Posts by tomsbartoo

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • WSJ's Bret Stephens: Trump Must Lose So Badly That the GOP Voters 'Learn Their Lesson'

    05/30/2016 8:14:28 AM PDT · 55 of 128
    tomsbartoo to Reno89519

    This is an interesting time in American history. It is also a critical time. The American voters will make a decision in November as to whether or not they want this country will abandon the notion of nationalism. And, unlike those elections of the past, it is a stark choice. And make no mistake, this is what this election will determine.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may be the principle candidates in this election, but it’s really not about them; it’s about the movements that they lead. They are representative voices for forces that are militating in opposite directions. The Clinton side is promoting the globalization of the world. If we elect her we will be seriously move down that path, and there is absolutely no turning back. It will be the beginning of the end of America, capitalism, our Constitutional freedoms (those that are actually still left), and many other rights that we take for granted in this country. We will be a “world community” governed by forces that are beyond our control. It will be a world of Socialism and humanism. God will be deposed and anyone who might follow Him will be ostracized from the community or worse.

    Trump represents the other side. He is the voice for the Americans who want to resist this globalization and to return America to a sovereign nation that is feared and repeated by the rest of this world. That is a politically incorrect thought today as there has been an ongoing effort to pussify American men and masculinize American women, but it is the truth. That effort is well on its way to achieving its goal.

    Wait is all but the foolish and uninformed that are unable to see this effort as being diabolically. The media, the educational system and Hollywood are the tools that tare being used to convince Americans that traditional beliefs and practices of the past are old-fashioned and unnecessary.

    This is the “final battle”. Americans, in short, are choosing who they wish to lead this country and this world: God or Satan. It’s no more complicated than that.

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 7:38:12 PM PDT · 241 of 622
    tomsbartoo to Ray76


  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 7:04:27 PM PDT · 146 of 622
    tomsbartoo to ChessExpert

    If you actually believe that the issue under discussion in this piece is the marital faithfulness of Donald Trump, I would say that you haven’t been following this story very carefully.

    To bring you up to speed,Ted Cruz and his henchmen (and woman if you want to throw Fiorina in with them) is that Ted Cruz has been slandered by Donald Trump for planting a false story in the National Inquirer that posted the 5 pixilated pics of woman who they say he had a sexual relationship with when married.

    Various anti-Trump media people (Kristen Powers from FOX and some character from The Daily Beast, among others) have reliable sources who say that Trump was uninvolved with the story, and that it came from Rubio’s camp.

    But the important point of this piece is that Ted Cruz (and the Reverend Glenn Beck) have been righteously proclaiming that it’s all a dastardly lie perpetrated by Trump. The anti-Trump media predictably promotes the the Cruz line and reports to its Kool-Aid drinking fans that it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.

    So, if you didn’t know all that, then I could well understand why you might treat this story as a back and forth between to scalawags, or worse. But if none of what I’ve relayed to you was a surprise, and yet you still posted the message that you did, then you should feel quite comfortable in joining with the rest of the media who are doing everything humanly posit;e to avoid talking about some of the real issues that are destroying America.

    If it were not for Donald Trump, the topics of illegal immigration, the Second Amendment, Islamic terrorism, political correctness, PACs controlling elections, corporatists influencing congress, one-sided trade agreements that are stealing our jobs, the need to dramatically revising NATO....and I could go on with about 20 or more other issues that he raised and would NEVER be discussed at all in this election by the political bums (Carson was an exception) that had entered the race.

    None of these topics would be on the table were it not for Trump. But the media has their saps that pay attention to them and engage in debating topics like which candidate is less faithful to their wife. Hopefully the majority of Americans will realize that this is our last chance. Unfortunately, I don’t think the will.

  • Why Trump will NOT be the GOP nominee

    12/10/2015 8:54:12 AM PST · 24 of 50
    tomsbartoo to Teacher317

    That’s an interesting analysis with a lot of truth in it. Nevertheless, Trump still can pull it off, but it would depend on some events breaking his way.

    Trump’s only serious roadblock in this race is Cruz. A great conservative, but completely unelectable for scores of reasons. But a very likely scenario is that Trump and Cruz come out of Iowa, NH and SC as numbers 1 & 2. The establishment candidates who still had enough votes to look respectable out of those states would probably be very few––maybe even just one or two. On top of that, the GOP and the media would be putting incredible pressure for those to get out.

    But as the primaries progress and the proportionality states begin to unfold, the establishment candidate would be drawing far less than 50% (probably closer to 25%), while the majority of the vote would be split between Trump and Cruz, and therein lies the problem. If Cruz dropped out (or the voters quit supporting him in large numbers), Trump would dominate and would be unstoppable––even if the establishment was able to get everyone out but their one candidate. Trump would win the majority of GOP votes and could easily secure the needed 1254 (?) delegates. He would probably even do so early.

    But since Cruz is unlikely to drop out or even seriously fade, for Trump to win the nomination he would have to win all the winner take all states, and dominate (40%+) in all the proportionality states. Possible? Yes, but when looking at the polls today it doesn’t appear likely.

    But he hasn’t spent any money on ads yet, so it’s possible that he could create some devastating anti-Cruz ads that would seriously hurt Cruz’s numbers. He could also cut a deal with Cruz (he is the Art of the Deal guy) whereby Cruz would be promised the VP if he got out. Cruz, who must know how difficult it would be for him to win, would probably be smart enough to take him up on that offer.

  • University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe Resigns Amid Protests

    11/09/2015 8:42:05 AM PST · 30 of 68
    tomsbartoo to ilovesarah2012

    Can you say “Black Lives Matter”?

