www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What's up with Archbishop Levada?

Orthodox, apology accepted.

Now to the specifics of your recent posts.

You are very incorrect to assume that I see the Eastern Church as some kind of quaint experience. If that was the case I would not have had my youngest son confirmed in the Byzantine Rite, and I certainly would not be taking the time to help the Metropolitan found a Byzantine Church locally. What I did see was a beautiful reflection of the Sacred Liturgy which has a huge scope of effect in terms of its impact on a Catholics assenting to Magisterial teaching. At least my Byzantine Pastor will talk about the tough teachings which is sorely needed in a Church that has forgotten that �fear of the lord� is still a gift of the Holy Ghost.

What is the point of Catholic catechesis in any rite if the Catholic being catechized cannot overlay the invariant infallible teachings of the Church Universal on faith and morals with what he�s observing in both clerical and lay spheres? In particular, when there are diametrically opposed examples being set by dissenting clergy and laity alike, the Catholic is obliged in true charity to witness to the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something. It is not the Latin Church that is heretical but rather the bastardization of her by the dissenters who have been allowed carte blanche to destroy her from within.

Our Lord could not have held celibacy as an ideal for everyone because of that was the case then His commands in Genesis to increase, multiply, and fill the earth would be impossible. Rather, we�re talking about a special selfless calling.

We hear the following from Benedict XVI in his book Spirit of the Liturgy. �It arises from a saying of Christ. There are, Christ says, those who give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and bear testimony to the kingdom of heaven with their whole existence � Very early on the Church came to the conviction that to be a priest means to give this testimony to the kingdom of heaven. In this regard, it could fall back analogously to an Old Testament parallel of another nature. Israel marches into the land. Each of the eleven tribes gets its land, its territory. Only the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe, doesn�t get an inheritance; its inheritance is God ALONE � The renunciation of marriage and family is thus to be understood in terms of this vision: I renounce that, humanly speaking, is not only the most normal but also the most important thing. I forego bringing forth further life on the tree of life, and I live in the faith that my land is really God � and so I make it easier for others, also, to believe that there is a kingdom of heaven. I bear witness to Jesus Christ, to the gospel, not only with words, BUT ALSO WITH THIS SPECIFIC MODE OF EXISTENCE, and I place my life in this form at his disposal.�

The Pope continues. �No, it�s certainly not a dogma. It is an accustomed way of life that evolved very early in the Church on good biblical grounds. Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much further than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East, it isn�t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.�

I refer you to the entire portion of the Pope�s book for further commentary on this.

How could any rite be �different from the Tridentine perspective� on Catholic dogma? This is impossible for Catholics in more than name only.

In regard to your comments on the Novus Ordo, the following is in order since you introduced the topic.

I just finished reading The Great Facade. I took the time to highlight in detail this excellent work by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods, Jr. for future reference in the fight for the heart and soul of our Church being waged by Catholics who know their faith, as opposed to those who are having it subtly stolen from them. This is not to decry the work of many good Catholics who, while not as yet feeling an affinity, born out of a realization of the necessity, for the Tridentine Mass as do Traditionalists, remain united with them in the culture wars on the "hard" teachings of the Church. I personally have much respect for this group, and I hope that they feel the same way about me in regard to our mutual endeavors in fighting the devil and his minions. I count them as friends. And in my neighborhood, I can use all the friends that I can get, being considered an outspoken "arch-conservative" representative of Catholicism in the local media. Funny, but I remember most Catholics fell into that category prior to Vatican II. Moreover, I know many non-Catholics locally who give more evidence of being Catholic than their supposed Catholic counterparts who have been so dumbed-down with inadequate catechesis, that they don't know their faith. I see this locally in individuals identifying themselves as Catholic who publicly advocate dissent from Church teachings on homosexuality by telling our community that �homosexuality is perfectly normal�, which is what a psychological screener for our prospective seminarians told our school board � a man who has been repeatedly defended by our bishop.

