P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s an interesting point. What makes a Mass valid according to “De Defectibus” probably would not take more than 5 minutes. I don’t see the sense of arguing one form over another in that respect (either).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
anon10271182
Guest
“Superbugs” exist as a direct result of antibiotics. Just sayin’
P
ProVobis
Guest
Out of curiosity, how would you have implemented the OF?The promulgation of the OF Mass was indeed GOOD for the Church. Its hideously poor implementation and the fact that many used this terrible implementation (and the so called “spirit” of Vatican II) as excuses for all sorts of non-authorized shenanigans has been TERRIBLE for the Church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s not entirely true. A protocol was written to appease the AB and he signed it, but later reneged.The division we’re seeing today in the Catholic Church over this, as evident in this very thread, is the reason why Pope John Paul II refused to compromise with Bishop Lefebvre.
http://unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Exactly. I have said that too.
It is a privilege to being able to attend mass. In many countries, especially in the third world, EF mass or any masses for matter are often not available. For these people it is a tremendous comfort and opprotunity when they can have mass.
In my younger days, I used to come with missions to places like the New Guinea in the Pacific rim. It takes hours or even days to reach the interior villages through track roads and dangerous environment where often lives were at stake.
But such were the graces when priests were able to come to their places and said masses for them which were usually the OF. And how they, very simple people, were edified and filled with the Holy Spirit.
It is different in America or Europe where churches and cathedrals are often almost empty and people scouting for what type of mass they should attend.
Perhaps it reflects on the emptiness in our spiritual mind being numbed by the sacraments that we take for granted. That we cannot find the satisfaction and the contentment that a mass could bring. That we now looking at the external, how the mass is celebrated and sung.
Some even gone into heresy, saying the the two masses, EF and OF, are not equally meritorious and thus not on the same level of efficacy.
We should go back and discover our first love - Jesus. He is to be found in person in the mass where we can meet, feel, touch and taste him, in EF or OF.
It is a privilege to being able to attend mass. In many countries, especially in the third world, EF mass or any masses for matter are often not available. For these people it is a tremendous comfort and opprotunity when they can have mass.
In my younger days, I used to come with missions to places like the New Guinea in the Pacific rim. It takes hours or even days to reach the interior villages through track roads and dangerous environment where often lives were at stake.
But such were the graces when priests were able to come to their places and said masses for them which were usually the OF. And how they, very simple people, were edified and filled with the Holy Spirit.
It is different in America or Europe where churches and cathedrals are often almost empty and people scouting for what type of mass they should attend.
Perhaps it reflects on the emptiness in our spiritual mind being numbed by the sacraments that we take for granted. That we cannot find the satisfaction and the contentment that a mass could bring. That we now looking at the external, how the mass is celebrated and sung.
Some even gone into heresy, saying the the two masses, EF and OF, are not equally meritorious and thus not on the same level of efficacy.
We should go back and discover our first love - Jesus. He is to be found in person in the mass where we can meet, feel, touch and taste him, in EF or OF.
O
otjm
Guest
Just a thought: Take out the word “Liturgy” and substitute “The Last Supper” and see how it reads.
Dr, Kwasnewski is welcome to his opinion, but he ignores the first 3, 4 or 5 centuries of the Church.
Dr, Kwasnewski is welcome to his opinion, but he ignores the first 3, 4 or 5 centuries of the Church.
S
stpurl
Guest
Have you read the entire book?
You know, the ‘first few centuries’ of the Church were instrumental in producing the EF. The EF grew from those, organically, slowly, prudently, and carefully, coming to a blossoming ‘head’ about 500 years ago when again slowly, prudently, and carefully, it was nurtured, pruned, and constantly watered and observed (to carry on a gardening metaphor).
I am not criticizing the OF, but the OF did not ‘grow’ from the first few centuries of the Church (or the centuries after) in the way the EF did. I think you have your premise almost exactly backward.
You say that Dr. K in his speaking of the EF 'ignores the first centuries of the Church" (he doesn’t really). . .
but in fact, it is those who fashioned the OF who more accurately could be said to have ignored the Church from AD 500 to AD 1950!
You know, the ‘first few centuries’ of the Church were instrumental in producing the EF. The EF grew from those, organically, slowly, prudently, and carefully, coming to a blossoming ‘head’ about 500 years ago when again slowly, prudently, and carefully, it was nurtured, pruned, and constantly watered and observed (to carry on a gardening metaphor).