    The politically ginned-up “Black Lives Matter” scam was about only one thing:getting the blacks to come out and vote in the next General Election. Hilary knows that if the blacks do not turn out in large numbers, the GOP will win.

    But the BLM scam fell flat on its face, so the back-up strategy is now on the table. The liberal President of Missouri, Tim Cooke, did absolutely nothing wrong, yet he had to resign. One can be almost certain that this racist action will spread to every campus in America.

    Should be interesting.

  • Can the Pope Decide a Sin is No Longer a Sin (Like Eating Meat on Fridays)? (Catholic Caucus)

    04/14/2015 2:35:51 PM PDT · 25 of 62
    tomsbartoo to Secret Agent Man

    Maybe I’m misreading your question, but I believe Canon Law 915 would protect a priest from administering Holy Communion to someone known to not be in a State of Sanctifying Grace.

    But if the issue was something different, like say, a traditional-minded Catholic priest refusing to deliver a sermon wherein the priest was required to preach that the doctrine of Religious Liberty allowed any person to have the right to practice any false religion that they so chose, and he refused to do so. I believe in that case it would not be a mortal sin despite the fact that his decision would be in direct disobedience to Church doctrine as proclaimed by Vatican II.

    Of course modern bishops would disagree with that opinion, but that is largely what the current debate is all about that is going on today between the SSPX and Rome. Obviously it involves more than simply the teaching of Religious Liberty, but all of the heretical doctrines proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council.

  • The PR Guru Who Wants to Take Down San Francisco's Archbishop Cordileone

    03/19/2015 4:29:11 PM PDT · 12 of 23
    tomsbartoo to Salvation

    Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking. Sam singer isn’t going anywhere; whether the Archbishop does or not remains to be seen.

    As a traditional Catholic, and a genuine supporter of Archbishop Cordileone, I’m terribly saddened by what is going on in SF these days, but I’m not surprised. Archbishop Cordileone took what can only be described described as the most meek and gentle step to bring back just a touch of Catholicism to his school district, and he’s slapped down like a stray dog. So how can this happen to a Catholic Archbishop?

    Actually, it’s quite simple. We are all now witnessing the start of the destruction of the Catholic Church in real time. No, it will never be destroyed, because Jesus Christ has promised us that. But it will certainly come as close to appearing to disappear (at least as we know it) as anyone might imagine. To think otherwise is Pollyannaish. Just last week the bishops of Ireland were unwilling (deathly fearful) of even asking their flock to vote against homosexual marriage. Their advice was to “reflect upon your vote, but we bishops take no position”. Can the USCCB be far behind?

    Personally, I hope Archbishop Cordileone has the stones to hold firm, if not even up the ante. Many of the homosexual bishops of the USCCB will try to pressure him to back off, and surely this pope will deliver some warning signals to him as time goes on. But Singer is good, and the homosexual community will back him to the hilt. But if you happen to think that I’m too pessimistic on this, and that’s understandable, take a look at how many anti-homosexual public relations firms have been hired to wage a counter-attack on the Sam Singer blitz. I believe the answer to that is zero; and unfortunately, it will probably remain there.

    Inexplicably, Pope Francis has made about 4 separate references to a book that has predicted what we are essentially witnessing today. The book is Lord of the World (Hugh Benson), but what is really strange about this, is that the book (written over 100 years ago) is an out and out condemnation of everything that Pope Francis stands for. Others have noticed this strange fixation of Francis on this book as well. But if your curious as to why there are people who are seeing much more than a mere schism forthcoming, this book provides some incredible insight

  • Wrecking (Catholic) Churches: Iconoclasm or Continuity?

    01/31/2015 3:31:46 PM PST · 14 of 34
    tomsbartoo to Oratam

    They did. And you don’t have to wait a thousand years to conclude that fact.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 4:44:52 PM PST · 127 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear

    Ooops, I misread your post. And thanks for the answer. I do at least understand what drives you anyhow. But please do understand that I’m not interested in converting and I’ll probably just try to ignore what you have to say.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 4:39:59 PM PST · 125 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear

    Go back and re-read your posts top me.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 4:38:36 PM PST · 124 of 287
    tomsbartoo to NYer

    Hmmm. I’d say that was a pass. But thanks for the prayers; we all can use them. I’ll say a special one for you tonight as well.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 4:33:10 PM PST · 122 of 287
    tomsbartoo to boatbums

    I sent this same post to CynicalBear, but I think it works for you too.

    What’s with you protestants? If you don’t want to be a Catholic then don’t be a Catholic. If you think some Protestant religion is the true religion, then have at it. But what makes you want to prove to me, a Catholic, that the Catholic religion is wrong? I really don’t care what you think. Don’t you understand that? I don’t have thing against you or your religion, but I really could care less what you think about the Catholic religion.

    But if you ever see me hit up on some post that expresses some Protestant belief that I disagree with, then come back at me and tell me how stupid I am for telling someone from another religion how wrong their religion is. And you now what, I’m sure I’ll completely agree with you. But honestly, don’t expect to see that critical comment from me anytime too soon.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 4:21:28 PM PST · 120 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear; MamaB

    What’s with you protestants? If you don’t want to be a Catholic then don’t be a Catholic. If you think some Protestant religion is the true religion, then have at it. But what makes you want to prove to me, a Catholic, that the Catholic religion is wrong? I really don’t care what you think. Don’t you understand that? I don’t have thing against you or your religion, but I really could care less what you think about the Catholic religion.

