A Late October Liturgy Message

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thursday1 said:
Well, I wouldn’t say that it is “exactly what it would not be.” as that is implying that it is the exact opposite of Ad Hominem. It is Ad Hominem, but not purely, as you will find most logical fallacies are. I was a bit hasty, and forgot the exact fallacy that fits your question perfectly: Plurium Interrogationum (many questions). The most common example of this is “Are you still beating your wife?” There is no correct answer to this question, for both yes and no imply that you were at one point beating your wife, even if you never have.
Your question: “Why are you so afraid of the Truth?” Does not have a correct answer either. It starts with the unproven presupposition that Bear06 is afraid of the truth. If Bear06 denies that he (sorry if she) is afraid of the truth, he has not answered the question. But, if he gives any other answer, he affirms the presupposition that he is afraid of the Truth.
My advice is to answer “mu.”

I have a question for you, “Have you ever taken a logic class?”

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

P.S.
I’m just passing through, not intending to stay unless someone makes me. I have far more fun out by the “Back Fence.”

pip pip
Click to expand...
You must be afraid of the Truth too.
 
bear06 said:
Hey, go ahead and put me on ignore. I want to know the source and so do others who have asked you. If you can’t give a source, you should keep it to youself. I even said a name would suffice. You act as if this is a horrible request. It’s a request for a name.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about any source. You’re the only one who has a bug in your bonnet about it. Now you’ve managed to carry this foolishness over from another thread and hijacked this one.

You can’t always get what you want. But if you try real hard sometimes you get what you need.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Nobody cares about any source. You’re the only one who has a bug in your bonnet about it. Now you’ve managed to carry this foolishness over from another thread and hijacked this one.

You can’t always get what you want. But if you try real hard sometimes you get what you need.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t the first person to ask for it. Also, the last time, many asked and you refused.

When I posted, I was addressing this very thread. I wanted to know what the goal was in posting it. Of course, that still hasn’t been answered. I believe you were the one who wasn’t addressing the topic.
 
bear06 said:
I wasn’t the first person to ask for it. Also, the last time, many asked and you refused.

When I posted, I was addressing this very thread. I wanted to know what the goal was in posting it. Of course, that still hasn’t been answered. I believe you were the one who wasn’t addressing the topic.
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact, you are not only the first person to ask for it, you are the only person to ask for it.

I’ve never encountered a person more interested in bogging down a forum in specious arguments, out of context quotes, links of questionable provenance and off topic rants, all the while portraying themselves as the sole arbiter of what constitutes Catholic orthodoxy. You are truly unique in that respect, madam. :tiphat:
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Yes, in fact, you are not only the first person to ask for it, you are the only person to ask for it.

I’ve never encountered a person more interested in bogging down a forum in specious arguments, out of context quotes, links of questionable provenance and off topic rants, all the while portraying themselves as the sole arbiter of what constitutes Catholic orthodoxy. You are truly unique in that respect, madam. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Well, you might of missed this but I wasn’t the first.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1600115&postcount=12

And please, if you’re going to make a charge, back it up. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. This is why I question your version of the truth because you’ve shown on several occaisions to have an interesting view of reality. Don’t want a “rant” don’t respond. Like I said, feel free to make me an ignore buddy. Methinks you’re just a little mad because I’m gonna hold your feet to the fire on posting stories without posting a source. BTW, I missed the place where I questioned someone’s orthodoxy. Can you show it to me? Probably not because I asked.

I posted a query on this thread, dealing with this thread. If you don’t want the subject of a thread drifting, don’t make it do so. People tend to respond. I’m interested in the goal of the thread.
 
"bear06:
I posted a query on this thread, dealing with this thread. If you don’t want the subject of a thread drifting, don’t make it do so. People tend to respond. I’m interested in the goal of the thread.
Click to expand...
Then I will gladly answer you.
bear06 said:
So Alex, after reading this thread, a question came to me. I’m just curious to know what goal you hope to accomplish by posting it? Should we be thinking about rejection of the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc.?

It’s clear that you think that Pope Paul VI did some scandalous things. What do you hope to accomplish by spreading something that you think is scandalous?
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is to remind us of the devastation Bugnini caused in the Liturgy. The rejection of tradition, the protestantization, ect.

Don’t know where you got Vatican II from, most people here can tell you quite clearly what Vatican II did and did not call for, and Bugnini’s Liturgy was not called for.
 
bear06 said:
Well, you might of missed this but I wasn’t the first.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1600115&postcount=12

And please, if you’re going to make a charge, back it up. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. This is why I question your version of the truth because you’ve shown on several occaisions to have an interesting view of reality. Don’t want a “rant” don’t respond. Like I said, feel free to make me an ignore buddy. Methinks you’re just a little mad because I’m gonna hold your feet to the fire on posting stories without posting a source. BTW, I missed the place where I questioned someone’s orthodoxy. Can you show it to me? Probably not because I asked.

I posted a query on this thread, dealing with this thread. If you don’t want the subject of a thread drifting, don’t make it do so. People tend to respond. I’m interested in the goal of the thread.
Click to expand...
Oh no…you’re gonna hold my feet to the fire??? I’m quaking.

Your “sources” are about as trustworthy as a sneaking pollcat, blast your eyes.

