Abp. Lefebvre and Vatican II

[daughteroftruth]

It was a copmment about the posters here, not the Pope. The Catholic Church is lead from the top down, not the laity up. Pope Benedict is a very educated man and knows his theology.

No argument there, I love Benedict.

He is not a demi-god.

That was the point I was trying to make.

I hope this clears this up.

Nothing needed to be cleared, only meant to suggest a different phrasing for the quoted statement. Statements like that always got me in hot water with the non-Catholics, and when they called me on it and I explained what was meant, I got the nod and smile (you know, the one that says “uh-huh, sure that’s what you meant”).

No hard feelings?

 

[pnewton]

No hard feelings?

None. We shall move on. On some things we agree and on some things we do not.

 

[Ottaviani]

Fine, so you are smarter and more holy that the pope. Good for you. Go team go.

you were logically refuted, but resorted to an emotional response. Not a very charitable move.

 

[Timothysis]

you were logically refuted, but resorted to an emotional response. Not a very charitable move.

Logically refuted??? This person is totally ignorant of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and the reason why Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger approved of it. He dismissed a scholarly explanation (not mine) of why it is indeed valid with his own personal reasons why HE has determined that it is invalid, and you say** I **was logically refuted??? Does member Yours Truly speak with the authority of the pope? Maybe you can point out the logic in this little quote:

“With respect to the invalidity of a Mass that has no words of consecration, it is so obvious that it is inavlid that it really needs no explanation.”

The whole point of the linked article was to explain that the intention of consecration is implicit throughout the entire prayer, yet Yours Truly insists that it has “no words of consecration.” A priest consecrates the Eucharistic not by simple virtue of saying the same words that Christ said, but by intending to do what Christ did. Perhaps you can read the linked article again to better understand the concept.

 

[Ottaviani]

Logically refuted??? This person is totally ignorant of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and the reason why Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger approved of it. He dismissed a scholarly explanation (not mine) of why it is indeed valid with his own personal reasons why HE has determined that it is invalid, and you say** I **was logically refuted??? Does member Yours Truly speak with the authority of the pope? Maybe you can point out the logic in this little quote:

“With respect to the invalidity of a Mass that has no words of consecration, it is so obvious that it is inavlid that it really needs no explanation.”

The whole point of the linked article was to explain that the intention of consecration is implicit throughout the entire prayer, yet Yours Truly insists that it has “no words of consecration.” A priest consecrates the Eucharistic not by simple virtue of saying the same words that Christ said, but by intending to do what Christ did. Perhaps you can read the linked article again to better understand the concept.

From what I understand you need both the intent and the form (words).

In either event, the “more Catholic than the pope” bit is tired, weak, and unnecessarily juvenile. Maybe engage in the debate instead of name calling? That was the intent (if you will) of my post.

 

[Timothysis]

From what I understand you need both the intent and the form (words).

Canon law does not apply to ancient oriental liturgies. I assume this is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul gave his approval.

In either event, the “more Catholic than the pope” bit is tired, weak, and unnecessarily juvenile. Maybe engage in the debate instead of name calling? That was the intent (if you will) of my post.

I engaged in the debate; the other responded in the manner of a child who hears something he doesn’t like. My “name calling” was a proportionate response in return to someone who refuses to appreciate that he may just be mistaken about a topic. This is how we learn and grow. Perhaps you can lecture Yours Truly on how to “engage in the debate,” eh?

 

[Ottaviani]

Canon law does not apply to ancient oriental liturgies. I assume this is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul gave his approval.

I engaged in the debate; the other responded in the manner of a child who hears something he doesn’t like. My “name calling” was a proportionate response in return to someone who refuses to appreciate that he may just be mistaken about a topic. This is how we learn and grow. Perhaps you can lecture Yours Truly on how to “engage in the debate,” eh?

I read the discussion, and Yours truly certainly doesn’t need my help in engaging. I really don’t see where the block of ambiguous text you threw at him somehow refutes his point.

I’ll lecture you on engaging: your points get lost when you cite giant blocks of text, and if you can’t say it in a paragraph or two, you either don’t know what you’re saying, or haven’t sharpened your point enough.

 

[Timothysis]

I’ll lecture you on engaging: your points get lost when you cite giant blocks of text, and if you can’t say it in a paragraph or two, you either don’t know what you’re saying, or haven’t sharpened your point enough.

In the future, I’ll keep it short so that it doesn’t become too challenging…

 

[pnewton]

Logically refuted??? This person is totally ignorant of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and the reason why Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger approved of it.

Good enough for me! I find it hilariously ironic to complain of posts being too long and yet expect Catholics to be expert on all of Church history and its documents so they can out think the Popr.