    But if you ever see me hit up on some post that expresses some Protestant belief that I disagree with, then come back at me and tell me how stupid I am for telling someone from another religion how wrong their religion is. And you know what, I’m sure I’ll completely agree with you. But honestly, don’t expect to see that critical comment from me anytime too soon.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:55:51 PM PST · 114 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear; MamaB

    Let me see how can I say this without sounding rude. If you, as Protestant, do not want to believe that, or any other Catholic teaching, then don’t. I would never have any illusions about somehow or another being able to convince you that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true. As I told MamaB, that is not why I come on this site. Read Post #104 I sent to MamaB.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:45:25 PM PST · 113 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear

    Well I guess I can only answer by saying Catholics have very different beliefs than you have expressed.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:43:22 PM PST · 112 of 287
    tomsbartoo to MamaB

    It’s not a fear thing; its a “so what” thing. If Protestant simply come on to point out how wrong the Church is in their view, what can I say? If that’s what you believe’ that;s what you believe. I’m certianly not going to try to cionvince you otherwise.

    But my comments were intially directed toward Catholics with whom we have differences withon our own faith. those difference should be defended or rejected on the basis of the truths of our religion––not Protestantism. Quite frankly, I don’t believe I’d ever be able to convince a Protestant why they were wrong, no more tha they could convince me why I was wrong.

    I go on this site to debate Catholic issues with Catholics. Bt that is not to say that I am afraid of debating Protestants about the Catholic faith, I’m just not interested. Clearly, if a Protestant asked me a specific question about the Catholic faith I’d do my best to try to answer their question.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:33:11 PM PST · 108 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear; metmom; boatbums; Iscool

    I read your post too quickly and thought it was a cynical comment (your name?).
    So please forgive me and let me attempt an answer.

    Catholics believe that the bread and wine, after consecration, do become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

    Catholics believe in what is called “Transubstantiation”. That means, the the “substance” of the bread is changed into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Similarly, the “substance” of the wine is changed into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time the “accidents” (appearance) of both the bread and wine remain. Note that each substance becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Here, the words “substance” and “accidents” are used as philosophical terms that one would read in the writings of philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas.

    Much more could be said in this regard and I’ll be happy to try and answer any other question you might have on it, but I do believe I’ve answered your question. Again, I do apologize for my snarky comment and I’ll try to avoid that in the future.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:06:17 PM PST · 102 of 287
    tomsbartoo to Grateful2God; CynicalBear

    I agree and I apologize.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:04:07 PM PST · 101 of 287
    tomsbartoo to MamaB

    I didn’t say Protestants couldn’t; I said they shouldn’t. There’s a big difference.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 3:00:04 PM PST · 99 of 287
    tomsbartoo to Elsie

    Yes I read the post you referred to, and Mrs Don-o is almost always spot with her authority. You seem to have questioned the “exception” she cites in section 847, but if you read that you would see it is really only speaking to someone who, through no fault of their own, does not know of the Church.

    Of course, this is a Catholic teaching. If protestants want to reject it they are free to do so. But to reject it without first examining what the Church is teaching and why a Catholic would make this statement, may not be that prudent. There are many places a non-Catholic can go to learn all that one needs to know about the Church to determine in their own mind if it actually is the only religion that will lead them to salvation.

    But please understand that I am not saying that only Catholics will be saved. What I am saying is that while non-Catholics may very well reach salvation, they will be saved in spite of their false religion, and not because of that religion.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 2:42:30 PM PST · 90 of 287
    tomsbartoo to ealgeone

    Outreach should not mean one has to compromise the truth to win converts. The history of the Church, in fact, establish the very proof of that statement. For the 400 years preceding Vatican II the Catholic Church professed the true faith, and did so unflinchingly. There was never even the slightest thought of compromise by any of the earlier holy popes. As a result, in 1960 the Church was at its highwater mark in terms of every reasonable measure.

    After Vatican II, which did all that “outreach” that Protestants and modernist Catholics like so much, and the wheels have all but fallen off the Church. Every measure that can be looked at to judge the success of a religion, membership, vocations, conversions, you name it, are in a tailspin.

    So no, as a traditional Catholic I do not turn to Protestants or pay any attention to them as far as listening to advice in how to improve the catholic Church Catholic.

    So yes, it actually is a great outreach plan. The truth always is.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 2:29:08 PM PST · 81 of 287
    tomsbartoo to MamaB

    I hear what you’re saying and I do understand your point. But you’re actually wrong about the Catholic Church not having anything to “back up”our beliefs. Everything the Church believes is supported by either Scripture or Catholic Tradition. Protestants reject the inclusion of Catholic Tradition, of course, which is their prerogative.
    You should know, however, that Atheists make a similar arguments against all religion.They, too, say there’s “nothing to back it up” because they choose not to believe in the Bible or Catholic Tradition. But again, that’s their choice.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 2:20:21 PM PST · 79 of 287
    tomsbartoo to CynicalBear

    As it has often been said on this site, Protestants should simply stick to reading the Protestant posts. A legitimate question about Catholicsm is one thing, but cynical quips are simply boring.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 1:34:56 PM PST · 71 of 287
    tomsbartoo to metmom; CynicalBear; boatbums; Iscool

    The problem with Protestants reading these Catholic issues and Catholic responses, is that you only think in Protestant terms. This issue is with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I’ve explained this earlier to one of your Protestant brethren at Post #42. Take a look at that and at least you’ll understand more clearly as to where and why we disagree. Quite frankly, I think the short answer is that I’m Catholic and you’re not.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 1:23:36 PM PST · 69 of 287
    tomsbartoo to NYer

    So that’s it? If any of those store-front religions (and there are literally thousands of them) “acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior”, than those religions are not false religions according to your belief? Maybe you want think that one through some more.