This brings me to the following point. It is becoming increasingly evident that the main reason that Catholics no longer know their faith is that the prime catechetical tool for teaching it to them, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, has been watered down such that many of the immutable truths of the faith are no longer a part of that sacred liturgy.

I can relate to much of what is included in the Great Facade as I've seen it personally in my travels around the country, in particular, the Mass and other liturgical abuses which are reaching incredible levels thanks to their encouragement by the "spirit of Vatican II", a "spirit" very different from the Holy Ghost. At a "Catholic" Church in eastern Kentucky, for example, I witnessed a female Protestant minister in full robes sharing the altar with a Catholic priest during Good Friday Services. I also observed a priest adlibbing a canon that was unrecognizable as one of the options of the Novus Ordo. I continually observe the complete ignorance of the latest liturgical directives from Rome seeing a host of extra-ordinary ministers become ordinary ministers surrounding the priest on the altar prior to the priest taking Communion, which is forbidden. In my particular diocese the bells are no longer rung at the most important parts of the Mass to include especially the Consecration, alerting the faithful that once again the Sacred Mysteries are occurring in their presence. This has been made another option per the whim of the local ordinary. And whatever happened to the directive saying that the words of the Nicene Creed were to be changed from "We believe..." to "I believe..."? Doesn't it occur to anyone that you can only speak for yourself when making a profession of faith, and not your neighbor? You don't see an oath in court administered by having you raise your right hand, saying, "We promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God."

These may seem like minor points but I respectfully submit that, taken in their totality with many other similar changes, they have contributed to a diminution of the faith. Please don�t tell me that being allowed to receive Holy Communion in the hand contributes to an appreciation of man�s utter insignificance in comparison to his God. The Great Fa�ade documents horrendous abuse of this �novelty� by the accounts of people disrespectfully grabbing �consecrated hosts� from cardboard boxes at world youth days. A motorcycle gang was observed taking hosts en masse and washing them down with beer!

Whatever major problems are confronting Holy Mother Church at the present time, none of them have a prayer of being solved, and I mean none of them to include all of the dissenting intentional ignorance of the traditional, immutable, infallible Magisterial teachings on faith and morals until we restore that most beautiful of all Catholic prayers, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to what it was before the Vatican II innovators dismantled it piecemeal into something unrecognizable as Catholic. And if that takes a Trent II, as suggested by some, then let us pray for such a blessed event, a council where the teachings of the Church are affirmed by her theology, which is omnipresent in the Tridentine Mass in its entirety.

The Traditional Latin Mass is one of the most beautiful liturgies with the priest and laity conveying the meaning of the Mystical Body of Christ and the commemoration of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary in the most reverential of fashions befitting the Triune God of Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The sacred mystery of the Catholic Church is visibly present in the old Rite. You don�t have to go in search of it; it�s inherent because the Catholic Church is a Church of mystery. The rubrics, posture, architecture, music, those glorious Gregorian chants, told you that you were part of a transcendent event, God on earth in the Church that He founded, knowing that you came to adore God, your focus fixed on Him alone without Whom you cease to exist. In short, you are in a very special place, and the demeanor of all therein, needs to reflect that truth. Sadly, that is no longer the case because the focus has been changed from God to man, from the supernatural to the natural, which is a sin.

There is an atmosphere created in Churches where high altars and glorious golden tabernacles convey in unmistakable terms that God is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is manifested by the distinction between the ministerial priesthood of the celebrant who, in the "person of Christ", is the High Priest and the laity representing the "priesthood of the faithful" - both priest celebrant and laity looking toward their God on the high altar with the clear symbolism of the priest being the mediator between the laity and God offering up our petitions with the Body and Blood of Christ as Jesus did on that first Holy Thursday. The priest stands facing God on the altar with his back to the laity underscoring the proper hierarchical symbolism of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass instead of God being between the priest and the laity, the present configuration with the priest facing the congregation, thereby making the faithful "equal" to the ministerial priest, a mistake condemned by God in regard to Core's rebellion (Jude 1:11, Numbers 16:1-35).

