It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:05 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 To Read or Not To Read 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Even though the author was not Catholic I would recommend The Sickness unto Death. - Kierkegaard

Traditional Catholics can very become very easily distracted with worldy convention. They can get cuaght up and confuse the realities of healthiness and holiness with "normalness". Even those with the best intention can end up seeking after the resoration of old cultural conventions, social norms, or what have you, instead of setting their sights upon sainthood.

I suppose ultimately it should be remembered that many saints would be placed in an institution if they were alive today.

Kierkegaard's writting confronts this. The Sickness unto Death is despair. Despair is really just wanting to be approved in the eyes of other people rather than the eyes of God.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Brogan,

I'd be interesting in your reasoning for proposing the writings of a self-proclaimed heretic as a "must read" for Catholics.

Quote:
Even those with the best intention can end up seeking after the resoration of old cultural conventions, social norms, or what have you, instead of setting their sights upon sainthood.


But wouldn't it be indeed THE BEST of intentions to seek a Kingdom under the dictates of our Lord and King where our neighbor has the best chance of thriving and moving toward salvation instead of leaving him and his donkey in the ditch while one wanders off in search of his own sainthood? I don't know of any saint who would look complacently on aberrant "cultural conventions", social norms, or even "what have you" :)

Also, I'm not sure that despair is a malady much recognizable in the general population anymore. They have enough video games and entertainments to amuse themselves to death before the despair comes calling.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:

But wouldn't it be indeed THE BEST of intentions to seek a Kingdom under the dictates of our Lord and King where our neighbor has the best chance of thriving and moving toward salvation instead of leaving him and his donkey in the ditch while one wanders off in search of his own sainthood? I don't know of any saint who would look complacently on aberrant "cultural conventions", social norms, or even "what have you"


The saints would not be seeking after or inspiring within themselves a desire for worldly things like status. Uniformity with the Will of God would rather be their concern. Seeking after the restoration of old conventions for their own sake is different than seeking after the common good in society for the salvation fo souls. To employ tactics that aid in the salvation of souls was obviously not what I was condemning. What I was mainly getting at is that pride and caring about what other human beings think of you is a problem. If you look to others human beings, instead of Christ, to find out the truth about who you are you are in err. Most people are doing this without even realizing it.

Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Also, I'm not sure that despair is a malady much recognizable in the general population anymore. They have enough video games and entertainments to amuse themselves to death before the despair comes calling.


Kierkegaard uses the word despair to communicate a different concept than the common meaning of that word. You should read it. It's a pretty difficult read but it's really relavent nowadays; perhaps more so now than when he wrote it.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
The saints would not be seeking after or inspiring within themselves a desire for worldly things like status.


No, Brogan, and nothing I wrote said they would.

Quote:
restoration of old conventions for their own sake


Go very slowly here, and let's make sure I hear what you are saying. Define "conventions". If you mean something like what time breakfast is served I might agree with you. However, I fear that you are talking about some things much more important in a good society-one approved by God. Courtesy, modesty, the right-raising of children are these "conventions"? Glad handing in front of the altar, and talking loudly? Are these OK? Do you think the small things don't add up to or get mirrored in the large things? Do I mis-read you? Because what you wrote sounds close to what a Novus Ordo adherent would say about wearing shorts to their 'liturgy", and slouching back in the pew at all moments. I'd be interested in some examples of what some of these old things are that you might fear will be sought after for their own sake?

Quote:
Kierkegaard uses the word despair to communicate a different concept than the common meaning of that word. You should read it.


And I say, based upon the fact that it is not an approved source of theological and philosophical thought and has no Imprimatur, that until I read the vast number of books that do, I should not even begin to think about it.


Quote:
... getting at is that pride and caring about what other human beings think of you is a problem. If you look to others human beings, instead of Christ,..



If this is your goal I suggest Thomas 'A Kempis over the Lutheran Existentialist.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:28 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Quote:
The saints would not be seeking after or inspiring within themselves a desire for worldly things like status.


