The thing is that if man is ignorant of the Church, Natural Law is embedded into their soul.
They cannot go against it. If they live by it, they can be saved, because that will eventually lead to the admiration of something greater than himself (God) however tacit who it is.
The existance of God is engraved into the souls of EVERY HUMAN CREATURE.
And God wills and provides graces for that person to either discover the Church or live by Natural Law. "
But if we Catholics who have the Sacraments cannot easily follow the Laws of God, what of someone who has no Sacraments?
St. Thomas taught that.

Esau posted:
"However, given how John has, in fact, lied here and, not to mention, the several instances John had been caught lying in the past by others as well, the statement remains 'true' as far as the facts of the case goes."
Esau-another lame accusation in lying
Show me one LIE-you cant cause I neve ever Lie
What you think is a "Lie" is the truth, as I pointed out earlier of one in the "denial phase" as you are is seems to be

"I've got to believe he's somehow not able to see things objectively."
You nailed it, Brian. That's why everyone should ignore him. He seems to have become an occasion of sin for some.

Esau,
Regardless of which article John was referring to (maybe he saw it today even though it was published earlier), my point is the same. I've never take a psychology class in my life, so I'm probably wrong. But it's my opinion that John is (ironically) the poster-boy for the invincible ignorance which gives us hope for the salvation of non-Catholics.
P.S. I'm not saying that John's not Catholic.

to appease the Pro-'John' crowd
I'm not sure who is in the "Pro-John" crowd. I am not. I'm more in the anti-pre-judging crowd. :)

Esau -- but John specifically mentions the New American Bible, whereas your article mentions Orthodox Liturgy. Why hold him to the date if you don't hold him to the text?
I agree that subsequent posts of John's have made his position look bad, but at the time of your post, it would have been more charitable to assume that John was confused rather than lying.

Here, to appease the Pro-'John' crowd, I will concede on this point if John actually produces the "reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!" article -- which, correct me if I'm wrong, but being described as 'today', I would take this to mean something dated May 2nd and NOT something in April.

Brian,
The only problem is that the link provided was an April 27 news story.
However, remember what John actually said in his original post:
... and reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!.
This leads me to believe that the original news story in question was, in fact, the one I rendered in the same post where I had claimed John actually lied about the facts yet again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "today" is May 2nd, right?

Brian,
Thanks -- that's a more charitable position than the one I espoused a few posts ago (Posted by: Smoky Mountain | May 2, 2007 12:20:09 PM).
Better to assume the best. I don't see through John's eyes.

sorry, that link was supposed to be this article

Given the way that John clings to his interpretation that this article says "the Pope pushed forth the Bishops to sift through the 4x retranslated NAB once again in 2008 and pull out anything that can possibly link anyone the rabbis dont agree with from the bible all together," I don't think that he's lying. No one in their right mind lies that much when the facts are right there for everyone to see. I've got to believe he's somehow not able to see things objectively.

Smoky:
Kindly provide me with evidence that he has not and, then, perhaps I'll re-consider.
However, given how John has, in fact, lied here and, not to mention, the several instances John had been caught lying in the past by others as well, the statement remains 'true' as far as the facts of the case goes.
So, sorry, Smoky, but Here I stand -- I can do no other!

I disagree with you, Esau. And you disagree with me. That's OK. I've said my piece, and I'll shut-up now about this for the benefit of all.

Smoky,
I would appreciate it if you carefully examined and considered the evidence -- both current and previous.
It has been shown that John not only lied here but also in the past as well.
In fact, he's been caught lying several times in previous threads by others, mind you -- not only myself.
Thus, my saying:
John again has LIED about the FACTS!
...is justified given both the current as well as historical evidence against him.

May I ask how your are searching the archives and getting comment totals?
Comment totals are listed at the bottom of the posts when viewed in "Archive view".

Thank-you for your villainous characterization of me once again!
This is another over-reaction, Esau. Just because I criticize you, doesn't mean I characterize you as villainous.

I agree with you (as I just posted) that John's article doesn't say what he says it says. But you called him a liar before he even posted the link. That was inappropriate.
Smoky,
You neglect the fact that in the same post, I had provided the following evidence that clearly shows that it were the Orthodox theologians who were considering to remove anti-semitic language from NOT the bible, but actually their Liturgical texts.
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
May. 2, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A group of Orthodox theologians has called for the revision of liturgical texts, to remove what they see as anti-Semitic language, a Russian news agency reports.
Credo, a Christian news agency operating on the internet, reports that 12 Orthodox theologians issued a statement favoring liturgical changes during an April visit to Israel. The group found anti-Semitic passages particularly in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Easter season.
The statement was endorsed by theologians of the Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, and Georgian Orthodox traditions.
Link:
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 9:15:51 AM

John,
This is ridiculous. Several people have pointed out to you that your link doesn't say anything about re-translating the Bible, and you continue to say that it does.
Though I think Esau applied the label "liar" prematurely, I begin to think he may be right in this case.