    Quite frankly, you seem to want to talk all around the barn about the issue, but you wont address it specifically. You do understand my point don’t you? Just tell me whether or not you believe the Catholic Church is the ONLY true Church founded by Jesus Christ and that ALL others are FALSE. I really think its one of those yes onto answers. Mind you, I’m not saying the followers of those false religions are bad people; I’m just saying that their religion is false and it will lead no one who follow them to salvation.

    As for the “unity” issue, sure, many popes have worked diligently “so that all may be one”; but the pre-modernist popes promoted legitimate ecumenism and not the false ecumenism that was spawned by the Second Vatican Council and later embraced by the modernist bishops and popes of today. The earlier Church has always encouraged non-Catholic individuals to convert to Catholicism, and over the centuries, many have. But none tried to find “common ground” with any of the false religions as means of evangelizing.

    If the two men you have mentioned agree to follow the true teachings of the Catholics, why is that any sort of a revelation? If you say that somehow it’s because they still like to preach like they’re Protestants but can now say they’re Catholic, someone is very confused as to what the Catholic Church is all about. But maybe you’re making some other point that I’m missing by your mentioning them.

    As for your quibbling with my careless phrase when describing the Catholic Church, and then following it up with a really over-the-top and patronizing lecture apparently intended to impress me with your knowledge about the structure of the Church, really? I’m actually just little a bit embarrassed for you. I don’t think anymore need be said about that. I honestly wouldn’t do that anymore.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 9:53:21 AM PST · 48 of 287
    tomsbartoo to NYer

    Respectfully, I’m not sure I’m properly understanding what you have said. But I think you are saying that some of the Protestant religions profess some things that are truthful. Perhaps they do. But they also profess many things that are absolutely false. Indeed, Martin Luther certainly professed those same truths that you’ve just articulated. He was a Christian until the day he died and the Church excommunicated him as a heretic. The Orthodox religions also profess those same truths as well, and the Catholic Church and those religions have been struggling with their differences for over 1000 years..

    The issue as a Catholic, should be something other than trying to find how other, heretical religions are actually pretty good religions too. That’s modernism. The Church used to teach that there is only one true religion––the Roman Catholic religion. Certainly neither you nor the writer would deny that. Why should any Catholic be concerned about the pluses and minuses of “Christianity” vs other non-Christian religions? That may be an interesting academic discussion, but it is one that might better be had in a secular theology class. The purpose of his writing was to tell Catholics what they should know.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 9:31:33 AM PST · 46 of 287
    tomsbartoo to defconw

    Well said!

    But I might only add that I’m afraid some of these “learned” that you made mention included the likes of Yves Congar; Augustine Bea; Hans Kung; John Courtney Murray; Karl Rahner; Henri de Lubac, to name just a few of the academicians that gave us the Second Vatican Council.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 9:19:37 AM PST · 42 of 287
    tomsbartoo to avenir

    I understand your point. but you have to understand that my comment, respectfully, was intended to point out the truth to Catholics, not Protestants.

    But just so we are clear, when I say that this was the “Protestantization” of the Mass, I intended that to mean that where the Tridentine Mass has always been clearly understood (up until Vatican II) as a re-creation of the Sacrifice on the Cross (the resurrection was never mentioned), the Protestant version of the Mass (Thomas Cranmer) rejected the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. In order to placate this thinking, the Paul VI added in the part about the resurrection, and hence, create anew the so-called Pascal Mystery. Now we have a “Eucharistic Celebration”.

    Unquestionably Jesus must “ever live”, but to complete your argument (which I respectfully disagree), you might as well throw in the Ascension as well, since that is where He went. The Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was not established to satisfy the teaching of Luther, Cranmer or any other Protestant; it was established to fulfill what Jesus asked us to do, namely “Do This in Remembrance of Me”. He was speaking about the Bloody Sacrifice that He was about to endure, and He was asking us to witness the unbloodied re-creation of that Sacrifice.

  • 12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer; Claim 2

    01/05/2015 7:47:24 AM PST · 31 of 287
    tomsbartoo to NYer

    The writer uses the word “Christianity” in his premise suggesting that all Christians are of the same belief. That is a false premise. Only one religion leads to God and that is the Catholic religion; all others are absolutely false––including every other “Christian” religion.

    While the writer is probably sincere enough in his “Catholic” beliefs, he seems confused by implying that one “Christian” religion is a good as another. That’s Protestantism––at least in the minds of many Protestants. Of course, if he actually believes that one Christian religion is as good as any other Christian religion, then he is far more than confused. Before Vatican II it would be called heretical.

    But it’s sadly understandable that this totally mendacious teaching is accepted by otherwise faithful Catholics, since that is what their bishops and priests, educated under the Vatican II doctrines, have now come to believe themselves. Unfortunately, many faithful Catholics have been led astray by this teaching––including, it seems, this sincere though erring writer, Deal Hudson.

    One last point about what he says that may be a little off-topic, but worth pointing out to expose this writer’s modernism. He states that “Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, and that he died and was resurrected — all so that we might be free from our sins.”