No, Brogan, and nothing I wrote said they would.


You see I was trying to explain to you what I was talking about not trying to infer that you had said the opposite. Status is an example of a undesirable convention.

Quote:

Go very slowly here, and let's make sure I hear what you are saying. Define "conventions".


A person is errantly seeking after convention when they are deciding their actions based upon the opinions of other human beings rather than the truth. It is also a problem if one thinks about themselves in light of the way other people veiw them rather than what Christ knows about them. That could be self loathing or puffed up. Neither of these are the truth about them.


Quote:
If you mean something like what time breakfast is served I might agree with you.


Or also what it is that one eats at different times of the day. Someone could perhaps not order pancakes at 7pm becuase that is breakfast food and others might think they are weird. Worrying about this in and of itself is a problem.



Quote:
However, I fear that you are talking about some things much more important in a good society-one approved by God. Courtesy, modesty, the right-raising of children are these "conventions"? Glad handing in front of the altar, and talking loudly? Are these OK?


No is the answer to both questions.

Quote:
Do you think the small things don't add up to or get mirrored in the large things? Do I mis-read you?


Almost altogether.

Quote:
Because what you wrote sounds close to what a Novus Ordo adherent would say about wearing shorts to their 'liturgy", and slouching back in the pew at all moments.


"Sounds close" This has more to do with you than it has to do with what I wrote. I would not be on this board if I thought such nonsense. It's a bit offensive for you to have assumed that I was implying all types of awful things that I never said becuase, to you, what I did say "sounds close".

Quote:
I'd be interested in some examples of what some of these old things are that you might fear will be sought after for their own sake?


Almost anything could be sought after wrongfully. If one wants others to esteem him he may do objectively good actions with prideful intentions.

What I see is an obsession with normality over authentic sainthood. Much of the psychologistic thinking of the modern world has crept into the minds of unattentive Catholics. Would it be wrong for an unmarried man to go live on the street and pray all day for the rest of his life? Many would say yes. Of course one should only do whatever it is that God wills for them. Perhaps those who are shocked by the radical nature of such a life could try and say that their opposition is based upon this. "I don't think that is your vocation". But the horror in and of itself is indicative of something else going on.

One's negative reaction to a man who says he may do this might be indicative of something really problematic. Even when they are told of Saints such as St. Benedict Joseph Labre, they still try and find some grounds for calling such activity madness. They will race from one objection to the next without really realizing what they are doing. The reasons that they state are not the cuase for their feeling of abhorance. It is rather that their feeling is being instatiated into various arguments. The feeling is causing the arguments rather than the truth of the argument cuasing someone to have a corresponding emotion. They are having an emotional reflex rather than a true belief.

A healthy way to respond to someone who proposed such a life would be to calmly ask them if they really believe that is the will of God.

Other examples could be found in people's reactions against defending the unborn with force or beleving in conspiracy theories.

But as I said above it might just be pridefully seeking the approval of others.


Quote:
And I say, based upon the fact that it is not an approved source of theological and philosophical thought and has no Imprimatur, that until I read the vast number of books that do, I should not even begin to think about it.


It's really a work of Philosophy. Its interesting to think that we shouldn't read anything else until we have finished reading everything with an imprimatur. Perhaps it's true. I suppose I shouldn't watch a movie or read a novel until I have finished all those writtings either. I guess the same would go for reading this board too. This is a radical stance. You're probably right. I honestly had never thought of it that way.

This is a worldly suggestion but I guess I should ammended my recommendation. If one is planning on reading something without an imprimatur even though they have not finished all the works with an imprimatur first, then perhaps you should consider Sickness unto Death.

I haven't thought about whether or not we should or are even obliged to forgo the reading of non-imprimatured works before having studied all the imprimatured writtings. If we are so obliged than I withdrawl my recommendation to those who still have more to read.

Quote:
If this is your goal I suggest Thomas 'A Kempis over the Lutheran Existentialist.


