SEDEVACANTIST REPLIES

Responses Received from "Prakash M. a.k.a. Luke Virgil H."
& "John L. a.k.a. Helen L."
to:

AN OPINION ON ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE POPE
RECEIVING THE "MARK OF SHIVA", AND
HIS SEMI-NAKED MASS IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA,

by F. John Loughnan


From: "prakash mxxxxxxxxxx" prakashxxxx@hotmail.com
To: jamesakin@usa.net, jloughnan@hotmail.com, grossklas@earthlink.net
CC: johnmxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com, prakashxxxx@hotmail.com
Subject: John-Paul 2   The Mark of Shiva - My Challenge
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 07:48:59 GMT

My Challenge - Prove it or withdraw your claims, if you are honest!

To,
Grossklas
grossklas@earthlink.net

Dear Sir, - This is in response to your articles on the allegations that JP-2 accepted the "mark of Shiva" while in India. I am an Indian, and live among pagans. As far as the tilak goes, it is a pagan sign. So is the aarti & vibhuti, the 'sacred' ash, all pagan. Indian Christians who are aware, refuse it, as also the 'prasad' and namaste

The idea that authentic local Christians use tilak, aarti, vibhuti, etc. is news to me. ("Indian Catholics . . . use 'Aarti' when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families.") Since when? Before the phony Balaamistic reforms? Prove it.

The Aarti has always been used and understood as an act of worship of the deityhood of the recipient... Certainly, it also has concurrent, subordinate meanings - such as honoring the recipient. But it never ever means merely a greeting or welcome.

The Christians of the Kanara do use the bindi or the round dot, as also a Christianised version of the 'mangalsutra' which a Hindu woman wears as a sign that she is married. The Goans, of whom I am, do not. The reason for this, is that while the Goans lived under Portugal, which at one time would not tolerate any sign of paganism or reversion among the neo-converts, the Kanarese lived under pagans, and even had to sheltered by them, with all the consequences, when the usurper of the Mysore Kingdom, Tipu Sultan began his anti-Christian genocide - the Babylonian Captivity at Seringapatnam. As a result, the Goans always suspepted the Kanarese Christians and kept apart from them. It is fact that the Kanarese, in their traditions and customs are more Indian, and favourable to the pagans than the Portugalised Goans. Since V-2, there have been attempts to paganise Indian Christianity, especially in the South. This took the shape of a chapel with forms of Nataraja, etc, and was ended after first Tradititionalists and then pagan purists went to the courts. This episode has been confirmed by Msgr. Benny Aguiar, the former editor of the New Church diocese of Bombay's paper 'The Examiner', now the editor of another in the North, and I can show it to you if you want.

Finally, what have you to say about the heresies of Roncalli and of V-2? What have you to say of Balamaund? Here, your sect and the Photianists agreed to not make converts from each other. If these claimed to be the True Church, they would not sign any pact giving up their right to proselytise anywhere on earth. As it is, the pact of Balamaund is a pact among two sets of theives dividing turf...

To clarify any doubts in your mind, I am a Christian, that is, I reject the four antipopes Balaam 1 thru 4 (Roncalli, Montini, Luciani &: Wojtyla) and also the Lefebvrists for holding onto them as 'true' popes, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Prakash J Mxxxxxxxxxx, Bombay, India.


http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas & http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/the_pope_shiva_and_nudity.htm

The following extract is from James Akin's "The Nazareth Resource Library"
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q003.htm
Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu "priestess of Shiva" and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?
A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving the pope a traditional Indian form of greeting known as "Aarti," which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.
A letter dated November 22, 1994 from Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society: "Indian Catholics . . . use 'Aarti' when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, 'Aarti' is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at an important liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, 'Aarti' is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a 'priestess of Shiva' as has been alleged. Use of the 'Aarti' ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of a Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe."
Your schismatic friend in the Society of St. Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the holy father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). He was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant.



This gentleman (who claims to be an Indian, a Portugalised Goan and a Christian - all of which may be perfectly true - but who makes NO claim to be a Catholic, which can readily be understood in view of the context of his other claims) sent an e-mail message, dated Sun, 15 Oct 2000, rudely addressed to "Grossklas" with copies to this writer and three others (including himself). Among other matters he complained about the "paganis(ing) of Indian Christianity, especially in the South."