To somehow insinuate that the laity aren't fully participating in that liturgy is to convey a gross misunderstanding of it. Full participation doesn't demand constant verbalization, singing, swaying in the pews. Moments of sacred silence can be indicative of the most fervent participation imaginable in Church liturgies. This is particularly true of the old Latin Rite. There is a solemnity about it that tells all that something special is happening in the Church. God Almighty is present there and, as such, deserves our undivided attention and respect. There is no leaving Mass talking to one's friends aloud at great length as if you are in a mall before you get out the doors. There is no "Our Lady of Perpetual Dins." Rather, there is a feeling that you are humbly privileged to be in the real presence of God with the symbolism of the rite unmistakably conveying that to you. You kneel at the Holy Communion rails and wait for the principal celebrant to bring God to you, not Joe or Sally down the street. You stay after Mass and say the prayer to Saint Michael because you believe that the devil exists. You wouldn�t dream of touching the host with your hands because you are "unworthy" befitting the Centurion's prayer said before receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus in the host, "Lord, I am not worthy for Thou to come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

Latin is the universal language of the Church since Christianity was founded within the confines of the Roman Empire. It is one of those very unforgiving languages with no room for the natural ambiguities that arise with the vernacular usage of others, e.g., French. The instances of repetition that the faithful hear in regard to the Latin Mass prayers to include the Roman Canon are important, not something to be discarded. They reinforce the importance of what is occurring on the altar, God coming down again from Heaven to be with His Church on Earth, a transcendent event announced via a language proper to the Sacred Mysteries of the supernatural, not one used in every day conversation by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. This universal use of Latin means that the faithful can go anywhere in the world and understand what is happening during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, at least at the most important parts. Missals are available with full translations. However, you don't need a course in Latin 101 to master the common prayers in Ecclesial Latin. You learn them in Church not only via the Mass but also through beautiful devotions taking the form of litanies, novenas, stations of the Cross, etc. as a function of the liturgical year. One of most beautiful prayers in the Church is the Litany of the Saints chanted in Latin. As an altar boy, I knew exactly what I was saying in response to the priest after just one year as a server at Mass. The common prayers in Ecclesial Latin are not that difficult to learn.

There is nothing "disjointed" about the "old" Mass. It is beautiful in its simplicity, in its regard for the most accurate translation of the Word of God, and in particular, in its sense of the supernatural which has been lost with the Novus Ordo. That is not only my humble opinion but also that of an increasing number of Catholics who have come to realize that the old Mass isn't broke but, somehow, that fact doesn't seem to enter into the minds of progressive liturgists who are bound and determined to "fix" it anyway.

Maybe one of the "experts" can explain that to a poor simple "Joe six-pack in-the-pew" who is minus degrees in theology and Scripture studies, but who has noticed that our Churches were filled before Vatican II and are practically empty now, along with our convents and seminaries. O, some Churches might be filled on Sunday with bodies. But how many of these people know why they are really there? How many of them can defend their faith when the chips are down? How many of them come out of those churches reinvigorated with a true sense of what they�ve just experienced. It's not a "spring time in the Church" when the main "fruits" of a Council show up daily in the police section of our newspapers.

Why are we so reticent to consider the beauty of the Tridentine Mass? Why do liturgical "experts" and clergy feel obliged to go out of their way and say that we most certainly must not go back to that beautiful liturgy? The question that the Great Facade and I have is, "When did we ever leave it?" Where is there an official prohibition of it in any Vatican document? There isn't.

Statements have been made that what was desired by Vatican II was an improvement on the Tridentine Mass, losing none of its reverential symbolism. More power to you if such a goal can be realized. But I find it difficult to see how an improvement could be made on what was considered for centuries as liturgical perfection. Conversely, what a good many Roman Catholics and I have seen it to date is a dilution of the faith because the Mass intended to convey it was intentionally diluted.

