Free Republic

Agreed. I do think it fairly ridiculous of the republicans on this site and in the world at large to all of a sudden be up in arms about the "traitor" Arlen Specter. He has NEVER been pro-life (or anything even marginally good), and would not currently be in office if the almighty "conservative" George Bush would not have gotten him elected over Toomey in the primary.

Bush has his man in office. The blame for all of Specter's pro-abortion words and actions rest solidly on George W. Bush.

"Reighteous and Just Dunday"

Is that supposed to be "Sunday", or is there some sort of language barrier here?

I would most certainly like to get the work of St. Eulogius that Wolf is "analyzing". That, I think, would be a worthy read.

I would add that I am not saying that only the writings of the Saints are worth reading, but unless I have spare time on my hands I am not going to pick up a book by someone who attacks the faith.

I will leave that to those who study these sorts of things and can sort fact from fiction.

There are all manner of things that I don't waste my time reading. There is an army of academics in the world who spend their days "debunking" the myth of Chistian virtue. I will not try to read them, because it profits me nothing.

There are libraries full of books that I would like to read which would profit much. My time is better spent reading St. Teresa of Avila or St. Alphonsus than reading one Ph.D.'s slanted diatribe against the Saints of God.

I have not read the whole thing, but I have severe doubts about the author.

I did look a little further into the man who wrote it, because the intro and part of chapter 1 that I read gave me some mixed feelings about what he was trying to say about these martyrs. As it turns out, he also wrote a hit piece on St. Francis of Assisi [titled: The Poverty of Riches: St. Francis of Assisi Reconsidered], painting his poverty as something less noble. There is a review here: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2003b/052303/052303t.php

Here is a bit of another review, with some pretty horrible quotes from the author:

This view of Francis as a simple and humble man is not shared by Ken Wolf, a history professor at Pomona College in Claremont. Wolf says for years something about the story of Francis of Assisi bothered him.

"He imitated the poor but never came close to poverty, because renouncing his wealth gave him an incredible amount of power. He became known as the one who gave it all away and that gave him power; people listened to him," says Wolf, author of another new book, "The Poverty of Riches: St. Francis Reconsidered." "No one listened to the regular poor people."

He says that if Francis had really wanted to help the poor "he would have done something with it that would have made a difference in their lives ... like opened a hospital or a hospice."

He also criticizes Francis for begging for his food. "Instead of distributing food to the poor, which he could have done ... he competed against them for food. The wealthy were much more likely to give to him and his cause because they knew him," says Wolf.

I don't think I will spend the time finding out what he has to say about the martyrs in Spain. He seems more like a leftist academic who, unable to ascend to sanctity himself, must tear down those who have. That said, perhaps this book is better than the one on St. Francis, but after seeing his opinions about one of the greatest Saints to walk this Earth, I just can't convince myself to find out.

I do not wish to redirect the thread to a discussion of dialogue masses, but I think I have to clarify something.

I have no problem with an organ playing at low Mass, so long as it is in tune and not playing something which detracts from the Mass. I have no problem with a choir singing, when they are singing in a way that enhances the Mass and doesn't draw attention away from the the beauty of what is taking place.

The dialogue Mass, though, often ends up being more distracting. It is like going to a concert where the highly trained and talented orchestra is playing beautiful music, and the person in the seat behind you decides to play along on his kazoo, or decided to bring his trumpet from home to enhance the concert somehow. Even if he was playing beautifully, it would be very distracting unless he was out of the crowd and sitting with the rest of the orchestra where his playing blends in to the harmony. If a person is talented enough to contribute positively to the beautification of the Mass, they should do so by going up to the choir loft. If not, they are just the man sitting in the crowd with a kazoo.

That said, I realize Pius XII allowed it. For one thing, there is a difference between allowing and mandating. For another thing, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea. As I said before, I think this was one of the steps to a misunderstanding of participation in the Mass. I don't know too many people who are ardently for a return to the Traditional Mass who appreciate a dialogue Mass.

I must add that the last paragraph is so laughable that I wouldn't even know where to start. "considerable vigor that the Church still retains . . ."? The Church has all the vigor of Martin Luther's decomposing corpse right now.

You have to love the positivism of the neo-cons. Perhaps if we all say the church has retained its vigor enough times, it will actually be true. . .

Why on earth would we preserve the Classical Catholic Mass in its "dialogue form"? That positively drives me insane.

Seriously, people, if you want to sing the parts that the choir is supposed to sing, join the choir. Otherwise, stop disturbing the contemplative nature of the traditional liturgy. I think that "I need to be heard" mindset is what started the ball rolling to a new understanding of "active participation".

I couldn't agree more. This country is in a bad way, and I don't think we are solving that problem by electing a leader who is willing to be whatever it takes to get votes. That is why I will not be celebrating the Bush victory. Even his lip service isn't good enough.