Given the fact that the Church has always used elements from the cultures of the indigenous peoples wherever there is no intrinsic evil involved, perhaps we may ask the said gentleman to lead the way and give an example by refraining from using pagan words or symbols for the days of the week, viz. Sunday (Sun day), Monday (Moon day), Tuesday (from the Saxon God Tuisto, Tiw or Teusco), Wednesday (Odin's or Woden's day). Thursday (Thor's day), Friday (Frigen's day - she was said to be Odin's wife), and Saturday (Saturn's day)? Then we could ask him to stop using January/Janus, March/Mars and June/Juno.

He could also stop celebrating Christmas Day on 25th December, for the nativity was not generally observed on that day until the 5th Century. It was, however, a pagan festival of sol invictus (unconquered Sun). The same for Easter - which comes from Eostre the Goddess of Spring. And, then, he should return not attend services on Sunday - for it was the pagan Emperor Constantine who decreed Sunday to be the official Roman-Christian day of rest. Constantine, by the way, was not baptized until he was about to die - and he received baptism from the hands of an Arian.

In essence the gentleman (who I will call "Prakash M.") seeks to refute the above article written by me. In part, I wrote:

' For the purpose of this exercise (which is only an example as to how the wild claims of so-called "traditionalists" may be examined), I will consider the matters of "John-Paul II receives the sign of the adorers of the Hindu 'God' Shiva," and semi-nudity at the Papal Mass in Papua New Guinea. Pictures of these events, and of others which SSPXers criticize, have been widely distributed, both prior to and following the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and are found in the publications of not only the SSPX but also fundamentalist protestants and sedevacantist types such as Brother Michael Dimond, O.S.B. ' and, ' In the photos produced as "evidence" for the allegation, there is no way of actually SEEING what the mark was. All that can be seen is a woman putting her hand up to the Pope's forehead. How can this be "evidence" that what was produced at the time was "the mark of Shiva" or anything else at all? Anyway, this event (whatever it was) in no way impinges on the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which means that the Pope is incapable of teaching heresy as dogmatic truth, not that he is incapable of sin, of scandal, or of exercising bad judgment. Furthermore, the burden of proof of any allegation rests on the party making the allegation - not upon the defender of the Pope.'
Unfortunately, Prakash M. does not enhance his cause by being rude, abrasive, dragging "straw-men" into the argument, and by "not seeing the wood for the trees"! It is obvious that his reasoning is clouded by hatred.

This being so, it is pointless in entering into argument with him. Prakash M. has adroitly avoided the thrust of my "Opinion", which was an examination of the Lefebvrite/Dimondite/sedevacantist claims - which included the claim that Pope John Paul II, the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, had received the "Mark of Shiva" on his forehead, and that it had been administered by a Hindu Priestess.

Anyone and everyone can make claims. If I were to claim that I am an Aboriginal Australian who is young, rich and handsome and that any who attempted to prove the opposite was a racist - would Prakesh M. be in a position to disprove that? I will save him the time - I am none of those things, not that any of them is bad. The point is that people who are hostile towards another person can make up all sorts of wild claims that are without substance. To the best of my investigative abilities, I attempted to show that the claims made by the Lefebvrite/Dimondite/sedevacantists were, as yet at least, unsubstantiated claims.

I am also reminded of of following quote:

"My experience as an attorney has taught me that no matter how brilliant and correct your legal brief, you can be sure that your opponent will ALWAYS file an opposing brief (no matter how frivolous or incorrect.)." - Stephen P. Haws, Attorney, Convert and Catholic Apologist.
To substantiate the claims it would be necessary to produce:

1. Verifiable photographic evidence showing the exact design and substance allegedly put on the Pope's forehead. As mentioned, one cannot see in the photo produced by the schismatics anything other than the woman's hand at the Pope's head;

2. The specific identity and present whereabouts (for confirmation purposes) of the alleged Hindu Priestess; Of course the counter allegation is that the woman was a married Catholic woman.

