May 3, 2005 I want to make it perfectly clear about where I stand in regard to the current crisis in the Church: 1. I am a Roman Catholic who believes in all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, has taught, and always will teach, meaning the dogmas, doctrines, and long held practices that have been handed down through the ages through the Popes from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI, and all the bishops who have been (or are) truly united with the Popes. 2. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the currently reigning Supreme Pontiff, that is, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth. 3. I hold everything as stated in my original statement below. 4. I hold that the New Mass, as promulgated by Pope Paul VI in the ORIGINAL LATIN VERSION, is a valid Mass, however it is inferior to the Tridentine Mass in that it does not clearly teach the Catholic Faith, and in that it is open to many abuses which were (are) impossible with the Tridentine Mass. 5. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is the original statement I wrote probably a couple years ago: I want to make it perfectly clear about where I stand in regard to the current crisis in the Church. 1. I am a Roman Catholic who believes in all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, has taught, and always will teach, meaning the dogmas, doctrines, and long held practices that have been handed down through the ages through the Popes from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II, and all the bishops who have been (or are) truly united with the Popes. 2. I believe that Pope John Paul II is the currently reigning Supreme Pontiff, that is, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth. 3. I DO NOT believe, as some do, that John Paul II is infallible in everything he says or does. I believe that he is not exempt from error except when he OFFICIALLY speaks as Pope pronouncing something ex cathedra or by way of the ordinary magisterium. Except in those cases, he is as subject to error as anyone else is. I hold that anyone, no matter how well known or how highly spoken of as being "faithful" to the Pope or the Church who believes that John Paul II is infallible in everything he says or does, is not even Catholic. They hold to something which the Catholic Church has never taught, does not teach, and never will or can teach. 4. I hold that the Pope has the power to make certain changes in the laws and practices of the Church, as this has been done by many Popes over the centuries, however, I DO NOT believe the Pope has the power or the authority to make changes arbitrarily, on his personal whim, or that are detrimental to the faith of Catholics. In fact, I challenge anyone to prove that he does by citing an infallible Papal or conciliar document or statement, or even by citing a solid Catholic reference work which shows such. For those of you who want to try, read the article "Pope, The" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia first. 5. I DO NOT believe that merely being named Cardinal by the Pope is an automatic guarantee of someones orthodoxy. Many men, who, during and before the reigh of Pope Pius XII, were condemned as heretics, were later named Cardinals by Pope John Paul II, and in the eyes of those who believe the Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, this means that these heretics are somehow made orthodox be- cause they believe that the Pope could (or would) never name a here- tic as a Cardinal. Wrong! 6. I DON'T believe in, or support ecumenism, that is "dialogue" with other religions, or any such garbage. No conversions have been effect- ed by "dialogue". Jesus Christ did not "dialogue" with the Pharisees, so there is no reason for Catholics to "dialogue" with heretics. These people, however 'sincere' they may be have nothing to teach Catholics about The Faith. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith, not "dialogued" with. 7. I hold that, as both Pope Paul VI and John Paul II have declared on 2 occsions each, that Vatican II is nothing more than a "pastoral" council. It declared no dogmas, and condemned no heresies. While it may have been a valid council, it did not do what a general Council does. In that respect, whether one accepts Vatican II or not is has nothing to do with whether a person is Catholic or not. What makes a person Catholic is accepting the dogmas & doctrines of the Catholic Faith, and living the Catholic faith to the best of one's ability. Some people, sometimes referred to as "conservative Catholics" try to convince everyone that unless you accept Vatican II as if it were some sort of "super Council", or as if it were an infallible Council like Vatican I, Trent, and those before them, then you are a "schismatic", an "integrist", and "ultratrad", a "rad trad" or whatever name they want to come up with this week. They will even go so far as to attempt to "interpret" what Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II meant when they said that Vatican II was a pastoral council, even quoting the very useful, but in some things outdated, Catholic Encyclopedia as though it were an infallible document to "prove" that Vatican II was an infallible coucil, which it was not. The next time a "conservative Catholic" tells you that Vatican II was infallible, ask him or her to produce a direct statement from either Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II in which either of these 2 popes said that Vatican II was an infallible Council. They won't be able to do it, because there are none. If there are, I would love to see them, and their source.