We lost much with the demise of the "old" Mass, which was the intention of the liberal periti of Vatican II. They made sure that the seeds for this inevitable demise were planted in many Vatican II documents that encouraged a myriad of special options, modifications, i.e., the "novelties" referred to in the Great Facade. They did this in the name of bowing to the customs of the culture, a false enculturation in tune with a corresponding false ecumenism that now tells us that Catholicism is equal with any other religion, and there is no dire need for conversion for eternity's sake. Lest we forget, many martyrs shed their blood by refusing to "bow to the customs of the culture" because many of those customs were pagan. Today we see that same paganism de facto being encouraged at meetings called by Catholics in the name of this false ecumenism, which is nothing more than indifferentism or syncretism. All of this is clearly documented in the Great Facade, quoting eyewitnesses.

Real ecumenism is standing in contradiction, not accommodation to the world, as a witness to Christ's Church and the need for conversion to it. And it's high time we started practicing it as reinforced by the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, which needs to be restored, instead of making statements to the effect that it is some kind of "pariah" which must never to be considered again.

How utterly distinctive a Roman Catholic Church used to be from all others. And why shouldn't it be because Catholicism is a faith of sacred mystery. We're talking, literally, about the House of God wherein He really dwells in the Blessed Sacrament. The Hebrews carried the tablets and the rod of Aaron around in a golden tabernacle guarded with angels. The God of the Hebrews who came to fulfill, not abolish the Old Law with the New Testament, is now disrespectfully relegated in many instances to a back room in what is His House. What ever happened to the Fourth Commandment? Did Vatican II abrogate it?

What we've witnessed since Vatican II is the piecemeal destruction of our Churches, our liturgy - in effect the Protestantization of our faith. This continues as we're allowing the trivialization of our God into the "pal" that sits with us at a "community meal" celebrated on card tables in "town halls" masquerading as Catholic Churches with the community in the "gathering space" calling God down with the priest at the Consecration. We're told in Sacred Scripture that "At the very name of God every knee shall bend on Earth, in Heaven, and under the Earth." Isn't it sad that even the demons must kneel at the name of God, yet some Roman Catholics find that impossible!

You mess with the liturgy, you're messing with the beliefs of the faithful. You change the language, you change the ideas. Lex credendi, lex orandi. I wouldn't want that on my soul when I meet my Maker.

Until we get that truth right, Holy Mother Church will remain in the "dead of winter" with any thoughts of a coming "spring" being the fantasies of those who are in denial. The Great Facade quite rightly asks, "How much longer do we have to wait for a spring that can never come because the "Son" has been darkened by those wanting a perpetual winter?" It's high time to let the "Son" shine once again in all His radiant glory as He once did via the most beautiful of Catholic prayers. Until that happens, we're kidding ourselves if we believe that we have any hope of mitigating the problem of dissent from Church teaching on faith and morals because the faith will have been inexorably altered, which only propagates, not stops, dissent.

In summary, the entire theology of Catholicism is contained in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At least, it used to be. When you dilute and diminish the Mass, you do the same to the faith, making it unrecognizable as Catholic. We don't need "child Masses", "teen Masses", "rock Masses", "polka Masses", �folk Masses� ad nauseam. We need to reinforce the aforementioned theology by letting the faithful know that we're dealing with a "sense of the sacred" that cannot be trivialized via manipulation to accommodate the latest fads.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a toy to be played with, something those who encourage dissent could care less about. They want to ensure that generations of perpetual children populate our future parishes, demanding to be entertained at a Mass with "Johnny Carson impersonators for priests", a Mass that is being continually denuded of anything Catholic through multiple options, watered down prayers, and music totally devoid of a sense of the sublimely sacred that is the primary characteristic of those beautiful Latin chants that told you that you were in a very special mysterious place, God's House, a Catholic Church wherein God uniquely resides via His real presence, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, a place where very special forms of adoration from the architecture to the organ are required, proper to Him, without Whom, we cease to exist.

Consider the following striking major change to the Offertory prayer from the Old Mass to the New.

"Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen."

This magnificent Catholic prayer has been replaced with:

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

The current difficulties in the Church are not hard to understand because when you mess with a Mass that wasn't broke, a Mass that didn't need fixing, you mess with a person's faith. This is what happened after Vatican II.