Okay, Smoky, go ahead and defend once again your saintly 'John'; or perhaps I'm merely misreading/misinterpreting your comments as regards him.
Esau, you over-react here. I've never defended John. I've criticized you for your language towards him.
I agree with you (as I just posted) that John's article doesn't say what he says it says. But you called him a liar before he even posted the link. That was inappropriate.

Esau.....You failed
Be a true Catholic and admit you acted hasty, used calumny and threw out the "antisemitism" card in the hope to throw all off the true story of the Pope pushed forth the Bishops to sift through the 4x retranslated NAB once again in 2008 and pull out anything that can possibly link anyone the rabbis dont agree with from the bible all together
Christ died for all men....except Jews? Hey, dont they know that per Vatican II and the "incarnate word" they are members of Christ's church and dont even know it!! The house of cards came tumblin down, tumblin down, tumblin down.....

You engage in far worse libel then he does
Smoky,
How have I engaged in libel???
All I have said can be proven by John's own comments.
Thank-you for your villainous characterization of me once again!

John,
You have no right to criticize Esau. You engage in far worse libel then he does, comparing him to Cho.
Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post article you've linked to says nothing about re-translating the Bible, as you've alleged. Several of us have pointed that out, and you've not commented.
All you've done is vomit the same things over and over, and vomit attacks at Esau. Why not start chewing what other people say to you on this forum, and maybe you'll starting digesting something.

Smoky Mountain,
Thanks for comment totals. May I ask how your are searching the archives and getting comment totals?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Assau...I mean Esau
Smoky:
Okay, Smoky, go ahead and defend once again your saintly 'John'; or perhaps I'm merely misreading/misinterpreting your comments as regards him.
Yet, please tell me where in the article John had provided a link to that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!?
That was clearly a lie and NOT a mere misreading or misinterpretation.

Go ahead Esau, try and sift through your "archives" of John posts to find just ONE antisemitic comment
You are just like the Rabbi's who when cornered resort to the race card or antisemitism card when dealing with Catholic Traditionalism!!
You are so sad

Inocencio:
If I remember correctly. Cy the Cyclops was over 600 and the Brokeback Fiasco was about that also
You remember incorrectly; Cy was 249 and Brokeback just over 200. I did find one with more: the infamous Meat on Lenten Fridays a Mortal Sin? But we're closing in!

Esau posted:
"My posts on this thread where I featured John's previous posts along with Pre-Vatican II teachings were not to attack his character but rather to show that there is, in fact, a clear divide between what he says/believes and what the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church actually are; so I would appreciate that you not mischaracterize them as being such."
And then he posted:
"Besides, John's anti-semitic comments on past threads speak for themselves."
Assau...I mean Esau you:
FAILED IN Your ASSERTION That the POPE had NOTHING to do with the rewriting of the Bible once again to come in order to change scripture to confirm with the continued Ecumania and your nasty words about Me, as I clearly proved you once AGAIN wrong
You FAILED to show one post (AND I KNOW IN YOUR OBSSESSION WITH ME YOU HAVE ALL OF MY POSTS SAVED SOMEWHERE SORT OF LIKE THAT CRAZY GUY AT VIRGINIA TECH WHO WAS OBSESSED WITH RICH PEOPLE
And you FAILED to prove once how the church has not DEFECTED from past teachings, as today is now just another perfect example of how she will stop at nothing to please her so called "enemies" while they do nothing to appease us. Do you know that Israel still is holding church land and is taxing the Vatican for such and walked out of a scheduled 5 year meeting just last month! And what does B16 do? He asks the Bishops to convene to go over the Bible AGAIN to see if they can change the language some more
Soon, one will have the Sweedes in the holy land at the time of the crucifixion as far as I know they stay pretty quiet and maybe the Vatican II church would take them on as they are scared of everyone else!!

Smoky:
As they say in court -- his previous posts goes toward character.
In fact, let me ask you then -- has John furnished any evidence whatsoever to support his statement that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!
Also, please carefully read my comment:
it's people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments
If you actually read John's previous comments on other threads prior to your hasty judgment of me, you would then realize that his comments (not to mention, his misinterpretation of biblical passages) do foster anti-semitic sentiments.