3. Proof that the Pope was aware of and receptive to receiving the "Mark of Shiva" - with all that signified. Apart from the fact that NONE may judge the Pope - who can read the mind of the Pope?

4. Finally, IF proven, what would that prove? That he is a sinner? Even Judas was an Apostle chosen by Jesus Christ! Even Peter denied his Lord!
Prakash M. introduces the "Tipu Sultan" straw-man to "prove" some obscure point about the Christians of Kanara being second-class Christians in comparison to the Goan Christians. Here the man shows his racism! Tipu Sultan was not a Hindu - he was a practicing Muslim. There are conflicting opinions regarding Tipu Sultan.(1) S. Chandrashekar claims that the English painted a bad picture of Tipu Sultan for political and power reasons. When they defeated him (and his French ally) the English established their own colonial "usurpation" of the area! Strange about the mainly Catholic French being the Muslim ruler's ally, don't you think? In any event, the spoils of war went to whoever was the current ruler.

It is interesting that he should introduce here the word "Balaam". Here is the opening paragraph on Balaam which shows the direction of Prakash M.'s thinking (2):

"One of two animals who speak in the scripture is a donkey, the donkey of a very infamous man, Balaam. Balaam is a good study of one who walks with the Lord, and then allows the world, witchcraft, and greed to make his choices until he tosses the Lord aside. Balaam is called a seer and a prophet in his beginning, and at the end is a soothsayer and witch. In the New Testament, we have Jude, Peter, and Jesus giving us three details of his life, specific attitudes that he possessed which I will go into after we take a look at the Book that has detailed information about him, Numbers. The first time we see Balaam everything seems to be quite normal at least on the surface. What we see is compromise and its deadly affects on a person who is called by God, anointed by God, empowered by God, and casts God aside for the world and what it has for him."
The real clues to the orientation of Prakash M. are revealed when he talks of:

Interesting too, is the identification of Jesus with Balaam in the 1935 Soncino Edition of The Talmud, translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices by Jacob Shacter and H. Freedman. A photocopy of the relevant passages was reproduced in Elizabeth Dilling's "The Plot Against Christianity:
"Turning to Exhibit 114 which is Sanhedrin 106a-106b mentioned above, we see the likening of Jesus to the supposed act of Balaam in causing 24,000 Israelites to go whoring and die of plague (some 1450 years before Christ was born). He is due for his 'reward' for this infamy. His mother, Mary, is 'She who...played the harlot with carpenters...They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation...he was thirty-three or thirty- four years old'. Another says: 'I...have seen Balaam's Chronicle in which it states, "Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phineas the Robber killed him". The footnote explains:
'Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus.' And the mother of Jesus is identified, the four deaths enumerated, and: '...all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phineas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilate, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel'.
Verifying the Jewish Ency. account above on Balaam being Jesus in the Talmud we see: 'in the case of the wicked Balaam: whatever you find written about him, lecture upon it to his disadvantage" (Exh.115). Christian Churches are likened to tents for Baal prostitution, with old women outside, young ones inside to get customers drunk and disrobe and worship the 'IDOL', Jesus, in Baal manner, by prostitution. (Exh. 112)."

OK - I do not know whether there has been a revision of The Talmud. However, this is the equation friend Prakash M. makes; and probably the Pope would not be surprised that he would be so vilified as was his Master, Our Lord, Jesus Christ!

Prakash M. hollers: "My Challenge - Prove it or withdraw your claims, if you are honest!" Unfortunately, he does not define "it"... In any event, Prakash M. has demonstrated such hostility to the Popes in Rome and to his fellow Christians that I should not be prepared to examine any more of his diatribes.

I repeat what I wrote to another man:

Furthermore, that you should equate Pope John Paul II with "an anti Christ" is only additional evidence of the bankruptcy of your own Catholicity. You, of course, know better than the pope. In your mind, you are the arbiter of Catholicity. May God have mercy on you and all SSPXers as He has had mercy on me, and bring us all to the fullness of the Faith. We are all subject to "the test".