What kind of an example is this for Catholics? It tells them that our beautiful Liturgy can be changed at whim. And if that is the case, what other things in the Church can be changed at whim to include the Church teachings on faith and morals? They're all up for grabs. What other message can there be? And that is the crux of the problem. Until this fact is recognized and rectified by Rome, the problem will not go away.

What do the "liturgical Nazis" have in common? Their dissent knows no bounds as reported in a recent article from Adoremus Bulletin, which reports that clerical "liturgical innovators" turn out to be child abusers. "Liturgical innovators" invariably dissent on practically every Church teaching, in particular, the moral teachings from contraception to abortion to euthanasia to homosexuality, et al., because lex credendi, lex orandi, "What we believe is shown by how we pray." And the innovators' primary interest, given their all too frequent woeful example as reported in the aforementioned Adoremus reference, appears to be the discouragement, not the encouragement of belief.

Dear stlouisix,

As you are a serious student of the Church, you have earned my respect.

I find that your argument is so closely reasoned that I cannot (nor wish) to, in any way, contradict what is certainly based on your very deep and disciplined spirituality.

And I don't pretend to have all the answers. Of course, you are always welcome in our Church and we will continue to listen to serious individuals, as yourself.

Alex

Please do! If they have read your posts on the Forum they can easily see that in the four days you have registered you have been like a bull in a china shop issuing condemnations and judging people. Are you really so infallible that in four days you can look at the posts of the Forum members and know �who are the real Catholics as opposed to those who have no basic understanding of a natural common good�? I know you cannot.

In your sixteen posts all but one deal with problems in the Roman Catholic Church. Almost all of those posts consist of a litany of complaints against the Roman Catholics. Just how is this appropriate on a forum dedicated to Eastern Christianity?

I know that both Metropolitan Basil and Father Robert have no problem with your attending the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. I don�t either. As I have stated before the problem I have is that you have come into our forum full of anger and vitriol towards the Roman Catholics. There is a huge difference between coming into the Byzantine Catholic Church to embrace the fullness of Byzantine worship and coming into it to use it as a launching pad for an attack against Roman Catholicism (whether the problems are real or perceived). I have seen the damage that angry Roman Catholics coming into our parishes can do to the church community.

You speak of the dogma of �transubstantiation�. Do you realize that while Byzantine Catholics acknowledge the validity of this term we have never employed it? The few Church fathers you have quoted have all been Latin ones. Why not quote the Eastern Church fathers since this is an Eastern Christian forum?

You react to those whom you believe think that those who have an affinity for the Tridentine Mass as somehow being a member of the �dark side�. Maybe they are just reacting to your obvious dislike of the current Roman Catholic Mass?

In some of your posts you comments are quite valid but the lack of charity with which you state them is a real turn off.

If you are going to be Byzantine Catholic then be Byzantine Catholic. Don�t assume every detail of Latin Catholic doctrine with Catholic dogmatic teaching. Don�t filter the theology of the Byzantine Catholic Church through Latin Catholic eyes. And please refrain from lengthy discussions about the Tridentine Mass. If you continue you will forfeit your posting privileges.

Admin

A message from your friendly Town Hall moderator:

A welcome to Gary Morella (aka "stlouisix"). I am heartened that you have been made welcome by Father Robert and Metropolitan Basil. That you have chosen to have your son Chrismated in our Byzantine Church ( rite is not the correct term as evidenced by the teaching of the Council Fathers of Vatican II, cf Orientalium Ecclessiarum) reflects a degree of seriousness on your part.

I am sorry that you continue to find your local Latin diocese wanting. If you are sincere in fully embracing the Catholic East according to the Byzantine tradition, may I suggest you leave the polemics against your local Latin diocese and the Mass and concentrate on embracing the full patrimony we offer to develop one's communal and personal relationship in the life of the Holy Trinity. The polemics have no place in our Metropolitan Church sui juris and will only hinder your ability to fully enjoy the richness of our Byzantine liturgical and spiritual experience.

