My extensive search for Jesus, and how I found Mel Gibson at the end of it.

Florida SOUNDOFF.com ^ | 02-02-04 | John Grasmeier

[Dajjal]

God bless Mel!

[Robert Drobot]

BTT!!!

[AAABEST]

I'll make it a point to visit your Church.

Yes, and you must make it a point to visit ME too! Then I'll make it a point to make you and whoever you bring with you an excellent meal.

[AAABEST]

Read carefully, I said an SSPXer who did NOT recognize the Divine Authority granted to the Pope was outside of Traditional Catholicism.

Ah, I understand. Officially the society and almost all of us recognize his official authority, we're just forced to go "irregular" when he commands us to do something that is against our conscience.

It is painful. I have often left Mass with a broken heart because I see such mediocre progressives attempting to be "relevant" making a mockery of the Mass and the music and the liturgy.

But the command of obedience is not to be taken lightly...

Yes you're right about this. I love John Paul (even when he's stabbing me in the heart) and would do almost anything for him, except wrong. I won't do wrong for him.

Your broken heart indicates a man of our heart. Just so you know, you are not sinning or doing anything wrong if you were to attend an SSPX or trad mass. Nobody, within Rome or without would dare contend you were either, they know better. So you're safe if you want to bring your family to a mass.

I offer it up to God and I pray for restoration. I always speak up for a more traditional understanding of liturgy and catechesis when the opportunity presents itself.

I'm glad you pray for restoration as do I, because we "get it" and realize our church needs to be saved. Some here refuse to pray for unity, only for our downfall.

On a side note, for all it is, the church is also a political institution. I've had lots of dealing with such and I'm here to tell you political institutions don't change their ways unless they're forced to. "Speaking up" is fine and you'll change hearts and minds here and there. However the church is rife with those who don't care what you say and aren't listening, for various reasons. They must be made to listen.

In addition to "speaking up" we must do tangible things like hit them in the wallet and make they're dealings politically unsavory if we want change. If those in charge don't like what you have to say then your words will just bounce off them, unless of course those people are made to go away or forced to change.

I know that you're not opposed to us, that's why you're on our list! :)

[AAABEST]

About the only thing I miss about the Catholic Church is the ceremony of the Mass.

If you think you miss that, you ought to try an SSPX mass. I know you're still "undecided" about churches but try one, especially if you enjoy the mass. Here's one near you:

DAVIE
Our Lady of Victory Church
954-792-3162
4590 SW 65th Avenue
Sunday 8:00am
Tue-Sat 7:45am

I'm going to FReepmail you my new phone.

[TradicalRC]

I am unsure what JPII commanded that was against your conscience but I would say that protestants say the same thing.

The primacy of conscience is also not a traditionally Catholic idea; not to negate the importance of a well-formed conscience. I do have problems when the Church acts contrary to Scripture as it claims to be supportive of Scripture. Both Scripture and the Church hold to the importance of obedience.

Politics may function within the Church, but the Church is not, therefore, a political institution. My regard for things political is better understood in light of 1 Samuel chapter 8.

St. Francis was alive during a time of corruption and decay and God asked him to rebuild His Church. St. Francis took it at its most basic level and started to rebuild a local stone church that had fallen into disrepair. He later transcended his simple understanding of God's command to found a monastic order to help rebuild the universal Church.

I have an indult that is granted by my bishop about an hour away and plan on attending it when my children are old enough.

I believe that taking a political approach betrays a lack of faith in the Power of God. He raises up whom He will. He wants to use you, I am sure, but a proper sense of humility is what He requires.

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

"(one un-Catholic aspect of me is not believing in Papal infallibility)"

Do you realize that papal infallibility is a solemnly-defined doctrine of the Catholic Church, defined at the First Vatican Council, an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff?

Rejection of this binding doctrine is heresy, all Catholics are required to believe it, it is binding teaching.

Perhaps your understanding of this doctrine is incomplete, leading you to falsely reject it? There are plenty of folks here who could do a good job of explaining it to you.

Perhaps you're not quite fully aware that all Catholics are bound to accept this doctrine?


sitetest

[AAABEST]

Can you stop calling me "Dear"? Unless you're my wife posing as a very annoying internet poster you really don't mean that I'm "dear". At least you don't act it.

BTW I thought you told me you weren't going to talk to me anymore?

[sinkspur]

Can you stop calling me "Dear"?

Surely you know that sitetest is using the universal greeting present in every letter. He's being cordial.

You return his cordiality with bile.

Can we call you "surely"?

[Cap'n Crunch]

Hey, you better get over here, BlackElk AND Campion are here. Like watching Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Heavy hitters.