    Yes, Jesus Christ did die for our sins, but notice his inclusion of the phrase “and was resurrected”. That was never part of Catholic belief before Vatican II. That is the so-called “Pascal Mystery” language that was added with the Novus Ordo Mass. Before the N.O., Catholics were taught that the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (now the “Eucharistic Celebration”) was a re-creation of Calvary, and that His death on the Cross alone sufficed as expiation for our sins. But with the Protestanized version we are now taught to believe that the Crucifixion and death of Our Dear Lord Jesus Christ was not enough––but that it was necessary for Jesus to be resurrected as well.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/03/2015 3:56:42 AM PST · 306 of 326
    tomsbartoo to Norm Lenhart

    Ahhh, but it does matter about you, and only you. It matters to each one of us , individually. You, like I, will one day when we least expect it, stand naked before God. We will be judged for what we have done or not done on our own merits. Whatever popes, bishops and priests said or did not say will be of little or no consequence. If you don’t understand that, I’m not sure much more can be said for you until you figure that one out.

    As a traditional Catholic that abhors Vatican II, I sympathize with what you have to say. Nevertheless, my sympathies will do nothing for your salvation. The popes and the bishops of the neo-Catholic Church have led many souls away fromn God, and for sure, they will answer to God for their errors. They have been given much, and much will be expected of them. But that does not have one whit to do with either my salvation or yours.

    Although you don’t hear it much these days, the answers to everything is with God. He created you and me for one reason––to know love and serve Him with our whole heart, mind and soul. We are to love our neighbor as ourself because it pleases God––not because it please our neighbor. The modernist bishops of the Catholic Church have cashed in with the secular world and are walking hand-in-hand down a very dark alley with the press and those secular leaders of the world. It is only the foolish who follow them.

    But still, our faith must be with the only one Church created by Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to see through the haze, but the Church and Jesus Christ are still there in the Sacraments and in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is a disgrace, but it is a valid Mass that still allows us to witness what Jesus told us to witness––the re-creation of His Sacrifice on Calvary. If you have the opportunity to regularly attend a Tridentine Mass you should do so. I am a daily Communicant but I have only access to a Novus Ordo Mass today. Hopefully that will change soon.

    These thoughts of mine are for your soul, because your soul is as precious as mine and everyone else’s in the eyes of God. What is said on these sites is totally meaningless. There is only one Truth and that is with the true teachings of the Catholic Church. I would not allow another day––not another hour to go by without visiting a Catholic priest––progressive or traditional––and make a good confession to get straight with God.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/02/2015 5:01:06 PM PST · 290 of 326
    tomsbartoo to Norm Lenhart

    I have the sense that if all of those problems you’ve mentioned, and more, were all fixed to your satisfaction, you’d still find another excuse to stay away. But that is your decision and it is you who will answer to God for your decisions, as I will answer to Him for mine.
    But if these really are the reasons why you’ve walked away from the Church (and no truly sincere Catholic would diagree with your concerns about most all of them), you must know that the SSPX is Catholic and subscribes to all of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. No SSPX priest or bishop has committed any of those sins that you’ve enumerated. I don’t know where you live, but if you were sincere in your Catholic beliefs you could go on the net, find one of their Churches, go to confession and become a good Catholic once more. The SSPX may have its difficulties with Rome, but they might just work out well for you.

  • How A San Diego Scientist Helped Shape The Pope’s Climate Change Plans

    01/01/2015 2:32:25 PM PST · 59 of 82
    tomsbartoo to Mrs. Don-o

    Your off to a great start in 2015, Mrs. Don-o. You’ve written the truth and you’ve written it well. And yes, it did all start with Cardinal Gibbons and Americanism, but ask a priest about that today and they’ll call it the “phantom” heresy. The average catholic has never even heard of it.

    As you know, of course, so much more could be said; but unfortunately, there are very few Catholics who would listen today. Your observations about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (which they now call the “Eucharistic Celebration”), is spot on. In fact, it is for many of the very reasons you’ve articulated in your post that my wife and I make the long drive into DC to attend the Tridentine Mass at St Mary’s..

    Most of us who care about the Church can do little about any of this; but what we can and must do is to continue to keep the leaders of the Church in our prayers. I am absolute convinced that all of the difficulties that we are witnessing in the Church today relates back to Fatima. Perhaps in time the pope and bishops will recognize that as well, and then do what the Blessed Mother requested of them. Maybe then we’ll get back on the right track.

  • How A San Diego Scientist Helped Shape The Pope’s Climate Change Plans

    12/31/2014 2:11:51 PM PST · 26 of 82
    tomsbartoo to Mrs. Don-o; july4thfreedomfoundation; ansel12

    But should we be surprised with how Catholics vote? Aren’t they voting exactly how they’ve been taught to vote? There is only one message that has been delivered to the Catholics in the pews for a very long time, and that is the redistribution of wealth message.
    The USCCB and their bishops are all about the second collection. They teach Catholics virtually nothing about what must be done to achieve eternal salvation. Consequently, we see out children and grandchildren enter into marriages that crumble at the first sign of discomfort––if they even bother to get married. A child or two is the limit, if that many; and what grandparent can say with a straight face that their grandchildren do not totally and completely embrace homosexuality. And the bishops say not a word.
    That’s the belief system that these Catholic bishops have impressed on Catholics, and that is the belief system of the non-Catholics in this country as well. So who then could be surprised if Catholics vote exactly like the rest of the country.

  • Pope Francis Errs In Linking Church To Green Movement

    12/30/2014 3:58:48 PM PST · 56 of 83
    tomsbartoo to Mrs. Don-o

    Great response!

  • Summing Up the Year: ABC Praises Pope Francis for Something He Didn’t Say

    12/29/2014 9:17:53 AM PST · 24 of 24
    tomsbartoo to piusv

    I’m inclined to agree with that statement. Those popes were bad, for sure; but the heresy of modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”. And modernism is certainly evil.

