I understand your frustration, and I constantly get PM’s from people who say they are leaving CAF for these very reasons. I hope you don’t quit. What I have learned to do is to create an ignore list that is about to get several people longer than it already is.
And bear, I have never thought that saying NO Catholics was in any way a derogatory term, but since you have mentioned it as such I will stop using it. Instead, I will say it the long way: Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass. With cut and paste, it really won’t be that difficult. Sorry to have offended you by using that term. I have never been offended to be called a trad, but I guess I don’t take offense easily, otherwise I would also be long gone from here.
Paramedicgirl, we’ve always had a civil discourse. I try not to lump people together into a faceless block. If I mistook what you meant by “NO Catholics,” then I ask your forgiveness, truly I do. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said in Post #110, in the first, second, and third paragraph.
I’ve asked you this in a PM, since Uxor complains of unfair treatment by those of us who don’t measure up (“liberals,” “NO Catholics,” whatever), I’ll ask it of you here: Do you think that the people who post in the Traditionalist forum should be free to say whatever they think? Setting aside the contempt they heap on the NO Mass for a moment, should they be left alone and unanswered when they make assertions that are at best mistaken and at worst heretical? For example, should they be allowed to assert that Archbiship Buggsy was a Mason, even though the Holy See itself denied it, without that being countered? Should they be allowed to say that Protestants wrote our Mass, when it’s patently untrue (they were just observers) and the rest of us should just sit quietly by? Should they be allowed to declare the Mass invalid on the points of “pro multis” and the Mysterium Fidei, despite what the Holy See ruled, and we make no comment in defense of the Church? Do we have a valid pope or don’t we? Was Cardinal Siri elected to the papacy three different times and each time had the election stolen? If
Quo Primum is to be held absolutely inviolate, doesn’t that mean that any alterations under that anathema would result IN the anathema, be they promulgated by Paul VI or Saint Pius XII? Should we be silent and not point that out? Are we rude to point out that some of these things are manifestly heretical (because the idea that the Church could present to the faithful an invalid or ineffectual Mass is just that)?
And if YOU get tired of what you percieve to be “trad” bashing, dear sister, then imagine what the rest of us feel about the contempt shown the Church and the Mass. In defending these things, I’m doing nothing more than I would in defending my mother.
)
Just to be clearer on what the radical traditionalists snicker about, look at it written this way. Novus Ordo Catholic = no Catholic I’m not sure if everyone got that the first time. I’m sure most of you see it as N.O. Catholic but in many cases it’s meant to be derogatory and some are quite pleased their little joke is being used. Like I said, I don’t care a whole lot what people call me but some people do mean it to be offensive. Thus concludes my slang lesson for today.