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

The form I use is that of a letter. Many writers open their letters, "Dear So-and-So,"

I like the form, and thus I address everyone in this way. It reminds me that I'm commanded to love each person. Often, when I'm angry or upset by what someone is posted, just typing the word "Dear" reminds me to try not to respond in kind, out of anger or hurt. Sometimes, it even works.

Yes, I really mean "Dear", John. You are dear to me because you are dear to my Master. If it is He Who loves you, I would be afraid to hate you. So I do my best to love you. Which may be very poor, but I'm only sitetest, not God.

As to not posting to you, I'd said that if that were your preference, I would respect it, providing you didn't post to me, or mention me in posts. I also said I'd continue to post to refute things which you said falsely. As for myself, however, I have no wish to discontinue posting to you, nor you to me. We were talking about YOUR possible preference, not mine.

But this is the third time I've made the offer, and you haven't yet asked me to stop posting, so I'll continue.

However, even if that were the case, generally speaking, John, if you put up an entire thread, it's open for general comment.

Anyway, you evaded my questions.

Do you realize that the doctrine of papal infallibility is solemnly defined and binding on all Catholics?

Is it possible that you really don't understand the doctrine, and someone could explain it to you?

Is it possible that you didn't realize that Catholics are required to believe this doctrine?


sitetest

[AAABEST]

I've gone through my posting history and you two are 9 out of 50. Nearly 10%.

Being that both of you indicated you weren't going to ping me anymore, you each have an odd way of not doing something you don't intend to do.

Are you guys trying start a fan club? Maybe you can get together over a plate of pasta and discuss mailers or those neat little bobble head thingies with the club's phone #.

Just give at LEAST 10% to my the Society and put the URL to my traditional Catholic resources web site on all correspondence.

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

"Being that both of you indicated you weren't going to ping me anymore,..."

Did you read my last post to you? Or any of my other responses? I haven't said I don't want to ping you or be pinged by you.

I said, I wouldn't ping you IF you requested it, and IF you refrained from addressing or mentioning me in your posts.

You haven't yet asked me to stop, nor have you refrained from addressing me.

Further, as I pointed out, you've posted the thread, here. One generally may not restrict who might reply to an entire thread.

Finally, you're still evading my questions.


Do you realize that the doctrine of papal infallibility is solemnly defined and binding on all Catholics?

Is it possible that you really don't understand the doctrine, and someone could explain it to you?

Is it possible that you didn't realize that Catholics are required to believe this doctrine?

If you don't want to answer them, just say so. I know that it is possible that the questions trouble your conscience, that they cause you turmoil or grief.

By the way, 9 out of 50 is 18%, not "nearly 10%".


sitetest

[AAABEST]

I must have had you wrong all along. I really missed your good intentions in caring dearly about about me and everyone else in SSPX. All of your comments are out of caring and concern.

Would that include that post to me yesterday where it sounded as if you were typing with your toes due to the fact that you were in a straight jacket?

Look, I'm sure you're a very nice person but I'm really not interested at all in conversing with you on the subject of my morals or choice of worship. I've tried that and it was not a good experience and I didn't find you as nice as you hold yourself out to be. You've already indicated that you hold SSPX in "contempt".

You really don't have much to teach me, but thanks anyway. You can have the last word.... again.

[AAABEST]

You haven't yet asked me to stop...

OK, can you stop?

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

"I must have had you wrong all along. I really missed your good intentions in caring dearly about about me and everyone else in SSPX. All of your comments are out of caring and concern."

Thanks, I'm glad you're finally beginning to see the truth about these things. ;-)

"Would that include that post to me yesterday where it sounded as if you were typing with your toes due to the fact that you were in a straight jacket?"

I'm not sure I know which one, as I had the straightjacket on most of the day. ;-)

If you're referring to the one where you denounced the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, because they were presented by priests on EWTN, yes, indeed, all out of caring and concern. Though sometimes, the whoppers do give me a fit of the giggles.

"Look, I'm sure you're a very nice person but I'm really not interested at all in conversing with you on the subject of my morals or choice of worship."

First, it isn't about your "choice of worship". If you were quietly assisting at the Masses of the schismatics, it would be one thing. But you are here proselytizing on their behalf. It's not all about you.

Expect opposition from those who will not let falsehood go unchallenged. Don't expect that actual Catholics are going to blithely overlook the falsehoods you assert. If you can't take the heat...

Second, you've posted an entire thread here, some of which appears to espouse things which are heretical for a Catholic, especially one who styles himself "traditional".

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I wonder whether perhaps you don't appreciate the import of the things you're typing. You claim to be a traditional Catholic, but you assert things about yourself which negate the claim.