I am not criticizing the OF, but the OF did not ‘grow’ from the first few centuries of the Church (or the centuries after) in the way the EF did. I think you have your premise almost exactly backward.
You say that Dr. K in his speaking of the EF 'ignores the first centuries of the Church" (he doesn’t really). . .
but in fact, it is those who fashioned the OF who more accurately could be said to have ignored the Church from AD 500 to AD 1950!
J
jas84173
Guest
That’s a load. My Church is always begging people to read. All of our altar servers are girls. More people get the Eucharist from my aunt than a priest.
O
otjm
Guest
You have several questions in your post.
the first is that Summorum Pontificum provides an exception to the norm; the norm being the OF. and as noted in SP, the EF requires the matter come from “the bottom, up” there must be a stable group (which, interestingly, Pope Benedict did not define). If there is not a stable group, then the demands of time (priests can say one Mass per day, by permission - pretty much granted across the board - two Masses, and by special permission, three. I live near a large parish - 3,000 families, and there are two priests there. 3 Masses in English, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Vietnamese, and 1 EF - which may or may not continue. They have to get a visiting priest to say the Vietnamese Mass. The EF may possibly not continue, because of underwhelming attendance. The US has fewer active (i.e. non-retired) priests than it has parishes. the vast majority of people go to the OF, and the second greatest demand in terms of language behind English is Spanish. As no priest is required to say the EF, that results in it not being offered in seminaries. Unless and until there is far greater demand, the likelihood of it being required is between nil and none.
I am sorry that your priest responded as he did. However, had you asked him in a non-confrontational manner what his experience has been since whenver he was ordained, you might find that he might volunteer people demanding the EF (with no stable group) and the amount of flack he has taken from individuals.
I don’t have a dog in the fight. I have, however, known many priests, and have asked out of curiosity about requests, and each time I have received an earful. Once or twice, I might think that there was prejudice afoot. Repeatedly? No.
As to altar rails, the norm in the United States, according to the USCCB and the GIRM, is that Communion is received standing.
the first is that Summorum Pontificum provides an exception to the norm; the norm being the OF. and as noted in SP, the EF requires the matter come from “the bottom, up” there must be a stable group (which, interestingly, Pope Benedict did not define). If there is not a stable group, then the demands of time (priests can say one Mass per day, by permission - pretty much granted across the board - two Masses, and by special permission, three. I live near a large parish - 3,000 families, and there are two priests there. 3 Masses in English, 2 in Spanish, 1 in Vietnamese, and 1 EF - which may or may not continue. They have to get a visiting priest to say the Vietnamese Mass. The EF may possibly not continue, because of underwhelming attendance. The US has fewer active (i.e. non-retired) priests than it has parishes. the vast majority of people go to the OF, and the second greatest demand in terms of language behind English is Spanish. As no priest is required to say the EF, that results in it not being offered in seminaries. Unless and until there is far greater demand, the likelihood of it being required is between nil and none.
I am sorry that your priest responded as he did. However, had you asked him in a non-confrontational manner what his experience has been since whenver he was ordained, you might find that he might volunteer people demanding the EF (with no stable group) and the amount of flack he has taken from individuals.
I don’t have a dog in the fight. I have, however, known many priests, and have asked out of curiosity about requests, and each time I have received an earful. Once or twice, I might think that there was prejudice afoot. Repeatedly? No.
As to altar rails, the norm in the United States, according to the USCCB and the GIRM, is that Communion is received standing.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
What you don’t know is what the Mass attendance would have been had today’s EF Mass been retained as the OF Mass.Yes, the collapse in Mass attendance in the West certainly testifies to people being “onboard.”
You cannot even provide statistical proof via polling that proves the “collapse in Mass attendance” is materially due to the changing of the form of the Mass.
One thing many seem to be confused about (and they shouldn’t be by now) is the abuses and irregularities that many have practiced that are in no way countenanced by the actual rubrics for the OF Mass.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
According to Summorum Pontificum, it is what should be expected; the EF is not going to be said where there is not a stable group. It is amazing that people cannot understand what Pope Benedict wrote. It really is not all that hard.
170 or 171 dioceses in the US have the EF. It is infrequent, because there simply are not sufficient people requesting it to devote already limited resources.
About a year ago a priest who has been actively involved with the EF wrote a public letter (which was linked in one of the postings in a separate thread) noting that a) it is up to the EF communities to raise the interest in the EF (as set forth in SP), and b) that he was seriously concerned that if this was not accomplished, the EF was going to fade away.