Esau,
I'm referring to your statements like this:
John again has LIED about the FACTS!
You don't know he lied. He may have misread / misinterpreted something.
it's people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments
You characterize John as anti-semitic here.
I think your statements here were inappropriate.

Smoky Mountain,
If I remember correctly. Cy the Cyclops was over 600 and the Brokeback Fiasco was about that also.
Now back to our regularly scheduled post...
I think May 5, 2007 would be a good day for the Motu Proprio.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Smoky, about your remark here:
I am not defending John, I am criticizing your attacks on him rather than on his arguments.
My posts on this thread where I featured John's previous posts along with Pre-Vatican II teachings were not to attack his character but rather to show that there is, in fact, a clear divide between what he says/believes and what the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church actually are; so I would appreciate that you not mischaracterize them as being such.
In short, their purpose was meant to show the distinct contrast to the extent that John might see these citations I had obtained from a Pre-Vatican II Catechism book (used in the old days) featured in my posts and contrast what it taught with what John has said/believes to the point where he might reach the conclusion that none of what he actually says/believes is, in fact, traditional.

Actually, David B., what you (and perhaps some folks) haven't realized is the fact that because John has been posting all the while here, he has not disrupted other threads with his usual anti-V2 spiel there.
It's like that LOR strategy that was talked about way back when, ya think?

Smoky,
Unfortunately, you are dead on. This thread was so far off-topic that I forgot that I was on the topic! ;-)

Wow. This post has reached 436 comments. Anyone know if any other posts exceed that level?

Smoky,
I was referring to how John continues to spread lies and calumny about the Pope(s) as well as other holy folks -- especially since he claims to be 'Traditional'.
Also, there is a notion that goes like this: that sometimes a person only learns just how wrong their actions when they are subjected to the same.
Besides, John's anti-semitic comments on past threads speak for themselves.
The difference between us is that what John utters about the Pope(s) are indeed lies while evidence proves that what I have said of him is true.

though off-topic
Actually David, your post and Al's have been the first on-topic posts in this thread (and even on this blog :) ) in a while.

John, thanks for posting the link to the article.
My thoughts are summed up by this quote from it, I added the text in brackets []:
"In particular, while the document encourages individual and group study of the Bible [and Church documents and news articles], it warns against the dangers of an arbitrary or literal interpretation of the Scriptures [and Church documents and news articles], which it says could lead to fundamentalism."

Fantastic Mr.John,your write up is exactly correct.I am writing here is the history of the Church.
Sir,
Between the 8th and 9th General Councils of the Church, there was a gap of over two and half centuries. This interval was epochmaking in the history of the Church. In history, this period is known as the DARK AGES.The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne almost came to an end.The civilisation built up by the Church on the foundation of universal brotherhood and love was wiped out by the barbarian invasions. Even the Church became a plaything inthe hands of the barbarian masters of Europe.They put up Popes, bishops and abbots at will.Some of these were very evil men and they did irreparable damage to Church and to civilization. ALL THAT
CHRISTENDOM GAINED IN A THOUSAND YEARS WAS LOST IN A CENTURY.
Eventually the barbarians were converted.Yet they were nominal Christians with very little sprit of original Christianity.This haphazard life of the faithful affected even the life of the clergy. Most of the clergymen were illiterate like the flock they sheperded. Bishops and abbots with very large holdings were very often absent from their Sees or monasteries. They were to be found in hunting lodges or in the castles amidst wine and women. Many of them had no vocation to ecclesiastical life and were put up by kings or princes for the highest bid.
The two most flagrant visible evils that affected religious life were simony and clerical immorality including concubinage. The king or the prince was demanding money for clerical appointment. The bishop or the abbot would take money from those who wished to be ordained.They also had a share in the income of a parish from the man who had received the appointment as parish priest. The priests in their turn were ministering only for a price. Such was the sin of simony during the Dark Ages.
Clerical immorality during this period exceeded even that of the primitive people. In the Latin Church no married person could receive Major Orders.Any one in Major Orders could not married validly. The demand for celibacy lost its force during this period. Parish Priests often lived with their house-keepers. These not only kept the house but also shared their beds. Many of the priests had undergone private marriages,that is without any witnesses.Thus almost 90% of the clergy lived in concubinage.
During this time of decadence and disorder, there were attempts to reform the clergy. The man who succeeded in the purification of the Church was Pope Gregory VII(saint).Gregory was elected in 1073 and in the 12 yearsof his pontificate, he, with the help of the monks of Cluny,France, did what many other popes could not do. In the Lenten Synod held at Rome in 1074,Gregory enacted the following decrees:
1. Clerics who had obtained any position in the Church throughsimony were automatically suspended from exercising their duties.
2. All those who purchased Church property were to lose the ownership with immediate effect.
3. In future under pain of automatic excommunication no one could practise simony.
4. All clerics who lived in concubinage are deprived of their priesthood.
5. Excommunication for clerics who contracted marriage.
6. The faithful were forbidden to attend the ministries of any cleric who did not obeythese rules.
..............
BENEDICT XVI has to save the Church from the clutches of the bishops and the priests.
DEO GRATIAS- May 2nd 2007.
(alexbenziger@yahoo.com)