Having said this, coupled with the post above by the Admin, we have wandered far from the original topic. I'll ask others to resume posting on that topic.

Now back to our regularly schedule posts.

St Louis-
I apologize if I offended you with my question. To anyone who has been on the forum any length of time your posts set off the antennae, and it was natural to wonder if you were SSPX [and no, I don't see the point of arguing once again about whether they are or are not schismatic]. The Administrator may have spoken rather harshly, but we Byzantines really do not want to be seen as a hideout for disaffected RCs, especially if all they want to talk about is their disaffection.
As far as I am concerned, you are welcome anywhere you want to worship. Hopefully, you will calm down and see the Eastern traditions as treasures in their own right...
-Daniel

Through my eastern eyes, and I think many eastern Catholics would see it similarly, Trent was a Latin council called to address Protestantism and liturgical chaos in Western Europe. Trent said very little that affected the east. Christians in the east were not dealing with Protestantism, but with Islam. The liturgical reforms of Trent had no relevance to the east, since it has its own rubrics and liturgical laws. I regret the liturgical upheavals in the west in recent years, but I think a lot of that had to do with ineffectual and sometimes inept leadership. Certainly, the Tridentine liturgy is beautiful and meaningful. That's the reason I spent 4 years helping collect signatures and submit petitions so the Traditional Rite folks could have their own Latin liturgy in this RC diocese. They now have it and it is thriving. But for myself, I will stay in the east where I think I belong.

Dear Charles,

Truly, the Tridentine Liturgy of St Peter is beautiful!

While Trent didn't address the East, the Latin attitudes toward Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were conditioned, I believe, by the kind of monolithic RC view of the Latin Church that followed in its wake.

EC's especially suffered from much misunderstanding and even open efforts aimed at Latinizing them by RC's later on - the view that the Latin Church was the true Church and even the Latin Rite the most perfect Rite there could be etc.

While Tridentines are certainly welcome in our Church, I think we EC's have gotten more understanding from Vatican II than ever we got from Trent.

My view, anyway.

Alex

I found StLouisix's last post very informative & true, and understand his frustration.

I embrace Eastern Spirituality because I can feel it, don't know how to say it another way.

It will take quite along time for Rome to reform the Liturgy and other related items, but I do not think I will be around when it happens and are very uncomfortable with the existing practices.

Rather study and asborb the East, and pray for the reform of the West.

james, praying in the very warm high desert

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James..in the high desert...^

Me, too, to all of the above.

Bless you, brother in Christ,

Mary Jo...yearning to be in the low desert SW while soaking in the NW rain forest...Suns out now though.

The submission in not particularly respectful, IMO.

IIRC the apologetics were limited first to the fact that in a liberal democracy there is a freedom of association and assembly. This liberty even paves the way for Neo-Nazis to parade in predominantly Jewish communitites; but in no way can be seen an an endorsement of their views and behavior. And I am delighted by constitutional restrictions that force government - beyond matters of public safety - to keep its hands off in these matters. I have no faith in government as an arbiter of which moral (or theological) views are acceptable to be held or expressed.

Second, there was a recognition that the exercise of freedoms of association/assembly by homosexuals - in contrast to the lack of such association by adulterers and masturbators - ought to be understandable in light of the singular nature of their treatment by society; organizing typically occurs in response to some threat.

No one said anything on this forum in recent memory that could be fairly, let alone respectfully, construed as claiming that homosexual sexual activity is virtuous.
No one.

This is in particular a response to the administrator whose uncharitable comments towards me I have never encountered anywhere to especially include secular forums. The editor of my local paper shows more respect for those submitting op-eds than what I've seen from the administrator.

Anyone who objectively looks at my postings will see that they were ALL direct responses to questions toward me, which I'm entitled to respond to, some of which were, in my opinion, very pointed, in fact, rude, and not worthy of a orthodox Catholic forum east or west. Does not charity cut both ways on this forum? And doesn't charity start with telling the truth?