99.9% of the people in this country voted for someone who thinks it is ok to kill babies, and that the sodomite lifestyle is an acceptable alternative. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not excited by that.

Somewhat less than ardent would be an understatement. If people don't start taking a moral stand instead of voting for the "less of two evils", this country will continue to slide to its destruction. Think of how far left Bush is compared to his Republican predecessors. How far left will people follow the party? What happens when we get to the point where the republican nominee is in line with Arnold "pro-abort, pro-sodomy, pro-stem cell, pro-socialism" Schwartzeneger? Are people ever going to draw a line?

Clearly, I think the line has already been breeched. I no longer see the vast majority of GOP candidates as "acceptable", and I'm not willing to give them a vote for their empty, half-hearted lip service. I just wonder how much is too much for the rest of the voters who are trying to vote for a sound moral leader.

If you are implying that a vote for Bush will save those 40 million babies, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong.

Boston Globe, Oct 2004-
"WHEN BOB Schieffer asked President Bush on Wednesday night whether he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, Bush declared: "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test."

AP story from 1999 (first starting bid for presidency)
NEW CASTLE, N.H. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Monday he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion ``litmus test.''

Washington Post, Also 1999
PHILADELPHIA, June 23 – Texas Gov. George W. Bush said today that he would not use abortion as a litmus test in selecting a vice presidential running mate. "I rule nothing out," Bush told reporters during a campaign visit to Pennsylvania, where he was accompanied by Gov. Tom Ridge (R), an abortion rights supporter who is seen as a possible GOP running mate, especially if Bush is the nominee.

Bush's declaration marked the second time in a week that he said his opposition to abortion would not be a principal factor in personnel decisions as president. Campaigning in New Hampshire a week ago, Bush said he would not make abortion the determining factor in his choice of judicial nominees.

I have no problem with saying that Bush is certainly the lesser of 2 evils tonight. However, to act as though he is some sort of Godsend who is taking a stand against abortion is completely false. He has made it clear over and over that he will nominate judges that are not pro-life. We know the left will not accept a judge unless they are pro-death, Bush won't force the pro-life issue, so I would say the odds of seeing Roe v Wade overturned by a Bush appointed judge are going to be slim to none.

I gave you a quote which uses the same type of language from the New Testament.

However, your response doesn't really address the issue. God was no more subject to the passions in the Old Testament than He is in the New. God has never been subject to the passions (nor anything else for that matter). Niether the writers of the Bible nor the other Catholic writers (from the beginning to now, including this author) are under the delusion that God somehow actually gets angry, then happy, then sad, or whatever. This is simply a way of putting into human terms that which can't be comprehended- God's infinite and simple act of being.

If it is the New Testament you want, the New Testament you shall have:

Ephesians 5
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not therefore partakers with them. 8 For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. 9 For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; 10 Proving what is well pleasing to God

Such language is clearly found in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. It is found in the Fathers and has been part of the tradition of the Church since the beginning. I would be willing to bet that the Orthodox use the same types of phrases, though I don't know for sure. I will leave that for you to look into.

Do the Orthodox reject the Old Testament, or is the entire Bible the inspired word of God?

If you don't agree with the Catholic Church's wording, which may use terms that depict God "being offended" or "being angry", I suggest you pick up a bible and give it a read. It is absolutely loaded with such references, a good start would be the flood:

6 It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, 7 He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.

This does not mean that we think God is subject to the passions, but this is a way of describing something in human language that would be extremely difficult to do otherwise.

As close to the source? Not sure what you are getting at.

There are all sorts of Greek words employed by the Catholic Church. It is, after all, what a majority of her members in the east spoke in early times. There are quite of few of the Saints that spoke and wrote in Greek.

Are you trying to say that since I am a member of the Latin Rite, I must somehow deplore the Greek language, or what?

What is your point? The Catholic Church has never rejected or blacklisted the use of Greek.

That "bad institution" has lasted nearly 2,000 as the protector of God's holy truth. How long has your "church" been around?

I think this shows that the notion that the east has somehow maintained it's orthodoxy while Rome wanders in its self imposed desert is mistaken.

I have to say that I don't mind the Icon returning near as much as the relics. They made the icon, so be it. These are the relics of Catholic Saints that he is handing over to a schismatic church. I can't fathom what goes through this Pope's mind sometimes.

This gives the impression that the "re-uniting" the Orthodox and the Catholic Church is necessary for the Church to be one (as an earlier poster poster demonstrated). In reality, the Catholic Church has never lost her unity, and the only way for those outside to have that unity is for them to return to her.

This giving away relics and churches to schismatics and heretics is scandalizing a great many people.

I have actually decided not to vote for non-catholics, which is why I had originally decided to abandon my vote for Paroutka, even before I knew that he had abandoned the faith.

I am very near the point of abandoning the "democratic" process altogether. My "vote" goes to the establishment of a Catholic monarchy, and with each passing election that gets more and more clear.