  • Summing Up the Year: ABC Praises Pope Francis for Something He Didn’t Say

    12/29/2014 7:32:48 AM PST · 22 of 24
    tomsbartoo to Mrs. Don-o

    Here’s a man who appears to have allowed the world to believe that the primary role of the pope is not to bring all men to salvation, but to advance a progressive agenda that greatly pleases the media––a media who his apologists claim are completely misquoting the pontiff and misleading people as to what his real beliefs and teachings actually are. Perhaps, and maybe things are not really what they appear to be; but it seems to me that his most recent pronouncement on global warming simply confirms where his head actually is. When the Protestants, the atheists and the media happily salute his flag, I believe it is foolish to ignore these signs as not being warnings.

    Nevertheless, if I correctly understand the direction that papal apologists want those of us who question this very confusing Catholic teaching to pursue, it is to virtually ignore what we are actually hearing, and to imagine that he really means something different that is either being ignored or misquoted. That is unreasonable. It is simply too difficult to accept the argument that Pope Francis actually has corrected the great many supposed misquotes and that they simply not being reported.

    That is not to say that there have not been some misquotes and misattributions (as there always is) because, clearly, we have read of those. And when the Vatican complained, those complaints were addressed and reported immediately. The animals in heaven thing is one that comes to mind, but there have been others as well. But was his request of the UN that they pursue global warming a misquote? That is Francis! His zeal for spreading the wealth as he has said so often is Francis too. Those aren’t misquotes, and that is what the concern has been.

    For a pope to see what is happening to the Catholic Church and continue to pursue the secular causes that so please the media is not the role of the pope. Anyone who has run even a small organization at one time or another recognizes that one will only achieve a successful result when they address the organization’s problems and take steps to correct them. Ignoring them, as this pope is doing, and then playing to the progressive left and the media with his modernist positions on homosexual behavior and Communion for the divorced/remarried is a disastrous policy.

    Unfortunately, he is the pope good or bad. St Athanasius had his Liberius and other Catholics had to endure popes like Stephen VI, Urban VI and others. I guess those of us who believe that the traditional Catholic Church is the one true Church, and the modernist schemes that were unveiled during the Second Vatican Council are evil, will have to endure as well.

  • (Catholic) Bishop demands church recognition of homosexual relationships

    12/28/2014 4:28:52 PM PST · 27 of 44
    tomsbartoo to terycarl

    I can’t say I really disagree with that specific statement (“not a chance that homosexual marriage could ever be authorized by the Catholic church”), but I wouldn’t be quite so confident in saying that the Catholic Church will never declare homosexual “unions” to be a legitimate form of a relationship that deserves the respect of the Church and the community.

    And quite frankly, I don’t see the least bit of difference. In both instances, the actors are engaging in sinful conduct that will place their souls in immortal jeopardy.

  • Summing Up the Year: ABC Praises Pope Francis for Something He Didn’t Say

    12/28/2014 4:04:06 PM PST · 9 of 24
    tomsbartoo to Salvation; Mrs. Don-o

    Ahhh, but fortunately for Catholics and the Church, the pope comes right back and clears up all those misquotes and misunderstandings.

    Within 48 hours or so he generally has everything straightened out, all the confusion is put to rest, and we know just where the Church stands on all those troublesome issues.

    Well, maybe not every time, but maybe most of the time? Or maybe sometimes? Ever?

    Never might be the answer.

  • ASK FATHER: What am I supposed to do during (the TLM) Mass? (Catholic Caucus)

    12/22/2014 5:50:07 PM PST · 33 of 45
    tomsbartoo to NYer; miss marmelstein; IrishBrigade

    Perhaps New York was different in their practices than Washington, DC, but I respectfully take issue with your recollection. That simply was not part of the practice.

    To accept that as being some sort of a regular occurrence, one would have to believe that people didn’t understand what was going on in the Mass. That simply wsn’t true. The prayers that were part of that Mass were incredibly beautiful and the worshippers understood the Sacrifice. Every Catholic should read and compare the prayers in thses two Masses.

    Pope Emertius Benedict VI is correct. The Novus Ordo Mass is a fabricated, banal, on-the-spot production. Most all of the newly constructed prayers (and most of the Mass is newly constructed) are plain sappy. And with the singing and the clapping and the handshaking as if its a social gathering (or a Protestant service), I’m sure there’s a fair share of people today who would rather pray the rosary than sing along with the crowd. And that. I believe, is unfortuanate. Think about this New Mass. Compared to the TLM it’s very thin soup!

  • ASK FATHER: What am I supposed to do during (the TLM) Mass? (Catholic Caucus)

    12/22/2014 5:16:39 PM PST · 30 of 45
    tomsbartoo to workerbee; IrishBrigade

    The argument that was used by the promoters of the N.O.Mass was that, because the Mass was in Latin, no one understood what was going on, so rather than just kneel or sit there and twiddle their thumbs, they prayed the rosary. Of course that was nonsense.

    I’m old enough to have served as an altar boy during the mid-1940’s, so I’, quite familiar with the practices at that time. Most everyone had a Missal (they were very inexpensive) and they offered the latin on one side and the English on the other. But as you might expect, most people began to memorize most of the prayers, anyhow, so many actually had no need for a Missal. Young children (and there were many back then) especially picked things up quickly.