al,
though off-topic,
Alice von Hilde-whatever met the pope and (supposedly) said that he told her may 5 was the release date.

No Esau, you miss the point. You characterize John as anti-semitic; that's attacking the man, which is inappropriate. I am not defending John, I am criticizing your attacks on him rather than on his arguments. Other posters such as Brian, Shane, and Inocencio have responded to John in a more charitable manner.
I agree that it goes both ways -- John is very much in the wrong whenever he attacks you personally.
But my kindergarten teacher taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. :)

What's the latest guess as to the date of the Motu Propio?

Smoky,
You missed the whole point.
The direction I was heading with my post (as in previous posts) was that:
Look at how John feels so offended when he thinks he is being the victim of lies and calumny.
Now, wouldn't it make sense that he does not do the same?

John,
I posted my last post before seeing that you provided a link to jpost.com. Thank you for that. However, I don't see anywhere in the article that you link to a mention of re-translating the Bible.

"the questionnaire calls on bishops to investigate the use of biblical texts to "ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism." "
He didn't suggest that they re-write the bible. He is concerned about people who misuse the bible.

Esau Esau-Your house of cards is Crumbling.......!!
Sorry to spoil your heresy, but the Church I am part of was actually one established by My Lord & Saviour who is, in fact, God!
18 Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam.

John,
Why did you ignore Brian and Esau's request for a source for your statement? You lose credibility if you make statements without backing them up with your source.
Furthermore, you really need to start engaging people in a dialogue. You're accomplishing exactly nothing in most of your posts except to vomit your complaints upon the combbox. When someone asks you a question, have the courtesy to answer it. When someone addresses a point you make, have the courtesy to respond to their point rather than vomiting the same list of problems again and again.
Here is an example of what you're accomplishing:
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: OK, lets discuss A.
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: OK, lets discuss A.
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: Why are you ignoring our discussion of A?
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
etc...
Esau,
I'd ask again that you focus on John's arguments and not on John himself. Attack the argument, not the man. It doesn't matter whether what you say about him is true; it's still inappropriate to attack the person. You aren't in a position to judge John any more than he's in a position to judge you.

The NAB has already been so watered and any plays are basically illegal in Europe which show the passion of our Lord, and it took a true Traditional Catholic in Mel Gibson to make a movie about such and show our Lord in a positive light and illustrate his sufferings for mankind, instead of the Novus Ordo Catholics like Zefferelli and Scorcese's "Last Temptation" which show him desiring Mary Magdeline
Wow. Isn't that about fifteen different topics? Mel isn't Catholic. He built his own church WITHOUT permission from the local bishop. Is that what you consider to be holy? Holiness is based upon obediance to Christ's representative on earth, the pope. And what's up with mocking Zefferelli's protrayal of Christ's Passion? Wierd.

I've got to side with John on this one. His beliefs aren't ecumenical, but they're not antisemitic.
Brian,
You haven't read the comments he posted last year.

Esau posted:
"Here is the actual story below along with a link -- and it was NOT Pope Benedict XVI but ORTHODOX THEOLOGIANS!
John again has LIED about the FACTS!"
Esau-Again you must apologize! You are so foolish!! Right in the Jeruselum Post it says that the Pope APPROVED :
"The 60-page document, which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI, outlines the suggested topics and includes a questionnaire to be answered by local bishops.
After asking if priority is given to dialogue with the Jews, the questionnaire calls on bishops to investigate the use of biblical texts to "ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism."
Hey, we are the Vatican II Catholic church, lets just rewrite history some more to be Ecumenical!!!
From the link above posted
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177591...
Esau Esau-Your house of cards is Crumbling.......!!

Ok Esau, now calling me antisemitic? How dare you and I expect an apology as you continue to make assertions that are over the top just like the rabbis who are accusing the true mass as being antisemitic to get their way
I've got to side with John on this one. His beliefs aren't ecumenical, but they're not antisemitic.