That was the one spiritual writting St. Benedict Joseph Labre chose to take with him on his life on the streets. It's an excellant suggestion. I was not meaning to imply that I thought Kierkegaard was the most important writter ever or that Sickness unto Death was the best work ever produced. I simply believe it to contain a lot of truth very relavent to our present day that I haven't seen spelled out elsewhere.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post IMPRIMATURS? (& Movies Recommended)
Dear Brogan (and Geoff), Pax et Bonum.

IMPRIMATUR AND DATE OF FIRST PRINTING
I have read with interest your correspondence. Here is a thought that might bridge some gaps. When one wishes to read works of theology or philosophy, we should seek out only books that bear an imprimatur -- and those that are from the Traditional Bishops. I have seen an imprimatur in books post-Vatican II that were approved by Modernist bishops. Who know the dangers that are therein!

This is why I suggested that the date of the FIRST edition be noted if one has a copy on hand and therefore can conveniently find this date of the first printing?

Might we also agree that it would be good to note the word "Imprimatur" as well as the author and date of first printing.
Just a small effort so that we have peace about suggesting published works to one another in this very-spiritually-dangerous age in which God has chosen for each of us to exist and hold the Faith. Great sufferings--but great graces!

MOVIES:
As for movies/videos, you're on your own, because we KNOW that even the older "Hollywood" movies on Fatima, Lourdes, and now the latest travesty Thérèse (on the Little Flower), are filled with error, Hollywood's version of "truth," and these, sadly, always lack authenticity-- dangerous to adolescents if they are not taught the REAL truth.

CARTOON MOVIES:
The cartoon versions are no better as to embellishments from the producers. I would strongly suggest one watch these with their children in order to correct the errors and outright falsehoods protrayed therein. It would seem okay to place little sidebar entertaining fictional characters in the story, as is done to keep the interest of the children, like the street vendor who continually and comically tries to sell a new tilma to Juan Diego in the cartoon version about the appearances of Our Lady of Guadalupe', but even those are unnecessary to the story, as far as I am concerned, since the true story itself is very exciting and miraculous!

There are several movies that I would recommend: Come to the Stable, Call Northside 777(true story), I Confess, The Passion of the Christ (true story), The Scarlet and the Black (true story), and A Man for All Seasons (true story), Padre on Horseback:the Legendary Story of Father Kino(true story).

Very misleading would be, sadly: Shoes of the Fisherman, Thérèse, and The Inn of the Sixth Happiness and altho' they can be somewhat moving and edifying, the Hollywood epics about Christ are filled with error, IMHO, therefore, one must be well versed in Biblical truth, I would think. Some of the producers of these older movies about Christ were Jews and perhaps this is why there is always, here and there, in these older movies, which are generally well done as far as cinematography and storyline, etc., , a slight twist of the Truth, oui?

I hope this is all helpful. If not, let me know - gently - because all of this vigorous debate, altho' manly when done in charity, is out of my league emotionally. :roll:

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:17 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Midwest USA
New post 
Abba,

This is very useful information. I do have one comment/question about the Imprimatur. It doesn't seem right to me that a publisher should change something in a book and then keep the Imprimatur of a (now dead) pre-Vatican II bishop. As an example, I'm thinking about the various catechisms that TAN republishes. They have been all "updated" to account for the relaxed Communion fast, disappearance of Ember days, etc. but retain the Imprimatur of the original.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Brogan,
I hope you don't mind that I split this out because it was getting a life of its own, and I didn't want it to impede the orginal topic, but you've been a good sport to put up with me til this point, and I'll presume your graciousness.

Brogan wrote:
I would not be on this board if I thought such nonsense. It's a bit offensive for you to have assumed that I was implying all types of awful things


I am most sorry. I didn't assume anything. I was just trying to understand what you were saying, and I thought if I gave some examples you could put us straight. Thank you. You cleared that part of it up, and again, I apologise if my manner of setting it out offended you.