    But today the progressive/modernist priests and bishops are quick to throw out that as being the good reason why the “banal” Novus Ordo Mass was a positive move. It was not. And if you really want to know a few things about just how bad the New Mass is, download the Ottaviani Intervention from the net. It’s only about 20 pages long and it is a really great summary of the problems. It was a letter addressed to Pope Paul VI from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Lefebvre and some others.

    Of course the Michael Davies Trilogy has all the answers, but that’s hard to find these days.

  • Matrimony or Bust – Another Glimpse at the Why and How of Traditional Marriage’s Demise

    12/08/2014 10:37:43 AM PST · 45 of 142
    tomsbartoo to Salvation

    One thing, Monsignor Pope––please make certain that you forward a copy of this article to your archbishop and maybe some of the other bishops.

    I’m thinking that if the measure of their awareness and concern is to be gauged by the various efforts these bishops have made over the past 50 years to address this issue (as well as many, many other issues), I’d say that they’re completely in the dark.

  • I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

    11/29/2014 8:02:25 AM PST · 267 of 1,100
    tomsbartoo to Resettozero

    You may know your Protestant religion well. but you are a very confused individual when it comes to the Catholic Church. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the “one, true, holy and apostolic Church”, but that is not necessarily what is taught by every individual who walks the halls of the Vatican in Rome. In fact, you actually should be embracing many of them because they’re really trying to sound like you. The Second Vatican Council did as much as it possible could to confuse that issue with adopting their false “ecumenism”, and to lead people to believe that they would be saved by following a religion other than that of the Roman Catholic Church. You may be saved by living a good life “in spite of” your religion, but not “because of” it.

    So if that’s your problem with Catholicism, you should be jumping for joy with the Modernist Catholic bishops and popes who promote this false ecumenism and do their best to suggest that those many other false religions are “almost” as good as the Catholic Church. Sadly, some Catholic clerics and religious even go so far as to suggest that one religion is as good as another. Mother Teresa, the soon to be saint of the Catholic Church, has said as much. Sorry, but that is not the true teaching of the Church and traditional Catholics follow the true teaching.

    For your information, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that every other religion (N.B. every other religion) is false. That includes the Evangelicals, the Baptists, the Muslims and so forth. It is the duty of every faithful Catholic to teach the truth to those who are not Catholic, and to encourage them to join this one true religion. Whether they do or not is their choice. And whether you want to believe that or not (which you clearly do not), is your choice. But it is the teaching of the true Catholic faith.

    As for the issue you raise about Rome not being very “likable”, please understand that the goal of the Catholic Church is not to be more “likable”, in spite of the fact that many of the Modernist Catholics today often tend to think that same way. Understand that being a “likable” religion is a Protestant thought, not one of the true Catholic Church. The only issue is the “truth” of what is being professed and what is being followed. You may call that “arrogance”, and at some level it may well be seen as just that; but if you believe that professing the truth taught by the doctrines of the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ is to be “arrogant”, then you are entitled to your opinion. But for a Catholic to deny those doctrines is sinful.

  • What is “The Art of Accompaniment”? Some Concerns About Another Phrase Emerging From the Synod

    11/17/2014 4:36:23 PM PST · 20 of 37
    tomsbartoo to defconw

    Very interesting and worthwhile comment. You said much in just a few sentences. I’ll remember to keep my eye out for your posts in the future.

  • Pope Leo XIII Institute:Exorcism is Back

    11/15/2014 5:30:03 AM PST · 19 of 32
    tomsbartoo to Arkansas Toothpick; Pontiac; Patriot Babe; johniegrad

    You are absolutely correct. But that was then and now is…well, the day of Pope Francis and the Modernists. I’ve been watching this “exorcism” development for the past year or so, and quite frankly, I find it very disconcerting. I suspect that the true Catholic faith is being gamed by none other than Satanists.

    You may recall that this whole “exorcism” revival started a while back when the Vatican, itself, trotted out their “chief exorcist” in Rome, Fr. Gabriele Amorth. He’s an old and confused man and the Vatican had to have known that when they connected him up with the press. Nevertheless, they allowed the media to make a joke out of him and exorcisms. You may recall that he initially said that he had performed over 50,000 exorcisms in his lifetime, but in his next interview a short while later, he upped it to 70,000 exorcisms.

    Years ago I grew up in Mt Rainier, MD and lived around the corner from where the events of the now classic movie “The Exorcist” actually took place. In real life it was a young boy (not a girl like the movie, and of course, not in Georgetown) who actually was possessed. The young priest who was initially introduced to the boy (who was actually a Protestant) became a personal friend of mine until his death years later. And while we never spoke of the specific details of his experiences, we talked enough about it, in a round about way, that I was absolutely convinced that it was very real. You may be aware that a book was written about these events that accurately sets forth the very details of what all the priests involved went through.

    So when I read news articles from the demonically-inspired news media, I have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of their intentions. As is often the case, one of the approaches that is taken to disparage a particular cause or institution is to turn it into a joke. When people start laughing and scoffing at something, they rarely take it very seriously. I believe in this case the more diabolically-inspired Modernists and the secularists in the press are coming together for the purpose of making light of the existence of Satan so that God-fearing people will let down their guard. As has been often said, Satan achieves his greatest success when he convinces people he doesn’t exist.

  • Pope Francis: Judas was a sinner, but no worse than anyone elseelse

    10/30/2014 3:13:14 PM PDT · 36 of 37
    tomsbartoo to metmom

    Well said!

  • Pope Francis: Judas was a sinner, but no worse than anyone elseelse

    10/29/2014 5:25:13 PM PDT · 18 of 37
    tomsbartoo to Gamecock

    It’s often quite difficult to know what to make of what this pope has to say. Some of this is certainly attributable to translation issues, and some, I’m sure, the intentional twisting of his words and phrases by the media. But the fact that he never makes any ever to clarify some of the more disturbing reports is, at best, disconcerting. This Washington Post story is typical.

