among the laity who care, to understand and assess whatever explanations of those innovations might be presented to them. The only one, in all honesty, that I wonder about the resolvability of are the Vatican I proclamations. I sincerely believe those will be difficult to resolve.

    I think if they look at the relatio, the underlying desire of the Council can be ascertained and there would be room to clarify the doctrine of infallibility. I think the East's thinking has changed somewhat from the 1800's on this issue!

    The real problem, Jo, is our inability to trust that Rome can be consistent in much of anything and since with Orthodoxy, what you see (and hear and smell) is exactly what you get, when we see what you have done in the West and when we understand why you did it, well, its “Katie bar the door!”

    Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain things. The consistency problem deals with the Liturgy, not infallible doctrine, so it is fixable.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 11:19:29 AM PST · 395 of 462
    jo kus to Pyro7480
    In fact, up until the 1960s, you had the ‘old’ Roman rite, the Dominican rite, the Carmelite rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Cistercian rite, among others. They’re still around, but were greatly diminished, along with the “extraordinary” form.

    Thanks, I didn't know that - although are you speaking of a Carmelite "rite" or "missal"? The pope states that the two missals did not mean there were two Latin rites. At least that is what the motu proprio says.

    In the end, I don't think the problem is having several rites/missals, but the abuses that have crept in because bishops were not holding wayward priests accountable for their deviant changing of the Liturgy on their own authority. Less vague rulings would help here.

    The NO Mass, when originally conceived and celebrated with due holiness, is quite capable of teaching the faithful through the Liturgy. People can witness this on EWTN.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 7:44:33 AM PST · 392 of 462
    jo kus to Pyro7480; Kolokotronis
    Yes, a good read. It addresses and recognizes problems with the confusion resulting from having two missals.

    Here is a link...

    http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24633

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 7:35:12 AM PST · 391 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Here’s a link to parts of his sermon in 2006 when the Pope came to the Phanar. Give it a read:

    I just finished. I cannot agree more with the Patriarch's take on Liturgy. We teach the same thing. It's just a matter of implementing these words and those words found in the Catechsim by removing the problems that have entered into our public prayer. The NO Mass has the potential to fulfill the Patriarch's desire, if we can remove some of the abuses and tighten such loopholes that some deviants desire to use.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 6:14:35 AM PST · 387 of 462
    jo kus to Religion Moderator
    Attributing motives - and otherwise reading the mind of another Freeper - is a form of "making it personal."

    I don't need to read the mind of another Freeper when it is so obviously noted in posts. I've been doing this for a long time. However, next time, I'll just mention that I no longer wish to speak with someone and put them on the ignore list.

    Is that acceptable?

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 6:10:20 AM PST · 386 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Jo, its simple. I want you to come to understand how it is that the modern Roman Church got to such a state that for us Orthodox, the prospect of reunion is terrifying.

    Yes, I agree that unification can seem terrifying to a Church that places form over function. From what I have heard so far, the West is being judged on "moving away from its Western orthodoxy". I have not disagreed that we have our troubles with the Liturgy. I accept your criticisms.

    However, I have strived to tell you that there ARE allowable items that can change and others that cannot. It seems to me that the East makes the slippery slope argument that "if the West changes matters on language of the Mass, they tommorrow claim that God is no longer a Trinity of persons". Am I not right? Is this not the fear of the East? That seems to be the fear in the mind of the Eastern Orthodox.

    However, it is based on an incorrect view of what is "faith and morals" that are infallibly defined for all time everywhere and "discipline" or "tradition" that is subject to change. I have tried to show that there is a distinction, and I hope that the Easterns here can realize we have no desire (nor will God allow) for false teachings to destroy already-infallibly-taught matters into the Roman Church.

    Do the Orthodox think for one second that the reason why heresy has not slipped into the Roman Church is based upon the Pope's own abilities??? LOL! No, it is God Himself, my friend. We trust that He continues to guard the Church from teaching error on such matters of faith and morals meant for the Church for all times and in all places.

    Our created purpose, Jo, is to become like God, not to become personally fulfilled.

    :> One enables the other to take place, doesn't it? Don't worry, the NO Mass is not designed to allow the participant to "become personally fulfilled"!

    Our end is to die to the self, not to become self satisfied. Our object of worship is God, not God’s community around us, as important as that is.

    True. But I do not think one can support the notion that the NO Mass INTENDS to remove worship of God from the Rite. Has it in the end? Perhaps it has removed the awe necessary to "more correctly" view God as holy and such. Liturgists have definitely made some statements that the current Pope would like to correct.

    But some of them were “fulfilled”, some of them became “important”, some of them could be on display playing “papadaki” (little priests)or dancing vestal virgins or truly perverse “fools for Christ” (disdaining the very concept). The focus could be on them instead of on Christ and every single bit of this is directly the result of the NO liturgy.