This is what I focus upon:

I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity incarnate;

He was NOT a liar; he was NOT a con-man;

He promised to be with HIS Church until the end of time;

The promise of binding and loosening was given to St Peter and ALL his successors (good, bad, murdered, murderers, pirates, saints, etc.) in the proper exercise of their mission.

Even if I follow the Blaise Pascall "wager" method, how can I lose?

I wish him well and, in the fullness of time, God's Blessing.



F.John Loughnan



1. http://www.tippusultan.org/even7.htm ("On the Tiger Trail", by S. Chandrashekar)
http://www.tippusultan.org/biog2h.htm ("Tipu Sultan Secular ruler beyond doubt", by Prof. Sheik Ali)
http://www.123indiainfo.com/travel/karnatka_main.htm (Karnataka)
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia7.htm (Tipu Sultan--Villain or Hero?, edited by Sita Ram Goel)
2. http://www.tpwmi.com/balaam.html (Balaam)





From: "John L..." <<a href="/cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=F000000001&a=10890220451088964448&mailto=1&to=john@nethow.com&msg=MSG972781812.4&start=874561&len=26926&src=&type=x" target="_top">john@nethow.com>
Reply-To: <john@nethow.com>
To: <john@nethow.com>
Subject: Fr. Leen on ignorance
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:50:06 +0800

"It is usual that men, when they have not a clear grasp of first principles, allow their own personal experiences to dictate their judgements on matters about which they have to express an opinion.  Their very sincerity so far from preserving them from this illogical tendency, so fruitful in error, renders them, on the contrary, all the more exposed to it."  Edward Leen, C.S.Sp., "What is Education?"  Sheed & Ward, New York, 1944.  p. 27.

I venture to comment that this analysis is very true of 99% of those who form a judgement on the matter of Karol Wojtyla's claim to the papacy.  Far from being in possession of what Fr. Leen is happy to call "first principles," most men are quite content never to so much as attempt to obtain a working knowledge of them.  And yet they form a very strongly held judgement (if that term will bear being press-ganged into service to represent such a frivolous business) on the matter.

How many defenders of that heretic have behaved like Catholics and gone to the recommended authorities to see how the faithful ought to react to such a situation?  How many have read through the chief theologians presented by Holy Church as our teachers ("Doctors") in these matters?  How many have actually sought to understand distinctions such as "material/formal" before preaching their ignorance to unsuspecting victims around the world?

The answers to these questions is that, sadly, almost none, if any, of Wojtyla's defenders have done ANY serious study on ANY of the relevant subjects, and we know this because even when they refer to authorities upon which they claim to rely, like John of St. Thomas, THEY CAN'T QUOTE THEM. In other words, they make it up as they go along.

And, as Fr. Leen has said, so long ago, this is precisely (at least in most cases) because they don't know any different.  Their ignorance is so profound that the very existence of relevant principles is unknown to them. One cannot search for that which one does not suspect exists.  In other words, they make it up as they go along because they think that is their only choice.

It's a frightening thought.

********************************



October 27, 2000

Dear Mr L...,

The following "De fide" dogmas are extracted from "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", by Ludwig Ott; Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974 edition:

1. "The Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ." p. 272.

2. "Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption FOR ALL TIME." p.274. Emphasis added.

3. "Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution." p.276.

4. "The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops." p. 278.

5. "Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction." p.279.

6. "According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and FOR ALL TIME." p.282. Emphasis added.

7. "The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome." p.282.

8. "The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, NOT MERELY in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church." p.285.  Emphasis added.

9. "The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra." p.286.

10. "By virtue of Divine right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses." p.289.

11. "In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible." p.297.

12. "The Church founded by Christ is unique and one. "p.302.

13. "The Church founded by Christ is holy." p.304.

(Despite the despicable lives of many of its popes, bishops, clergy and laity over the WHOLE of her history - the disciples who left Jesus when he said that it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood; despite Jesus himself making a priest and bishop of Judas - who was a precursor type of the sede-vacantists!; despite he who was to be the Prince of the Apostles denying Christ himself; despite popes who would be murderers, rapists, thieves (one was even a pirate), adulterers, fornicators - the whole gammit of sins! )

14. "The Church founded by Christ is Catholic." p.306.