I did not start posting about the Latin Church. Rather, I was responding to posts concerning it to particularly include the latest. How one can say that "I've been a bull in a china shop" in this regard flies in the face of reason. If there is no concern about the Latin Church then why did you have a thread about Archbishop Levada with questions inviting responses.

The other posts that I made were on topics that should be of concern to Catholics regardless of whethter they're members of the Western or Eastern Churches.

These days the aforementioned truth is not so pleasant but it must be told nonetheless. Souls are at stake.

How can you say that I came into this forum full of vitroil and hatred for Roman Catholics when that is exactly what I am. Far from damaging the Byzantine Catholic Community locally, I have done everything to help and support Fr. Oravetz in any way that I can. I have not onced made any reference to the Latin Church in his presence unless I was asked first, which is precisely what I did in this forum.

And I have quoted the "Eastern Church fathers", in particular, Saint John Chrysostem on two different threads.

You have no problem excusing those who attack me, but you do not allow me the rightful opportunity to defend my position without, what I consider, extremely vitriolic comments from you. Point of fact, the gentleman who made what could only be considered accusatory comments re whether I attended an indult or SSPX Mass had no idea how I felt about the Novus Ordo since my post on that topic was in reaction to a subsequent reference by another poster. Again, all of my posts in this context have been to answer questions or accusations, which I, frankly, didn't understand.

Catholic dogma on faith and morals is invariant in particular when it comes to the defining seminal dogma which uniquely defines the Faith. Regardless of whether the Eastern Church employs it or not, the dogma of transubstantiation is an article of faith that Catholics must believe. We're not talking about disciplines here obviously.

If this forum wants me to refrain from talking about the Latin Mass, then I respectfully submit that they not ask me any questions on this topic directly or indirectly through their posts.

And please give me one example where I've filtered Byzantine theology through Latin Catholic eyes. I have talked solely about the theology of the Latin Church when it came to such matters on this forum, e.g., the celibacy issue, which, by the poster's own apologetic admission, was unnecessary per my read.

As far as forfeiting my posting privileges, there is nothing that I can do about that other than to suggest that before making baseless charges of vitroil toward anyone, I would look in a mirror.

God bless you!

Dear stlouisix,

I hate to say this, but I would recheck your posts. Your intentions may be sincere, but the tone and wording seem to one of a negativity. Both the admin and this forum's moderator seem to be reading the same, and what probably brought them here is others. I would hope you tone it down, and remember that we are here not to attack or put down, but to share and learn.

In IC XC,
Fr Anthony+

In regard to the post on �liberalism� and �freedom of assemblies� the state owes everything that it has, its very existence to God. Toward that end the state is obliged to cooperate with God�s plan for man�s redemption. That used to be Catholic teaching. It still is except for those who erroneously now believe that error should be accorded rights which it does not deserve.

Leo XIII spoke of this in detail in his encyclical on Americanism and its dangers.
To forget this teaching has led to formerly Catholic Spain now embracing the oxymoronic concept of sodomite marriage, and Canada about to. I�m particularly aware of the Canadian situation because I was contacting Canadian MPs back in the days of C-33 where the state promotion of homosexual lifestyles under force of law first surfaced. Canada is now passing legislation straight from the bowels of hell via C-38. How did this happen? It happened because error was accorded rights it did not deserve, and Catholics allowed themselves to be intimidated.

Who is going to speak out on such issues if not the Catholic Church, the repository of the Perfect Truth of her founder, moreover, the last bastion of Truth in a world gone mad?

God did not intend for the state to be some disinterested observer in regard to man's redemption. He did not intend for man to live in solitude but rather socially with his neighbors whereby the common good is promoted naturally by the state leading ultimately to a supernatural end. In that regard the state has an obligation to be advised by the eternal immutable truths of Holy Mother Church. This is traditional Catholic teaching.