    While I agree with your premise, I do not agree this was a RESULT of the NO liturgy, but rather, silly priests who took it upon themselves to DEVIATE from what was allowed. The Second Vatican Council did not envision such craziness. I think we can agree that implementation of the Council's "mind" was very faulty, and some priests who were poorly trained took it upon themselves to put on a show. Most Catholics look on this stuff with disdain. I am not here to defend those ridiculous priests or "Catholics" who enjoy that stuff. But I don't blame the NO Mass for this either. The new Roman Missal does not call for such things.

    I don't know how this was allowed. Perhaps if more people were like your Serbians you mentioned who murmured when some priest didn't do something, we wouldn't be in this mess. It would take a lot of bandwidth to cover WHY the typical Western sat by quietly disapproving these abominations. Perhaps there was too much respect for priests still. Perhaps society had become more "open" with what they allowed (sexual revolution, women's rights, etc). I do not know why people didn't stand up in the Mass and say "HEY, what are you doing"? I'm trying to envisage myself in that situation. I have already detailed why the bishops were lax - they didn't want schism. But perhaps, in retrospect, they should have done more.

    Its no answer to say its the fault of bad priests and bishops. That sort of excuse has been around for 2000 years and its true as far as it goes. What makes it meaningless here is that it was the Roman Church itself which handed the explosives and the matches to the clerical mad bombers!

    LOL! You have a way with words, my friend. People will point to the ambiguous wording of Vatican 2 documents...However, we can also point to the "ambiguous wording" of Nicea that prompted Constantinople, which prompted Chalcedon... If you look at Counciliar history, I think you'll find it takes many years for the dust to settle and the "intent" of the Council to be made manifest amongst the people. We can discuss the example of Arianism... Manipulating of the words and meanings of the Creed forced FURTHER defining by subsequent Councils.

    Will we see another Council to "clarify" Vatican 2? I don't know, but I DO know that the Popes have been making efforts to correct the "manipulations" that come along with ALL councils. We place our trust that God will settle things and has given our Church the tools to do it through our Pope working down and the "sense of the faithful" who are providing the impetus to change things upwards.

    Jo, the theological differences between the East and West, I am convinced, can be relatively easily resolved. Whether or not the damage done by Vatican II and the NO liturgy can be resolved in less than 100-200 years is another matter.

    After these conversations, I completely agree. However, I have faith that the later part of what you say will be corrected sooner. It does seem that it can take 100 years for a Council's will to be "understood" and "implemented".

    My concern, frankly, is that the Roman Church has been so compromised that its future looks more like American Episcopalianism than Orthodoxy...and we have nothing but contempt for that as I am sure you do.

    Heaven forbid that God would allow His Church, either branch, to falter like that! I can appreciate your pessimism here in the US, but worldwide Catholicism is growing and in time, abuses will be corrected by closing the "loop holes". The seminaries are putting out better priests and it is our hope that the "wacko" priests will leave by attrition.

    The EP was and is so concerned about this issue that it has been front and center in his discussions with the Pope and other Latin hierarchs.

    I appreciate this discussion with you. It has given me the other side of the coin to look at. I was focusing on doctrines and pointing in particular to the Eastern laity as the cause of continued separation, that it hadn't occured to me that the REAL cause of mistrust is NOT the "theological lay experts of the East who misunderstand the Western infallible doctrines", but the mistrust caused by poor liturgical movements in the West. While there is validity to what I have said, your explanation makes more sense in today's world and I appreciate your correction.

    Certainly, this is a RECENT cause of our continued separation. This is less than a 50 year problem. However, it is heartening to hear that we can clear up the problems from BEFORE 50 years ago and it is up to the West to clean up our own house in the Liturgy. I pray the East can be patient with us as we were with them in the first 1000 years.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 7:38:31 PM PST · 378 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Jo, you do understand, I trust, that the faithful had missals with English on the right hand page and Latin on the left. Like I said, Jo, EVERYONE understood the Latin, even we kids who learned it by “rote memory”. Lots of things used to be learned that way, Jo. Converts to Orthodoxy still learn that way, Greek/Slavonic/Arabic on one page, English on the other. Within a few years John Smith, convert from Presbyterianism, can chant with the best of them and tell you just what is going on and why at the Divine Liturgy. Maybe modern Latins aren’t receptive to that sort of education, but modern Protestants, grown ups or kids, seem to be quite capable of learning that way.

    What exactly is it you want from me, Kolo? What is the purpose of this discussion again? To admit that the woes of the Western world stem from saying the Mass in English rather than Latin? Does it really matter what language we worship God in? Should we go back to Hebrew?

    Oh, and as an aside, the likes of Tex and Kosta and I could go to a Divine Liturgy in Arabic in Syria and be quite at home and know exactly what’s going on and being said even though, I suspect, none of us know more than a dozen words in Arabic.

    I had a pretty basic idea when I went to Rome and heard a Hungarian language Catholic Mass, as well...Some of the customs were different, but no matter, by the grace of God, I was able to raise my mind to God, not by some man-made construct, formula, or langauge.

    The point I am and have been making is that I do not see WHY the Mass said in English is "pernicious". My question remains, my friend. Catholic means universal, but that is not in reference to one language, since the Catholic Church before Schism did not consist of a culture with one language.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 7:31:28 PM PST · 376 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    I appeal to emotion? I use reference and data and pictures in my arguments. You call that emotional?