15. "The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and WHO ARE NOT SEPARATED FROM THE UNITY OF THE CONFESSION OF THE FAITH, and FROM THE UNITY OF THE LAWFUL COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH." (Sent. Certa.) p.309. Emphasis added.

This is a short list of Catholic Dogmas required to be believed by Catholics.

You call yourselves Catholics, but the truth is that you are your own petty popes, sifters of "tradition" and the scriptures, no less than any other apostate or heretic in past times. But you are worse - you and your fellow apostates effectively call Christ a liar in respect of his  promises to Peter and the Church in Matthew.

I am quite conversant with the sede-vacantist theory and repudiate it totally. When Hutton Gibson was Secretary of the Australian Latin Mass Society, Michael Foley was National President, and I was National Vice-President (a sinecure position). I have also been associated with Gordon Bateman of Geelong (now so-called Gordon Cardinal Bateman, Papal Secretary to Pope Pius XIII - the former Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher). They and you are apostates in arms - even though you might excoriate one another! After an association of some 23 years with the SSPX (a schismatic and excommunicant from 1988 to 1997) I have no intention of once more denying Christ and HIS vicar!!!

In "Reply(ing) to All" - when replying to Prakash Mascarenhas/"Luke Virgil Hannah" - I was unaware that the CC to "john@nethow.com" was to the pertinacious one - John L...!  I instruct you to cease and desist from sending any further e-mail (or any other communication) to me. To ensure that this instruction is complied with, I will be blocking any such attempt. At the same time, I sincerely hope that you take stock of your position and repent - as did Peter AND Paul - for YOU are persecuting Jesus Christ himself.

********************************



From: "Helen L..." <helen@nethow.com>
Reply-To: <helen@nethow.com>
To: "John Loughnan" <jloughnan@hotmail.com>
CC: "Grossklas@Earthlink. Net" <grossklas@earthlink.net>
Subject: Final challenge

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:39:06 +0800

Dear John,

Sad to see somebody who saw the evil way back then return to the vomit.

"Sad" hardly expresses it, actually. Your "arguments" are nothing of the sort.  None of these dogmas is contradicted by our view of Karol Wojtyla.

Essentially you have two bases for your stand.  Firstly, the Church is indefectible, and secondly, Holy Church is composed of those who profess the true faith and are subject to the pope.  As a matter of fact, both of these dogmas are denied by you in one mess of pottage.

You mis-define the indefectibility of Holy Church, and in fact you wreck any sane understanding of the dogma, by attempting to make Holy Church a disunited, undisciplined, error-ridden, sect, whose unity consists in nothing but that its members claim the holy name, "Catholic."  Nothing else unites them.  They profess whatever doctrines they like, with no danger of sanctions from "rome."  They disobey in any matter they choose, such as birth control, and the official representatives of your sect (parish "priests" and "bishops") simply justify their disobedience, with once again, no danger of sanctions applied by "rome."  In other words, you mis-define indefectibility because you have mis-defined Holy Church.

Even the very quote you present from Ott proves you entirely wrong, for it states perfectly clearly that Holy Church consists of those "who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and WHO ARE NOT SEPARATED FROM THE UNITY OF THE CONFESSION OF THE FAITH, and FROM THE UNITY OF THE LAWFUL COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH."

But you, on your own, home-baked, authority, invert this completely and suppose that all those Novus Ordo attendees who disbelieve in the Real Presence (over 80% of US Catholics, for example) are in fact members of Holy Church.  Why do you refuse to believe Ott when he teaches (p. 311), "Among members of the Church are not to be counted, ...Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church."???

Why?  Because you love the darkness, John.  At least, that is what Our Lord and St. Paul teach us.  That's why you have left the honourable resistance to V2 and returned to the vomit of its filthy, odious, heretical depravity, and to the defence of those who have crucified the Mystical Body, as they once crucified its Head.  You WILL not follow Ott because you use him only to justify your apostasy, NOT to learn the truth.  Prove me wrong - I'd like nothing better.  In the mean time you scream at an opponent then shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.  Frankly, it is childish.