In the light of error not deserving of rights, why should the state encourage the promotion of mortal sin? It is God's intent for the state to aid in man�s redemption via the promotion of a common good, i.e., obedience to the natural law in the recognition that man's laws are subsidiary always to God's, leading ultimately to a final supernatural telos. Rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's does not in any way shape or form mean that Catholics are called to obey unlawful authority. Rather, Catholics are called to convert the world, in particular that authority, to the one true faith for salvation's sake. That's real ecumenism.

Aquinas and others talked at length about the non-coercive nature of religion in that belief can never be compelled. But this does not mean that assaults on faith and reason cannot be legally suppressed for the common good. That has never been Catholic teaching. Moreover, just the opposite has upon examination of a litany of papal encyclicals going back to Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII warning mankind about the modernist errors, in particular, liberty confused with license. And before anyone criticizes me for not naming any Eastern fathers here, it would do well to remember that we�re talking about the Vicars of Christ on Earth to whom both East and West must submit in matters of faith and morals.
Cardinal Ottaviani sums up well the Church teaching when he says �These duties toward God oblige, towards the divine Majesty, not only each one of the citizens but also the civil Authority, which, in its public acts, incarnates civil Society. God is indeed the author of civil Society and the source of all the goods which flow down through it to all its members. Civil Society must therefore honor and serve God. As for the manner of serving God, this can be no other, in the present economy, than that which He Himself has determined, as obligatory, in the true Church of Christ; and this not only in the person of the citizens, but equally in that of the Authorities who represent civil Society.�
�In light of their singular treatment by society� is not clear to me. If this implies that those inclined to homosexual acts and proud of it are somehow deserving of a moral dignity that they do not deserve, the Church is clearly opposed to this.
As I mentioned previously, in another thread, Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the form of statements from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Apologists combined with the tradition of civil legislation shows the moral chasm that has resulted when the language of �pseudo charity� replaces the language of �tough love� for salvation�s sake. The result being that the necessary feelings of revulsion toward those proudly trumpeting their unnatural tendencies are no longer there opening the door for a misplaced compassion that such individuals do not deserve. There is a clear difference between an ontological dignity to which all are entitled by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God, and a moral dignity as a function of being endowed with an intellect and will whereby good can be accepted and evil rejected. Those proudly trumpeting their inclinations to aberrant behavior have forfeited any claims to the latter. Those who really love such individuals will tell them this truth for the sake of their physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being!

I have asked before if it is the sense of certain posters here that the entire American experiment in liberal democracy is to be considered as incompatible with Catholicism. You, are the first to affirm so clearly this incompatibility.

I am not certain, however, that you are right about this. I have never heard any Catholic authority suggest for example that, inasmuch as error has no rights, we need to work to overturn the bill of rights. And the reason is, I think, obvious: Catholic viewpoints would not prevail. I would find living in Franco's Spain troubling, but Calvin's Geneva would be utterly intolerable.

It implies no such thing - and clearly so, as what it does imply has been discussed on this thread. There is a special singling out of this sin and a special opprobrium attached not only to those who engage in it, but even to those who are severely tempted by it. Hate the sin but love the sinner goes out the window in the knee-jerk response to anything with the word homosexual in it. Some of what you perceive as "proud trumpeting" may just be about working in solidarity to mitigate reactionary revilement.

I don't know that anyone is proud of homosexual inclinations. I would hazzard a guess that the pride that exists is the pride of people who, despite being hated, scapegoated, and reviled, have endured and managed to live fruitful lives even rising to the level of greatness including great spirtuality. I admit to a special admiration for all people who, against great obstacles, manage to bear fruit in their lives, and do not begrudge their feeling a special pride in it. This is not pseudo-charity.

Your failure to appreciate this may be part of the general problem addressed by Fr. Anthony, Deacon John and others. If anyone had expressed the idea that homosexual activity is not sinful, then discussion of its immorality would be in order. What was discussed, however, was the right of a group - even sinners - to associate, assemble, and parade. Even if error has no rights, those who make errors - that includes us all - do.

Who is your audience here? What individuals have you identified in these threads that need this message? How have you identified them? What are you assuming and why are you assuming it?