    Sure, whatever.

    The only reason why you are speaking to a Westerner on these matters is emotional. You do not desire constructive discussion. You prefer to batter your OPPONENT with your self-proclaimed righteousness while continuously pointing out perceived shortcomings. This is not discussion that I wish to be part of.

    I have done apologetics for years, and I have found that people like yourself (at least how you are presenting yourself now), Calvinists, Non-denominationals, SDA, JV's, and now you, are not looking to discuss issues. No matter what I say, it will just go in one ear and out the other as you either deny or ignore it, secure in your sense of superiority. I am able to accept constructive criticism, as I have been with Kolo. I cannot say the same for you, so I must bid you a farewell. I have no desire to waste time and energy with your constant pharisaical badgering. Spiritually, it is unsound to continue such talks that only aim at self-congratulatory pride.

    Adios.

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:35:41 PM PST · 367 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    We are a Church of the Seven Councils, jo, and we do not subscribe to suboridnationalist tendencies, various individual theologians and Ecumenical Patriarchs notwithstanding.

    I'd comment on this and your understanding of the filioque, but I can see there is no hope of constructive discussion with you, as you tend to appeal to emotion and are not able to take constructive criticsm.

    Perhaps it would be better if I just don't respond anymore to you for awhile.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:30:54 PM PST · 366 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    You didn’t grow up then did you, Jo.

    I served as an altar boy in the 1970's, so no, I did not grow up then. However, I did know people who went to Mass every Sunday and prayed the rosary because they didn't understand what was said. The priest was doing his thing and the people were doing theirs. Participation was in name only. Mass was merely an obligation to attend to, not a meeting of our Lord and Savior.

    Hopefully, you will understand that mere rote memory of Latin words does not mean a person UNDERSTANDS what is happening during the Mass, just as my rote memorization of the Byzantium Rites would make me suddenly knowledgeable of the Mysteries proclaimed. I am still at a loss why you think the LANGUAGE said during the Mass has any transcendant meaning.

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:24:16 PM PST · 365 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The Church had a few whacky liberal theologians, but other than that no one was clammoring for any kind of monumental change that happened in the Vatican.

    I have asked you once already. Now again. Which "monumental changes" happened "in" Vatican 2?

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:18:21 PM PST · 364 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The real stuff started with the John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the Martin Luther King's assassination five years later, and then Ted Kennedy's assassination, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, and the radicalization of the America's blacks as a result of Martin Luther's death. This is way past the Vatican II and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church! The women's movement and bra-burning protests didn't happen until the early 1970's, along with the Watergate scandal and the "love" culture that took over in that decade following our demise in Vietnam.

    And when was the Vatican 2 implemented by the Church again???

    Regards

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:16:29 PM PST · 363 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    First you cite no sources, just some opinions of yours. You claim the Church would have been much worse off without the Vatican II. Prove it! Sounds like you have a crystal ball.

    What a hoot you are... How am I supposed to prove that if something didn't take place, we'd be worse off - to your liking??? Of course it is my opinion - and it far better explains your outsider opinion.

    Where are you getting this from? What dominoes were falling? Your statistics are wrong. You are making things up, or someone is lying to you.

    Slow down. What statistics did I give you??? I gave you reasons based upon my understanding of Catholicism from the inside. I deal with people falling away from Christainity and I deal with Church reports on WHY this happens. Reasons are not statistics. I know attendance is dropping, and I did not dispute that. I don't know, maybe you just like to argue. But I would suggest you actually read what I post and base your replies on that.

    The problems were already within the Church, otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a major problem so quickly once the windows were opened... I named MAJOR forces at work within the American culture at this time. Loss of respect of authority, civil rights movements, and lack of meaning of a Liturgy that few understood. They far excel the idea that saying the Mass in English rather than Latin had some sort of magical effect that suddenly people stopped going to Church!

    And guess what: despite all the pagan and abominal changes allowed to happen under the last Pope, the number of people who stopped coming to the the Church didn't stop, but increased!

    Perhaps you have forgotten the history of your own Patriarchs and their leading "Orthodoxy" into heresy over and over again during the first millenium? Would you like an extensive list of the heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople? Then we could compare that to the number of heretics that sat at the Apostolic See in Rome... ZERO. So before you babble on about leading people into paganism, perhaps you should look to the mote in your own eye.

    How could the Church be better off with the Vatican II as you seem to suggest then without it if the shortage of priests and nuns continues and the parishes continue to close?

    It is quite naive to think that nuns threw off their habits BECAUSE the Mass was now said in the vernacular...!

    I don't attribute the cause of problems in the Western Church TO Vatican 2. The causes were already creeping into the Church BEFORE the Council. People's view on God and Church and authority from God had already changed by the time Vatican 2 came about. "WHY LISTEN TO THE CHURCH? THEY'RE CRAMPING MY STYLE"... The end result of the Enlightenment. The heresy of Modernism. Vatican 2 was promulgated to fight the heresy of removing the necessity of the Church of Jesus Christ from the lives of people of the world.

    Regards