As for the continuing existence of the unity of Holy Church during an extended interregnum, you might read what an eminent Doctor of Theology wrote on the subject last century, before making up your own ill-conceived ideas. http://www.sedevacantist.org/theology/oreilly.html

Your calumnious attack on St. Peter as though he was guilty of apostasy by denying Our Blessed Redeemer prior to Pentecost is merely the stock-in-trade of all defenders of heretical depravity.  By this ill-conceived and revolting comparison you merely demonstrate that you believe that nothing of significance happened when the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.  That you think that such a sin as St. Peter committed prior to receiving the Holy Ghost was in any way comparable with the denial of Christ after Pentecost is evidence of a perverse and carnal mind, of a kind which was shared by the Pharisees.  Not perceiving what was spiritual, they too judged completely falsely.  Turning to the events in Antioch, what was St. Peter's response when corrected by St. Paul?  St. Cyprian tells us, "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come.  Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal."

How does this reaction compare with that of Montini or Wojtyla, or any of their "bishops"?  Tell me when any of that crowd has shown the slightest interest in listening to reason over objections to V2 and its aftermath?

Your own experience in the Latin Mass Society proves abundantly that the Australian bishops imposed the Novus Ordo ruthlessly, with no concern whatsoever for the legitimate objections of some of the faithful.  Those men "pertinaciously loved their own opinions" as you know so well from bitter experience.

Before you suggest that Gordon Bateman (another inventor of doctrine) and I have anything in common, take another look at the house you inhabit.  You are in the same glass edifice as Matthew Fox and "Cardinal" Roger Mahoney.

Should I suggest that because your views coincide with theirs in the important matter of Karol Wojtyla's claim to the papacy that therefore you are identical with them?  I'm sure you'd find that very offensive.  In any case, you and Gordon have more in common with each other than he and I have.

After all, you both adhere to false popes, and you both make it up as you go along.

Now, you won't hear from me again.  So block me or not, it makes no difference.  And in case you misunderstand my actions, let me make it clear that far from imposing on non-sedevacantists who keep their views to themselves, I only ever "excoriate" actual public DEFENDERS of heresy and its proponents.  People like you who invent LIES to excuse the wolves are doing nothing but adjusting the wool on their scaly hides, and thus enable them all the better to get amongst the sheep.  These creatures GLORY in their crimes.  They haven't asked you to defend them, nor do they ever defend themselves, for they do not believe they need defence (remember, Vatican 2 is a "New Pentecost").  They spend all their energy PROMOTING their heresies, while useful idiots like you spend your energy telling lies on their behalf, so that the faithful who do become alarmed can be soothed and led quietly to the slaughter.  How much innocent blood do you want on your hands?

Do yourself (and Holy Church) a favour and look up "defenders of heretics" in the Code.  Then sweat.

If it ever occurs to you that your second taste of the V2 vomit is no sweeter than your first, then please feel free to discuss it with me.  You demonstrate willingness to discuss the issues and my attitude will change entirely.

********************************



From: John Loughnan [mailto:jloughnan@hotmail.com]
Sent: 28 October 2000 7:59 PM
To: helen@nethow.com
Cc: grossklas@earthlink.net; jamesakin@usa.net
Subject: Final Challenge - Begone!

Dear Mr L...,

Further to your e-mail message of Fri, 27 Oct 2000 (ostensibly from "Helen L..." <helen@nethow.com> ), I reply:

The source of your language and tone is unmistakeably discernable: You gloat over the trials and tribulations of Holy Mother Church, Her ecclesiastics and people.

As for me:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, Our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

I believe in the truth of the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, who promised:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be looses also in heaven." Matt 16:18-19.

I do NOT believe that Our Lord ought to have qualified those words by limiting them to the pre-Vatican II period and the pre-Vatican II popes.

On the other hand, YOU believe that The Catholic Church suddenly became invisible as a result of Vatican II, and that the popes, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I and John Paul II are anti-popes; apostates; heretics,  and those who are in communion with them and her, likewise apostates and heretics. You, and others like you, exalt yourselves to the pinnacle of "the knowers". YOU ought to be believed rather than the popes in Rome.