Some seem to want the dioceses to make the EF some sort of traveling Mass. SP does not set that forth. it flat out is not going to happen in the vast majority of dioceses.
If you want more places where the EF is said, then go read SP and start doing something other than wishing and hoping. SP makes it perfectly clear that it is not something the diocese has to provide gratis; the primary requirement is a stable group. and from that, there is a process by which the group can request it; they first request that priest to make it available (not say it, but accommodate it); and if he can’t/won’t, they can petition the bishop; and if he can’t/won’t, there is set forth the way to appeal the matter to Rome.
In another thread, wild charges were made that the bishops were blackballing the matter. Wild charges, because not one of them showed they took the proper procedures and finally went to Rome. As in, not a single, solitary bit of evidence; just wild charges.
Folks, if you want more EFs, it is all laid out as to what you need to do. And if you don’t do, then complaining is rather hollow. Get off your duffs, get organized. Contact a multiple of parishes which have the EF; make inquiries as to what they did and how they did it. Then establish the stable group, and make your request.
The fact is, Summorum Pontificum makes it acceptable that there are only a few EFs for the simple reason that Pope Benedict set it up that way - that it had to be from “the bottom,up”. He made the rules, not the bishops, and not the priests.
170 or 171 dioceses in the US have the EF. It is infrequent, because there simply are not sufficient people requesting it to devote already limited resources.
About a year ago a priest who has been actively involved with the EF wrote a public letter (which was linked in one of the postings in a separate thread) noting that a) it is up to the EF communities to raise the interest in the EF (as set forth in SP), and b) that he was seriously concerned that if this was not accomplished, the EF was going to fade away.
Some seem to want the dioceses to make the EF some sort of traveling Mass. SP does not set that forth. it flat out is not going to happen in the vast majority of dioceses.
If you want more places where the EF is said, then go read SP and start doing something other than wishing and hoping. SP makes it perfectly clear that it is not something the diocese has to provide gratis; the primary requirement is a stable group. and from that, there is a process by which the group can request it; they first request that priest to make it available (not say it, but accommodate it); and if he can’t/won’t, they can petition the bishop; and if he can’t/won’t, there is set forth the way to appeal the matter to Rome.
In another thread, wild charges were made that the bishops were blackballing the matter. Wild charges, because not one of them showed they took the proper procedures and finally went to Rome. As in, not a single, solitary bit of evidence; just wild charges.
Folks, if you want more EFs, it is all laid out as to what you need to do. And if you don’t do, then complaining is rather hollow. Get off your duffs, get organized. Contact a multiple of parishes which have the EF; make inquiries as to what they did and how they did it. Then establish the stable group, and make your request.
The fact is, Summorum Pontificum makes it acceptable that there are only a few EFs for the simple reason that Pope Benedict set it up that way - that it had to be from “the bottom,up”. He made the rules, not the bishops, and not the priests.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
I love both the OF and EF Masses, the Ordinariate Mass and the different Eastern sacrificial liturgies. What I do not like are those that have largely become the face of the EF Mass in the US – and I’m not talking about the FSSP or ICKSP.
I’m talking about extreme, divisive, severe individuals who seem intent on dividing the Latin Rite into “tlm parishes” and “no parishes.” Now I understand the reticence of many leaders within the Church to allow the celebration of the EF Mass. Now I understand why Benedict XVI was so very careful when he crafted and promulgated SP. He even gave us non-offensive names in which to call both forms, which one group simply cannot bring themselves to use. They would rather be offensive – and divisive.
I hope the EF Mass “effort” fails here locally (it’s well on its way), so that it can be restarted down the road in an existing, healthy parish that has neither “tlm” or “no” in its description.
It’s simply a different form, folks. It’s not a different rite or suri juris church. Pope Benedict XVI and the Church couldn’t have been any clearer about that…
I’m talking about extreme, divisive, severe individuals who seem intent on dividing the Latin Rite into “tlm parishes” and “no parishes.” Now I understand the reticence of many leaders within the Church to allow the celebration of the EF Mass. Now I understand why Benedict XVI was so very careful when he crafted and promulgated SP. He even gave us non-offensive names in which to call both forms, which one group simply cannot bring themselves to use. They would rather be offensive – and divisive.
I hope the EF Mass “effort” fails here locally (it’s well on its way), so that it can be restarted down the road in an existing, healthy parish that has neither “tlm” or “no” in its description.