We are really talking about two things here, or at least that's how I perceive it. We've got the matter of what a Catholic should be reading which I'll leave for a bit to try to solve this other riddle you have posed.

Here is what got me started:

Brogan wrote:
Traditional Catholics can very become very easily distracted with worldy convention. They can get cuaght up and confuse the realities of healthiness and holiness with "normalness". Even those with the best intention can end up seeking after the resoration of old cultural conventions, social norms, or what have you...


I'm not trying to start a sparring match on this point. In fact, it sounded rather interesting. It might be the kind of thing you'd want to put in the "Discussion" section with suitable elaboration. The problem is, for me, that I still don't know what you mean by this. You've told me what it DOESN"T mean, but I'm still without a clue as to what it DOES mean. It's not a big deal. Perhaps, you just want to drop it, and we're boring people to death. I'm just thinking that most traditional Catholics I know are forced to move away from worldly convention, but are you saying that they are more prone to it than the average person?


Brogan wrote:
Much of the psychologistic thinking of the modern world has crept into the minds of unattentive Catholics


I see the process as somewhat the reverse. We are born into the mess, and one limb at a time, we try to extricate ourselves. Sometimes not very successfully. The problem isn't that it's "creeping in", it's oozing out of every pore. :)

I'm also not sure about this other thing you keep circling around: I don't know that itinerant solitary saints would be much challenged by society unless they gained a substantial following and became troublesome.



On the other matter of your choice or reading matter, Abba pretty well got to where I was going first.

Brogan wrote:
It's really a work of Philosophy.


And I believe the Church insists that Philosophy is the handmaiden of the superior science: Theology. I'm not crazy enough (yet) to think that some one will read only approved books (although--hey not a bad idea!), so go ahead and read the newspaper, and this forum, if you must, but I would steer clear of such a book on serious matters by a man who is obviously playing for the wrong team, and might just be wanting to sign you on as a good prospect.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:05 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Brogan wrote:
Traditional Catholics can very become very easily distracted with worldy convention. They can get cuaght up and confuse the realities of healthiness and holiness with "normalness". Even those with the best intention can end up seeking after the resoration of old cultural conventions, social norms, or what have you...


I'm not trying to start a sparring match on this point. In fact, it sounded rather interesting. It might be the kind of thing you'd want to put in the "Discussion" section with suitable elaboration. The problem is, for me, that I still don't know what you mean by this. You've told me what it DOESN"T mean, but I'm still without a clue as to what it DOES mean.


Pridefully seeeking after status or approval from other human beings in dress, or ways of acting. That is what I am talking about.

Here's an example. It is good and holy to dress modestly. Everyone is required to do this. Yet it could be done for the purpose of impressing others. "Oh look how pius I am".



Quote:
I'm just thinking that most traditional Catholics I know are forced to move away from worldly convention, but are you saying that they are more prone to it than the average person?

Much of the psychologistic thinking of the modern world has crept into the minds of unattentive Catholics


Yeah I think I was backwards on that point. Traditional Catholics aren't more prone to this prideful activity than pagans are. Its not as though they were at one time completely spotless and now are begining to become infected by the modern world. It is rather that we haven't become completely decontaminated from this. This is happening more with the pagans in modern world than the Traditional Catholics. We're just are not completely rid of it yet.

Something specific to Trads is that sometimes they don't see a problem with thinking this way at all. They think this convention seeking is the real traditional way of behaving so it should be sought after. What I mean is I get the impression from some trads that, had they lived in his day, they would have condemned St. Benedict Joseph Labre and called his actions improper. No "normal polite people" would ever think of such "madness" as living on the street. This is just a type of puffed up vainity. They would probably also condemn the madness of others like Blessed Angela of Foligno. She once wrapped herself in dead fish, climbed to the top of the local church tower, and stood there naked screaming down to the town square "Everyone look at Angela the worst and most dispicable creature. She must be despised."