    Pope Francis seems to be suggesting that all sins and all sinners are equal. He can’t possibly mean that, since that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches us that where all sin offends God, some sin (mortal sin) is much greater. We are also told in the Scriptures that four (and only four) specific sins are so offensive that they cry out to heaven for vengeance.

    But acknowledging that we are all sinners (including all of the Apostles), there is only one person that walked the face of this earth that Jesus Christ said: “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born”. The man he was speaking about was Judas Iscariot.

    Either Pope Francis is distorting this man’s history, or he is again being misquoted or mistranslated.

  • Synod’s Final Report Lacks Bishops’ Consensus on Controversial Topics

    10/20/2014 3:14:33 PM PDT · 9 of 9
    tomsbartoo to BlessedBeGod

    Respectfully, I would suggest that you review your Catholic history. The man you are referencing to “lead the orthodox among us” is the same man that led the leaders of the Catholic Church into this present morass during the early 1960’s. Did Benedict ever do any good? Of course he did. But due consideration as to just who this man really is cannot be overlooked.

    This is the man who was at the very heart of ratifying and embracing the modernist movement that defined the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. It was Joseph Ratzinger who urged the Church Fathers at the time to abandon the traditional teachings of the Church and to follow the voice of modernism. He later attempted to distance himself from Hans Kung and other modernists, but it was this former pope who disgracefully refers to the 16 Council documents as a “Counter-syllabus”––an underhanded and unfair criticism of Pope Pius IX’s timeless and correct Syllabus of Errors.

    Perhaps, by comparison, former Pope Benedict XVI may look better than the current occupier of that position, but quite often, bad things appear to look better when compared to things that are even worse.

    Those that struggled valiantly to hold fast to the truths of the Catholic Church in the days of the Council are no longer with us; and sadly, those attempting to carry forward their message of traditional Catholicism are treated as outcasts and anti-catholics by many of those Catholics who now support that other pope.

    This Synod is merely a tool that Pope Francis and the modernist bishops are now using to draw the faithful even further away from the true teachings of the Catholic Church. But unfortunately, even if Benedict regained his position as pope, I doubt seriously if he would have the courage or inclination to stand up for the true faith, even if he believed in it himself.

  • Why Do Marriages Fail? Here’s One Often-Overlooked Root

    10/17/2014 4:40:51 PM PDT · 40 of 71
    tomsbartoo to NYer

    When you read his piece in an uncritical way, it seems to make sense––at least on its surface. People do want their marriages to be “ideal”, and when they find out that they’re simply just marriages, the couple starts having problems. But when you give it more thought, it actually is simply just another empty statement.

    Here’s the problem I have with his reasoning. If this is Monsignor Pope’s explanation of why marriages are failing today (and he never even hinted about why people are not getting married but just living together), how come marriages didn’t have this great problem back in the good old days––like say, even before just 1960? How come Catholic marriages held together much more often that the Protestant marriages of that time? Today, as we know, there is absolutely no differences in the divorce rates between Catholics and Protestants. Has Monsignor Pope thought of anything that might have changed since then?

    Let me offer a suggestion to Monsignor Pope. When the modernist bishops of the Catholic Church decided that they would “update” the Church and bring her into the modern world, they knowingly or unknowingly joined forces with that modern world in every way. And the Prince of that modern world is Satan himself. The “cultural trend” that he speaks to was to be expected to emerge and grow strong when the bishops of the modern Church sat back and said nothing.

    Priests, like Monsignor Pope, who seems to be a very good and decent man, might like to forget or ignore the fact that it was the modernist bishops of the Catholic Church that changed it all. Not only did they quit talking about divorce and remarriage almost entirely, they changed the so-called “annulment” rules and allowed Catholic annulments to increase from a few hundred in 1960, to over 50,000 in 2012. And, if we are reading the Synod tealeaves correctly, that number will necessarily dramatically skyrocket in the near future.

    No, I disagree completely with Monsignor Pope. The marriages are failing because the bishops have abandoned their flocks. They no longer teach Catholics to avoid sin and worship Jesus Christ. They tell them all that is necessary to achieve eternal salvation is to contribute to the second collection and help in the redistribution of wealth. For all intents and purposes, God Almighty has been abandoned by most bishops. They have all but embraced with both arms the heresy of humanism.

    I suggest Monsignor Pope go back and re-think his thesis.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/11/2014 3:52:24 PM PDT · 26 of 78
    tomsbartoo to ebb tide

    After this action I’m now beginning to question the pope’s competency. Any competent leader who sets up an obviously political committee to reach a clearly intended conclusion, would have the good sense to know who he should put on the committee and who he should leave off, long before he sets it up.

    In this case it appears that the pope is now recognizing (a week into the deliberations) that he doesn’t have the votes. Astounding! It seems that he now sees no alternative but to stack the deck while everyone is watching. How embarrassing. I presume he’s simply saying that it really doesn’t make any difference as to what people think. He has his modernist bishops in his pocket and the secular press in his corner. What more does he need?

    Perhaps one day he just might find out.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/11/2014 3:38:14 PM PDT · 25 of 78
    tomsbartoo to ebb tide

    I’ve obviously missed an important piece of the Synod thread. Will someone be kind enough to advise me as to just what the “revised relate” is? It clearly is an important term in this Synod, but it’s not one I’ve heard before.