But we shouldn’t make bank one way or the other on what the Holy Father will do. If what he has said is any indication, organic development will take place and it is very unlikely that the OF(which he has also praised) or the EF will EVER completely go away.
First of all Kirk, let’s stick on topic. Can’t we? I like you very much, I think you are quite intelligent, and no, I do not think that YOU are a liberal. I was referring–I thought I had made that clear–to my first post on thread. Which was an answer to a question about why do many posters resort to character assasination. Which argument are you having? Because from there you responded along the lines that I am smarter than mere generalizations. You went on to blast the pomposity and arrogance of “Many Traditionalists”. The pot calling the kettle generalizations?
no generalizations, huh?
the ones you have an issue with. not with all of us, please. or maybe just qualify your “Many Traditionalists”. could you do that?
yeah, like that.
No one assasinated ANYONE’S character, AT ANY POINT. POINT OUT WHERE THIS HAPPENED!
sorry, “character attacks.” make that “character attacks.” You did go back and read the post to which my first post answered, didn’t you?
Why don’t you just make it easy and eschew the title “traditionalist,” vis a vis *Beatissimi Apostolorum? *That would be, well, pretty traditional.
I’m sorry, Kirk, but you accused me–and continue to do so-- of doing something you yourself do. “Many Traditionalists” is a phrase taken out of many of your posts–both the generalization and the moniker.
You attack the character of our identiy everytime you generalize us, toss in a box and make sweeping generalizations. To generalize traditionalists as the way you do is to make a claim against all those who hold to this identity. Talking about us in generalities doesn’t make it better and it certainly doesn’t help when you do this out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side tell us not to “generalize”.
Gotta stand by it. Many “traditionalists” have a tone and an attitude that is off-putting and may well do their ultimate aspirations more harm than good. You can argue against that statement, if you wish, ie, you can prove that many “traditionalists” do NOT have a tone and an attitude that is off-putting and counter productive. OR you could say that you don’t fall under the category of “many.” I haven’t made a generalization that cannot be backed up by the most cursory exam of the threads in the Traditional Forum…not each and every one, mind you, but lots of them. I’ve never said “each and every” “traditionalist,” simply because that would be foolish.
I’ve never been to Nevada. But I’ve heard there is a lot of sand out that way. Is that true ?
**We’ll agree to give thanks that one doesn’t have to be too bright to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. **
Read His Holiness’ MP that you yourself rec. to another poster and what he had to say there regarding the OF.
Papa’s shoes may be red as roses, but his glasses aren’t.
I’ve never been to Nevada. But I’ve heard there is a lot of sand out that way. Is that true ?
your posts say much more about your own arrogance, pomposity and attitude, then they do about “many Traditionalists.”
Sorry, I stand by what I said. As I mentioned, a cursory examination of the threads in this forum, etc., etc.
Thanks, pardner!you do that, cowboy!
Talk to your fellow “traditionlist!” I thought I was simply being “traditional.”rolleyes? what an attitude!
I have read it, and doesn’t the fact that I suggested someone read it kind of prove your sole intention is to argue ?Read His Holiness’ MP that you yourself rec. to another poster and what he had to say there regarding the OF.
Yes, we’ve plenty of sand, but it’s far too hot for us to stick our heads into it.
No, it doesn’t. You maintain a certain stance to the OF that is not supported by what the Holy Father said in Summorum Pontificum. That’s what I’m addressing.