It’s simply a different form, folks. It’s not a different rite or suri juris church. Pope Benedict XVI and the Church couldn’t have been any clearer about that…
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s a mighty small sample size. I’ve been to just about every church in my diocese and none have trouble recruiting lay ministers for the Mass – except once in a while for musicians.That’s a load. My Church is always begging people to read. All of our altar servers are girls. More people get the Eucharist from my aunt than a priest.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
In Pittsburgh, the Latin Mass works out fine. They have a site right off the interstate, easy for people to get to.
Not big enough for the entire property, they share the space with other functions. The neighborhood which the church was built for has maybe a dozen houses left.
The Church would have probably had to dump the property is it was for the Lat(name removed by moderator)hiles.
Not big enough for the entire property, they share the space with other functions. The neighborhood which the church was built for has maybe a dozen houses left.
The Church would have probably had to dump the property is it was for the Lat(name removed by moderator)hiles.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Following the promulgation of SP, arrangements were made locally by the bishop to have the EF Mass celebrated each Sunday at 12:30 at a healthy, well-located and very hospitable parish that went through a great deal of trouble and expense to “gear up” to host the EF Mass.About a year ago a priest who has been actively involved with the EF wrote a public letter (which was linked in one of the postings in a separate thread) noting that a) it is up to the EF communities to raise the interest in the EF (as set forth in SP), and b) that he was seriously concerned that if this was not accomplished, the EF was going to fade away.
Because both resident priests were already celebrating 3 Masses/Sunday, the bishop arranged for a retired local prison chaplain to celebrate the EF. Rather than become an integral part of the existing parish, those attending the EF Mass immediately began taking about a “tlm-only parish.” Such division!
As their number began to dwindle from a strong start, all they could talk about was their independence that was needed to ensure they could receive all the sacraments from the Church in the “older forms” – something SP did not provide for.
Soon it became a train wreck, after having such great potential. Sad.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I get seriously tired of the snipes made to the OF, as if the EF has been pristine and pure since the closing of Trent.
I was born in 1946 and started as an altar boy at the age of 11. Because I was a “good kid” (as in, I was willing to serve Mass weekdays at 6:30 a.m.) I ended up with far more of those Masses than most of the other altar boys, through the age of 14.
My pastor had a terrible problem with alcohol, and I have no count of the number of Masses at that hour where he was clearly inebriated - whether from starting early, or tying on a big one the night before. To this day, my youngest brother (who also served Masses for this priest) still swears the priest could say Latin breathing in as well as breathing out; it was not at all unusual to have a Mass within 15 to 16 minutes. I learned at an early age that people, including priests, have faults; he did his best, and sometimes that was none too good. On the other hand, we had a Solemn High Mass for Midnight Mass Christmas, and he could pull out all the pomp and circumstance it entails.
I am well aware of the abuses which have occurred in the past in the OF. I abhor them. But if anyone here thinks that a 15 or 16 minute Mass by a drunk priest is reverent, then you and I have different definitions of what reverence means.
To all of you who were born at or after Vatican 2, you will not find too much said about what went on, or didn’t go on, prior to it. And what you fail to recognize is that the priests who wish to say the EF now do so far more solemnly and reverently than a whole lot of weekday masses - and for that matter, Sunday Masses - were said long ago. People who go to the EF now go because that is what they want. Those who went to them prior to V2 went because that was all that was available. Only a minority had a hand missal for laity, as they were expensive; and for whatever reason, not popular. People sat, knelt and stood at the proper times; with more than half read a bulletin, a prayer book (as opposed to a missal), said their rosary, or stared off into space. There was a reason we had bells; to tell everyone that something was happening, as most were not conversant in Latin - in spite of Latin being taught to some (not all) for reading “All Gaul is divided into four parts”, or something from Cicero, and so they needed a key to tell them what was happening. The great emphasis was on “fulfilling one’s obligation” and that took physical presence. Not mental, not emotional - but physical.
The bishops of the world had far more access to liturgical scholarship and research than anyone in this thread, and they determined that they wanted some things, added on over the centuries, removed; and some things lost through the centuries, put back. They provided a general guideline (including retention of Latin, and Gregorian Chant) with knowledge of work that had started under Pius 10th forward.
(continued)
I was born in 1946 and started as an altar boy at the age of 11. Because I was a “good kid” (as in, I was willing to serve Mass weekdays at 6:30 a.m.) I ended up with far more of those Masses than most of the other altar boys, through the age of 14.