You believe that those who adhere to the above popes and the visible Church are partakers of "VOMIT".

Well, sir, I will NOT play your game. I will NOT take any notice of YOUR rules. I will not recognize your "logic" as anything less than that of Satanic "logic"!

Holy Michael the Archangel, defend us in the hour of battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God restrain him we humbly pray; and do thou, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust down to hell Satan and all wicked spirits who wander the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

And I say unto you: Get thee behind me Satan.

Begone!

********************************





A Musing

Aarti is, simply, a side issue. The crux of the matter is that NO evidence has been produced to prove that the "marking" was THE sign of Shiva; Nor that the woman was anything other than a Catholic married lady; nor (in the event of the contrary being the fact) that the Pope was aware and in favor of receiving the alleged "mark".

In any event, consider the following regarding "Aarti" - not that it really matters!:


From: http://jesus2000india.org/FAQ.html

Copyright © 1999 - Catholic Bishops' Conference of India All rights reserved.
Developed, designed, hosted and maintained by
Investment Research and Information Services Limited

http://jesus2000india.org/FAQ.html

The Real Face of Christians and Christianity

Frequently Asked Questions

Conversion in India
Christianity
The Faith

The Missions in India
The Church
Funds

Conversion in India

 

Who has initiated the process of inter-religious dialogue?
It is true that Indian philosophy propagates the principle of Sarvdharma Sadbhav and Vasudev kutumbakum, but at the same time it is interesting to note that in the past three decades, most initiatives in the area of inter-religious dialogue have come from the Christians. This initiative is expressed in the Christian theologians reflecting ever more deeply on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and other leading religions. They have also taken up to writing books on comparative religions, where Christianity is looked at along with other religions or certain aspects of other religions. Several well researched books by Christian scholars have been published on themes like Veda and Bible as Word of God; A Philosophy of Devotion: Ramanuja, St. Bonaventure and G.Marcel; Bhakti and Franciscan Spirituality; Upanishads, Gita and the Bible; Salvation in Hinduism and Christianity; Redemption Hindu and Christian; Dharma according to Manu and Moses; Christian and Hindu Ethics; Upnishads, Gita and Bible; Mysticism East and West; Bhakti: Hindu and Christian and host of other titles.

Besides this, a number of ashrams by Christian sanyasis have been opened all over India and not just on the banks of the Ganges, Cauvery but also at Rishikesh and Haridwar. Christians have also adapted indigenous cultural expressions in their way of worship such as the celebration of Holy Mass squatting on the ground with dhupa aarti, pushpa aarti, deepa aarti, tilak and so on.(Emphasis added).




***************************************************



http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/07pope1.htm

rediff.com asked Father Pravin Fernandes, co-ordinator, Catholic Communications Centre, Bombay, to provide information about the Pope's mass in Delhi on Sunday for the benefit of non-Catholics and the laity. Readers can watch the webcast and read Father Fernandes's commentary for illumination.

<snip>

An important part of the mass is a prolonged prayer recited by the celebrant, which in this case is the Holy Father, which gives praise and thanksgiving to God and consecrates the bread and wine. After the consecration, Catholics believe that Christ is truly, really and substantially present under the species of bread and wine.

A solemn moment when he raises the host and the wine is called the elevation. The faithful bow in reverence at this point.

After the consecration, the assembled congregation, either in word or song, express their belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a high point of this act of worship.

Another symbolic gesture of worship to Jesus Christ present in the form of bread and wine is the Indian AARTI. (Emphasis added.) We have a tray decorated with flowers, incense sticks and lamps raised in a circular motion in praise.

The final section in this service is the distribution of holy communion to the faithful. This is reminiscent of the multiplication of loaves by which Jesus fed the multitudes. The breaking and distribution of bread was also a Jewish custom usually performed by the head of the family.

During communion, Catholics believe they share in the very body and blood of Christ.

We must remember that before Jesus returned to his Father, he had a meal with his disciples and this meal was a memorial of his death and resurrection and a sign of love and unity.



*********************************************



Go to Quotes Page

Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page