I've been on other tradional boards where people have suggested that people wearing poor dress should not be admitted to assit at mass. I'm not talking about people who wear shorts to mass becuase they don't have any respect. I'm talking about people who would advocate kicking homeless people out of mass becuase they stink or are not wearing a nice suit. This way of thinking isn't Catholic. It never was, it never will be.

Kicking homeless people out of mass is an extreme example. There are other little ways that people act in this way.

I've seen on other traditional catholic boards people will scoff at or refuse to discuss things that only crazy people believe. So any type of conspiracy, radical idea, or "sedevacantist leaning" discussion will not be talked about. "Normal people" don't even consider such things you see. (You have to agree to this to be part of the "normal" camp, nudge nudge wink wink.)

It is my belief that this kind of thinking is connected to carring about what others think of you. Even though they have been rejected by the world for following SSPX, they still need to know they are "moderate" and so they have to oppose the more extremist ways of thinking. Where is the consideration of truth in this process? It's lost becuase people can't endanger their reputation of being "normal" within the clic they have chosen to associate themselves with.

Maybe certain sedevacantists will do this too. Now I believe it to be a fact that all the conclavists are completely wrong. But I suppose I could not even look into it becuase... what if they are right? Then I would have to be further ostricized by the world. Why if I started believing in conclavism my reputation would suffer immensely. I should really just be worrying about whether or not their claims are true. Only becuase they are incorrect should I not adhere to what they are saying. Not for other reasons like "what will people think of me."


Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
I guess I'm just not seeing the kinds of things you comment on to a very great extent. Sure, there are always going to be a few people in a large group that aren't your "cup of tea", but I don't let that bother, because it's going to happen where ever one goes.

I do agree with the people who say one should show up for Sunday Mass wearing the best and most formal one has to offer. Most traditional groups are more than happy to provide additional help to their less fortunate to help this happen.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:11 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Brogan wrote:

Quote:
Pridefully seeking after status or approval from other human beings in dress, or ways of acting. That is what I am talking about.

Here's an example. It is good and holy to dress modestly. Everyone is required to do this. Yet it could be done for the purpose of impressing others. "Oh look how pius I am".


Yes, it is good and holy to dress modestly and properly for the ocassion and everyone should do this. But even if my intention in dressing modestly and properly is to impress others, my actions are correct and actually give a good example to others. This does not scandalize them; it edifies them...they do not see my inner thoughts, whatever they may be. It is simply a good and Holy thing to dress modest and proper. My proper attire is not the problem, it is my pride and vanity. I suppose if one showed up to Mass every Sunday dressed in a sackcloth while dressing quite nicely during the week...this would be an outward manifestation of pride...saying "everyone, look how pius I am".


Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:44 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post Re: IMPRIMATURS? (& Movies Recommended)
Abba wrote:
Thérèse (on the Little Flower), are filled with error,


As I'm still relatively new to Traditionalism many things that other Catholics find error in I seem to miss such reference. Would you mind telling me what was wrong with this movie? I watched it before becoming trad, so of course I would miss whatever error is in there. But looking back still can't think of what might've been wrong with it. Thanks


Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Re: IMPRIMATURS? (& Movies Recommended)
Colin Fry wrote:
Abba wrote:
Thérèse (on the Little Flower), are filled with error,


As I'm still relatively new to Traditionalism many things that other Catholics find error in I seem to miss such reference. Would you mind telling me what was wrong with this movie? I watched it before becoming trad, so of course I would miss whatever error is in there. But looking back still can't think of what might've been wrong with it. Thanks


Dear Colin, Pax et Bonum.

I did not see the movie myself. I have Traditional Catholic friends who saw it and reported to me as follows (from an email) "What I objected to was the religious indifferentism: no scenes of her (Therese) assisting at Mass or praying before the Blessed Sacrament, for example. It was a touchy-feely movie that had no Catholic content to it, which is what Leonardo de Fillipis wanted to accomplish, it appears.

How beautiful would it have been for there to have been even one scene of the Mass of all ages in the movie? Alas, a man committed to the Novus Ordo and to the pontificate of Pope John Paul II couldn't permit himself to do that, could he?