My pastor had a terrible problem with alcohol, and I have no count of the number of Masses at that hour where he was clearly inebriated - whether from starting early, or tying on a big one the night before. To this day, my youngest brother (who also served Masses for this priest) still swears the priest could say Latin breathing in as well as breathing out; it was not at all unusual to have a Mass within 15 to 16 minutes. I learned at an early age that people, including priests, have faults; he did his best, and sometimes that was none too good. On the other hand, we had a Solemn High Mass for Midnight Mass Christmas, and he could pull out all the pomp and circumstance it entails.
I am well aware of the abuses which have occurred in the past in the OF. I abhor them. But if anyone here thinks that a 15 or 16 minute Mass by a drunk priest is reverent, then you and I have different definitions of what reverence means.
To all of you who were born at or after Vatican 2, you will not find too much said about what went on, or didn’t go on, prior to it. And what you fail to recognize is that the priests who wish to say the EF now do so far more solemnly and reverently than a whole lot of weekday masses - and for that matter, Sunday Masses - were said long ago. People who go to the EF now go because that is what they want. Those who went to them prior to V2 went because that was all that was available. Only a minority had a hand missal for laity, as they were expensive; and for whatever reason, not popular. People sat, knelt and stood at the proper times; with more than half read a bulletin, a prayer book (as opposed to a missal), said their rosary, or stared off into space. There was a reason we had bells; to tell everyone that something was happening, as most were not conversant in Latin - in spite of Latin being taught to some (not all) for reading “All Gaul is divided into four parts”, or something from Cicero, and so they needed a key to tell them what was happening. The great emphasis was on “fulfilling one’s obligation” and that took physical presence. Not mental, not emotional - but physical.
The bishops of the world had far more access to liturgical scholarship and research than anyone in this thread, and they determined that they wanted some things, added on over the centuries, removed; and some things lost through the centuries, put back. They provided a general guideline (including retention of Latin, and Gregorian Chant) with knowledge of work that had started under Pius 10th forward.
(continued)
O
otjm
Guest
The laity were not aficionados of rubrics. What they took too, like a duck to water, was the introduction of the vernacular. and I say this, having watched both my parents generation (one born in 1912, one in 1917) and my grandparents generation (born in the late 1800’s). Some liked ad populum, some were ambivalent, some may have preferred ad orientem; but almost universally, they loved the vernacular.
About 15 years ago I asked my mother (who was then 85) a non-directional question: “What do you think of Vatican 2?” The words were barely out of my mouth when she said “Oh ! The Mass! It is in English!”. She was then, as she had been most of her adult life, a daily Mass goer. We all grew up with hand missals as soon as we were able to use them properly.
I mentioned Latin and Gregorian Chant for a reason; I seriously doubt that Rome is unaware that Latin (and Greek) are not used in a majority of parishes in the US, as well as chant. Certainly, Rome has the ability to address the issue should they choose. Silence is often deafening.
I happen to be fortunate in that I have an EF mass which is about 15 minutes from my house (not my parish) and to which I can go from time to time. However, my parish has the OF, Perpetual Adoration, and has produced 2 priests, 3 deacons, 2 sisters who have joined orders with identifiable habits, an active ministry to the poor, and has started the first Catholic grade school in over 40 years. And the priests who have been at the parish have said the black and done the red.
Many Masses were said reverently prior to V2; but not all were. And too many people simply “fulfilled their obligation”. It was not all roses then, nor is it now, And likely, it never was.
About 15 years ago I asked my mother (who was then 85) a non-directional question: “What do you think of Vatican 2?” The words were barely out of my mouth when she said “Oh ! The Mass! It is in English!”. She was then, as she had been most of her adult life, a daily Mass goer. We all grew up with hand missals as soon as we were able to use them properly.
I mentioned Latin and Gregorian Chant for a reason; I seriously doubt that Rome is unaware that Latin (and Greek) are not used in a majority of parishes in the US, as well as chant. Certainly, Rome has the ability to address the issue should they choose. Silence is often deafening.
I happen to be fortunate in that I have an EF mass which is about 15 minutes from my house (not my parish) and to which I can go from time to time. However, my parish has the OF, Perpetual Adoration, and has produced 2 priests, 3 deacons, 2 sisters who have joined orders with identifiable habits, an active ministry to the poor, and has started the first Catholic grade school in over 40 years. And the priests who have been at the parish have said the black and done the red.