I don't think that anyone in the SSPX denies the doctrine of papal infallibility. Ask Fr. Karl if you don't believe me. Tell him that you reject papal infallibility, and see what he says. Even though I think that Fr. Karl is very misguided about what it means to obey the Roman Pontiff, I've never conversed with anyone associated with the SSPX who denies this solemnly-defined Catholic doctrine. Ask some of your friends here whom you know and trust.

"I've tried that and it was not a good experience..."

Sometimes when we are in error, hearing the truth can be an unpleasant experience. Like disinfectant in a wound.

"...and I didn't find you as nice as you hold yourself out to be."

I don't hold myself out to be nice. Never have, never will. But I try to post charitably. When I fail, it's just more evidence that I need God's grace.

"You've already indicated that you hold SSPX in 'contempt'."

But here, you've spoken falsely about me. I said to you that I hold schism in contempt. The SSPX preceded the schism brought about by Archbishop Lefebvre's outrageous act of disobedience. It was begun as a fraternity within the Catholic Church. I do not hold it in contempt. I hold in contempt the path of schism its leaders have chosen.

But should the Society renounce its schism, I would be glad of its return to its proper place in the Church of Jesus Christ.

It's a case of love the sinner, hate the sin.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

"OK, can you stop?"

Sure, should you cease posting to me, and cease referring to me in posts, I won't post directly to you.

But I won't stop challenging the falsehoods for which you proselytize, trying to aggressively ensnare Catholics in the schism of the SSPX.


sitetest

[AAABEST]

First, it isn't about your "choice of worship". If you were quietly assisting at the Masses of the schismatics, it would be one thing. But you are here proselytizing on their behalf.... Don't expect that actual Catholics are going to blithely overlook the falsehoods you assert....Second, you've posted an entire thread here, some of which appears to espouse things which are heretical for a Catholic...

This "heretic" will "quietly" stop proselytizing when shrimp start to whistle.

In fact I intend to turn the volume way, way up as those like you inspire me tremendously. I'll tell everyone else that a self declared real Catholic approves only of us "quietly assisting at masses". Now due to your words alone, we'll be the only church on earth that won't increase our fellowship. I guess we're not as worthy as the Anglicans and Protestants that the "infallible" Pope worships with while leaving us in the vestibule. Thanks for setting me straight.

I find your whole "I'm making all these accusations and condemnations because I care for you" gig beyond hilarious. I can't even be angry about it it's so transparent and absurd. What's worse is you may actually believe yourself.

Thank you for the conversation but are we done yet? Because I'm not interested in anything you have to teach me, disinfectants and all.

As requested, I've now officially asked you to go away.

[sitetest]

Dear AAABEST,

If you insist on posting substantive replies to my comments, your request that I "go away" is disingenuous.

You've posted falsely about me, and I'm responding.

"I'll tell everyone else that a self declared real Catholic approves only of us 'quietly assisting at masses'."

If you're referring to me as the "self declared real Catholic", you've falsified my view, though it should scarcely matter. Unlike the Successor of Peter, I enjoy no infallibility. ;-)

But, no, I don't approve of you quietly assisting at the Masses of the schismatics. But if you are in error, and nonetheless leave others in peace, committing your error quietly, it seems reasonable to leave you in peace.

But you commit your error, call that which is evil good, and proclaim it loudly, trying to persuade others to join you in it. Yet, you are so upset that any would resist your falsehoods and your blandishments.

It's really very amusing. You reserve to yourself the right to proselytize on behalf of your new-found false beliefs. You go around telling all of us, that you are going to boldly work on behalf of the SSPX. You assert things about Catholic faith, claiming them to be true. When others object, and show how you're wrong, you're quite offended!! We who disagree with you have no right to contradict you!!

* chuckle *

Now we know why you don't believe the pope is infallible. He's usurping YOUR authority!!! LOL. (That's a joke, John, take it in good spirit.)

If you're going to loudly proclaim falsehood, expect opposition.

"I find your whole 'I'm making all these accusations and condemnations because I care for you' gig beyond hilarious."

I'm glad to have entertained you. Perhaps I'm good for something. ;-)

"I can't even be angry about it it's so transparent and absurd."

I appreciate your indulgence, that you're not angry. But I note that while you characterize the intent and effect of what I've said, you haven't actually bothered to address the substance.

"What's worse is you may actually believe yourself."

Indeed, I do.

"Thank you for the conversation but are we done yet?"

We will be done with direct conversation when you no longer post to me substantively.

"Because I'm not interested in anything you have to teach me, disinfectants and all."

I didn't think you were.

"As requested, I've now officially asked you to go away."

No one is forcing you to continue the conversation, John.



sitetest

[AAABEST]

YAAAWWWWNNN

Is that considered "substantive" or are we done now?