The Truth does not require a hyperlink.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
You must be afraid of the Truth too.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra. . . (may I call you Zarathustra? Would you prefer Dr. Zarathustra?),
In that small statement we have Ad Hominem, Guilt By Association, Ad Ignorantiam, Begging the Question, and irrelevant conclusion.
This statement raises the questions “Why must I be afraid of the Truth?” and, “What do you take to be Truth?” (no weaseling out of this by saying there is only one Truth, that is not in contention, this question asks what your definition of Truth is.) If you had supplied any of your reasonings in your post, none of these questions would be necessary.
As far as I can fathom, you seem to like to remain obtuse. As a philosopher, I find this quite distressing. Yes, there are going to be things beyond our comprehension, but there is no reason to add to them unnecessarily.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Thursday1 said:
Zarathustra. . . (may I call you Zarathustra? Would you prefer Dr. Zarathustra?),
In that small statement we have Ad Hominem, Guilt By Association, Ad Ignorantiam, Begging the Question, and irrelevant conclusion.
This statement raises the questions “Why must I be afraid of the Truth?” and, “What do you take to be Truth?” (no weaseling out of this by saying there is only one Truth, that is not in contention, this question asks what your definition of Truth is.) If you had supplied any of your reasonings in your post, none of these questions would be necessary.
As far as I can fathom, you seem to like to remain obtuse. As a philosopher, I find this quite distressing. Yes, there are going to be things beyond our comprehension, but there is no reason to add to them unnecessarily.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
Oh, you’re a philosopher are you? Wow. I’m impressed. I’d love to know how many degrees you have too. I’m always impressed when people brag about their brilliance. I ain’t much fer fancy book learnin’ myself.

Calling me obtuse doesn’t alter the Truth one whit. And, by the way, if I engaged in personal attack, I wouldn’t sign my name “Yours in Christ.” But perhaps there’s a philosophical justification for hypocrisy. Love to hear it.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Oh, you’re a philosopher are you? Wow. I’m impressed. I’d love to know how many degrees you have too. I’m always impressed when people brag about their brilliance. I ain’t much fer fancy book learnin’ myself.

Calling me obtuse doesn’t alter the Truth one whit. And, by the way, if I engaged in personal attack, I wouldn’t sign my name “Yours in Christ.” But perhaps there’s a philosophical justification for hypocrisy. Love to hear it.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra, it seems some definitions are in order:
philosopher |f??läs?f?r| noun
a person engaged or learned in philosophy, esp. as an academic discipline.
ORIGIN Middle English : from a variant of Old French philosophe, via Latin from Greek philosophos ‘lover of wisdom,’ from philein ‘to love’ + sophos ‘wise.’

obtuse |?b?t(y)o?s; äb-| adjective
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand : he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse. See note at stupid .
** • difficult to understand : some of the lyrics are a bit obtuse. **
2 (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
• not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt.

I do not have a degree yet, I am working on getting my BA in philosophy. As to my usual practice of ending my posts with “yours in Christ,” like it or not we are both part of the mystical body of Christ, and therefore I have every right to end my posts with this reminder. This will be my last reply in this thread, as we are highjacking it; However, if you would like, we could start another thread discussing the merits of logic versus rhetoric.

Yours in Christ’s Mystical Body,
Thursday
 
Caesar said:
Then I will gladly answer you.

The point of this thread is to remind us of the devastation Bugnini caused in the Liturgy. The rejection of tradition, the protestantization, ect.

Don’t know where you got Vatican II from, most people here can tell you quite clearly what Vatican II did and did not call for, and Bugnini’s Liturgy was not called for.
Click to expand...
I’d actually agree with you on most of what you have posted. That said, you are not Alex. There’s no certaintly his goals are yours.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Oh no…you’re gonna hold my feet to the fire??? I’m quaking.

Your “sources” are about as trustworthy as a sneaking pollcat, blast your eyes.

The Truth does not require a hyperlink.
Click to expand...
Again, why don’t you give an example. I don’t think most on these forums have a problem with EWTN.

Again, Bombay. I did not ask necessarily for a hyperlink. I asked for a source and so did AJV.
 
bear06 said:
Again, why don’t you give an example. I don’t think most on these forums have a problem with EWTN.

Again, Bombay. I did not ask necessarily for a hyperlink. I asked for a source and so did AJV.
Click to expand...
So what? Most on these forums don’t have a problem with a lot of things.

Thankfully, Truth is not determined by majority vote.
 
Calling me obtuse doesn’t alter the Truth one whit.
Click to expand...
I believe you mean your impression of the Truth. While Truth can’t be altered, your impression can be. Thankfully, Truth is not determined by you!:rotfl:
And, by the way, if I engaged in personal attack, I wouldn’t sign my name “Yours in Christ.”
Click to expand...
Glad to see you’re not bothered too much, Thursday. You might as well get used to it because the Great and Powerful Bombay hates it when people disagree with him.😃
 
Another good read on the subject from the standpoint of the Cardinals and religious who protested the new mass is the Ottaviani Intervention.
 
TradyDaddy said:
Another good read on the subject from the standpoint of the Cardinals and religious who protested the new mass is the Ottaviani Intervention.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Ottaviani Intervention helped change my views on the Tridentine Mass. Believe it or not I was once against the TLM! :eek:

Cardinal Ottaviani may not have stopped the NO, but he did help me to discover the beauty and wonder of our tradition and our Liturgy 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top