It's a nice, emotional film that does not reveal the true Catholic soul of Saint Therese. That's my humble judgment. "


(emphasis mine)

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
Oh ok I see. But I got the impression as you said that it was "filled with errors." I don't think it was a very great job done. But I also don't think there was actually any error in it.


Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:06 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Corpus Christi and "Error" in Therese movie
Colin Fry wrote:
Oh ok I see. But I got the impression as you said that it was "filled with errors." I don't think it was a very great job done. But I also don't think there was actually any error in it.


Colin,

IMO, errors don't have to shout out that they are there. Subtle evils are even more dangerous because we don't notice them. Perhaps re-reading what was lacking in the depiction of Saint Therese's life will indicate to you how the Novus Ordo has allowed the error of subtle indifferentism (an error, for sure) to creep into that sect slowly and diabolically death-wielding to souls who lost or were never taught (depending on their year of birth) true devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.

If one thinks about the devastating results of this particular "error," one might see how evil it really is. Our Lord died in order to give us His Most Precious Body and Blood. Adoration is vital. If you can find time, please read yesterday's post by Dr. Droleskey on Corpus Christi at: http://www.christorchaos.com/MarchingWithOurKing.html

A certain discrete "indifferentism" - the frog in the pan of cool water. . . . :cry:

Have a holy and happy day, Colin. Thanks for the brief discussion. God Bless you, brother in Christ.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
I did see the St. Therese movie a while back, and, yes if was a fairly miserable attempt at representing Catholicism. It totally lacked any understanding of what the supernatural was all about. Based upon the thorough naturalism that pervaded the film, a non-Catholic that I know asked me: "Wouldn't it have been better if she had just stayed home to take care of her sick father?" With only what the film showed, one would be hard pressed to answer that question. They also had the Carmelites singing in the vernacular. Would it have killed them to retain the Latin for the services? Other than that I don't remember much of it. It was a real snooze with a poorly developed plot.

Not that I'm a great recommender of the film industry in general, but if you really just have to see a film, you might try "The Exorcism of Emily Rose". No, don't take the children--not for the reasons I'd normally counsel this--but because some of the scenes are way too intense and frightening for a young audience, however, most of this film is a lot closer to presenting what Catholic spirituality should be than the St. Therese movie.


Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:07 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
I was wondering about that one. I've been wanting to see the Exorcism of Emily Rose, but wasn't sure if it was a decent one or not. I heard it was a bit doctored up from the real story, but as long as it is still fairly decent as to what COULD happen I wouldn't mind.


Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post 
This book was recommended to me, just thought I would pass this along.

Ratzinger's
Roman
Apostasy Symbolism

By Dr. Wiegand Siebel and Dr. Carl Angermayr
English Edition


The salvation of souls is in danger as never before. The truth is increasingly disregarded and trampled upon. Engage in the battle to save souls and spread the truth about the one true faith and the Church's situation by distributing resolutely Catholic writings. This booklet ($4.90) is especially suited for this.

You will receive generous
discounts:
For same-date multiple orders of
5 booklets-price per booklet: $4.65
10 booklets-price per booklet: $4.40
20 booklets-price per booklet: $3.90
30 booklets-price per booklet: $3.40
(p/h included)
Order from
Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church
131 N. 9th St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
USA

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Colin Fry wrote:
I was wondering about that one. I've been wanting to see the Exorcism of Emily Rose, but wasn't sure if it was a decent one or not. I heard it was a bit doctored up from the real story, but as long as it is still fairly decent as to what COULD happen I wouldn't mind.


My Wife was given a subscription to NetFlix by her sister. One of the movies she got was "The Exorcism of Emily Rose". It was quite good, as these sorts of things go, and painted the Catholics in a decent light. My Wife liked it, although I found it too intense for my tastes.

She also got a two DVD set of an Italian production on the life of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina.

It was subtitled in English, and was absolutely superb!

I will dig out the title and post it here later.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:51 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.