Many Masses were said reverently prior to V2; but not all were. And too many people simply “fulfilled their obligation”. It was not all roses then, nor is it now, And likely, it never was.
B
babochka
Guest
I think he’s trying to be sanitary… The Early Church did not have to deal with antibiotic resistant superbugs : /
No, they just had to deal with life before antibiotics. No superbugs necessary.
I think you missed my point. No, the early church didn’t have to deal with antibiotic-resistant superbugs. They just had good, old-fashioned, regular bacteria. Most of the time, a healthy immune system deals with it; sometimes it cannot. “Superbugs” are putting us back in the same boat as our ancestors.“Superbugs” exist as a direct result of antibiotics. Just sayin’
S
stpurl
Guest
The people ‘did not want it’; the people had nothing to do with it. I was there back then. We obeyed what our priests and bishops asked of us, not ‘blindly’, and often with sorrow and tears, but we obeyed because we trusted in God. We still trust in God. We understand (unlike some, it appears) that trusting doesn’t mean that we won’t get the shaft, even a gilded episcopal one, because trust of any ‘man’ (who can err) is not the same as trust in God, and even those who act in alter Christi can make mistakes.
However, and I am NOT in any way criticizing the OF or any priest or bishop in any way whatsoever, or indicting any one of them. . .should we be required by clergy to participate ‘in obedience’ to anything which is NOT authentic Church teaching, we are not obliged to do so and in fact are tasked with the unenviable duty of having to respectfully decline. Our conscience, after all --that well-formed conscience–demands it. Our highest duty is to God and His authentic teachings.
That does not mean that I am ‘calling out’ the OF as wrong (I am not). But I see quite a few ‘calling out’ the EF as wrong and thinking that is perfectly hunky dory. The blindness is staggering and even now we have the fence-sitting proclaiming “I don’t go to the EF myself but I’m all right with those who do, provided that they do it exactly in the way that they are permitted to do” with that permission shrinking more and more and seeming to depend solely on the whim of certain strident ‘haters’ who under the guise of tolerance damn the EF with not even faint praises and are constantly harranging the adherents as being full of rigidity, malice, etc.
In psychology we have a term called “projection” in which a person will attribute to another person feelings which the first person himself actually feels. . .i.e., a person who is himself rigid will often be the first to accuse others of rigidity, a person who is intolerant will be the first to accuse others of intolerance, etc. I’m just defining a term here, not accusing. . .but it’s food for thought.
However, and I am NOT in any way criticizing the OF or any priest or bishop in any way whatsoever, or indicting any one of them. . .should we be required by clergy to participate ‘in obedience’ to anything which is NOT authentic Church teaching, we are not obliged to do so and in fact are tasked with the unenviable duty of having to respectfully decline. Our conscience, after all --that well-formed conscience–demands it. Our highest duty is to God and His authentic teachings.
That does not mean that I am ‘calling out’ the OF as wrong (I am not). But I see quite a few ‘calling out’ the EF as wrong and thinking that is perfectly hunky dory. The blindness is staggering and even now we have the fence-sitting proclaiming “I don’t go to the EF myself but I’m all right with those who do, provided that they do it exactly in the way that they are permitted to do” with that permission shrinking more and more and seeming to depend solely on the whim of certain strident ‘haters’ who under the guise of tolerance damn the EF with not even faint praises and are constantly harranging the adherents as being full of rigidity, malice, etc.
In psychology we have a term called “projection” in which a person will attribute to another person feelings which the first person himself actually feels. . .i.e., a person who is himself rigid will often be the first to accuse others of rigidity, a person who is intolerant will be the first to accuse others of intolerance, etc. I’m just defining a term here, not accusing. . .but it’s food for thought.
O
otjm
Guest
Numbers don’t lie. And the largest yelps come from those who wax eloquent about how prospering the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are, and when the numbers are actually laid out, “Oh that is totally irrelevant!”.
If they are prospering so much, then why are the numbers irrelevant?
I am not doing anything whatsoever to wipe out any liturgy - your hyperbole is patently clear. Neither is anyone else here.
Numbers give perspective; why is it you don’t want any perspective?
If they are prospering so much, then why are the numbers irrelevant?
I am not doing anything whatsoever to wipe out any liturgy - your hyperbole is patently clear. Neither is anyone else here.
Numbers give perspective; why is it you don’t want any perspective?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.