N
netmilsmom
Guest
Sean O L:
Please lighten up. It’s a discussion forum and there is no need to get personal.
- Status
J
JNB
Guest
This section by Mr. McIlhenny
matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise5.html
Has many errors. Again I do not have the time to go though everything, but here is a summary.
On the direction of the priest, he basically dismisses concerns of vmass facing the people by saying “Did the priest for 17 centuries worship a wall?” That said, why do all the pre reformation churches, some that had almost no contact with Rome in terms of how their liturguy developed, such as the Malabars in India, all face Ad Orientem except for the Latin Rite? Of course Mr. McIlhenny doesnt adress this.
On the use of EMHCs, Mr McIlheny defends this practice, even though again, it isint used in any of the Eastren churches, and in the West, the laity that did distribute communion in the early church were not really laity per say, they were Acolytes, and therefore clerical in state, just not ordained.
As for altar girls, he just dimisses the issue, even though it is a severe rupture with practice and tradition, and again, Rome is the only apostolic church to use altar girls. Also he dismisses how dissenters got altar girls to be the norm, and Rome simpily caved in.
This is my last post on the subject. Anyone is free to follow up with more research if they so choose, but Mr McIlhennys arguments can be debunked fairly easily, and the man should know better, but sadly he persists.
Of course mass is valid facing the people,
Sean O L:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise5.html
Has many errors. Again I do not have the time to go though everything, but here is a summary.
On the direction of the priest, he basically dismisses concerns of vmass facing the people by saying “Did the priest for 17 centuries worship a wall?” That said, why do all the pre reformation churches, some that had almost no contact with Rome in terms of how their liturguy developed, such as the Malabars in India, all face Ad Orientem except for the Latin Rite? Of course Mr. McIlhenny doesnt adress this.
On the use of EMHCs, Mr McIlheny defends this practice, even though again, it isint used in any of the Eastren churches, and in the West, the laity that did distribute communion in the early church were not really laity per say, they were Acolytes, and therefore clerical in state, just not ordained.
As for altar girls, he just dimisses the issue, even though it is a severe rupture with practice and tradition, and again, Rome is the only apostolic church to use altar girls. Also he dismisses how dissenters got altar girls to be the norm, and Rome simpily caved in.
This is my last post on the subject. Anyone is free to follow up with more research if they so choose, but Mr McIlhennys arguments can be debunked fairly easily, and the man should know better, but sadly he persists.
Of course mass is valid facing the people,
Sean O L:
J
JNB
Guest
I get it from both sides, and it is tiresome. On one hand, dealing with the hard hearts of various Sedes or even Bp. Willianson wing SSPXers is draining. They refuse to say the pre and post Vatican II church are one church, they even dismiss reverent Novus Ordo masses that are in line with liturgical tradition.
On the other hand, it is also draining in debates with people who use faulty scholarship, who paint all Traditionalists as radicals, who excuse liturgical “innovations” not even mentioned in either Vatican II or the original Novus Ordo missal and so on.
This in the end is what it boils down to, and I will keep it simple. Vatican II did not call for a new order of the mass, the most it did was call for a revised lectionary that contained more scripture, and the initial 1965 missal accomplished all of this except for the revised lectionary. Even with the Novus Ordo missal, if it is fully celebrated in accord with the liturgical documents of Vatican II, the closest, it is parishes such as Luxs(Diannes) own Assumption Grotto that follow what Vatican II actually said(with Gregorian chant, with the propers in vernacular and the ordinary in Latin with rubrics in harmony with the church). That is what it boils down to, anything beyond that was not called for in Vatican II.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
On the other hand, it is also draining in debates with people who use faulty scholarship, who paint all Traditionalists as radicals, who excuse liturgical “innovations” not even mentioned in either Vatican II or the original Novus Ordo missal and so on.
This in the end is what it boils down to, and I will keep it simple. Vatican II did not call for a new order of the mass, the most it did was call for a revised lectionary that contained more scripture, and the initial 1965 missal accomplished all of this except for the revised lectionary. Even with the Novus Ordo missal, if it is fully celebrated in accord with the liturgical documents of Vatican II, the closest, it is parishes such as Luxs(Diannes) own Assumption Grotto that follow what Vatican II actually said(with Gregorian chant, with the propers in vernacular and the ordinary in Latin with rubrics in harmony with the church). That is what it boils down to, anything beyond that was not called for in Vatican II.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
T
thistle
Guest
To Dr Bombay who wrote “It’s already been well established on previous threads, primarily with support from my buddies Petergee and thistle, that Traditionalists comprise .10 of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 120 million people and it could very well be more since that number doesn’t include the various independent and wildcat Tradtionalists.”
You are simply telling lies to the posters in this thread. Petergee did NOT say 0.10 of Catholics were Traditionalists. If he had then the answer would have been 120,000,000.
But he did NOT. He said 0.1% and the answer to that is 1,200,000.
You are simply telling lies to the posters in this thread. Petergee did NOT say 0.10 of Catholics were Traditionalists. If he had then the answer would have been 120,000,000.
But he did NOT. He said 0.1% and the answer to that is 1,200,000.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
**OH LIKE YOU LIED ABOUT THIS…
**
It’s not a lie, it’s a mistake. Perhaps you should not jump with “lie” so quickly. All of us are human.
Christianity is a plus.
P
palmas85
Guest
I’ve got a question. Where did the 10% or .1% or whatever the figure is come from in the first place? I’ve never seen anything from any authoritive source where that figure is used. And who said most attending are 50+? I’ve never seen a source cited for that one either.
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
T
thistle
Guest
That I’m not sure. Petergee came up with the number. The arguments in the other thread were actually more about the 0.10 and 0.10%.
And to Dr Bombay you are right. My first thought should have been a mistake. My apologies.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator) wrote:
“What do you think the temperature is in hell?”
His reply:
“Many are cold, but few are frozen.”
Howzat?
The issue is, netmilsmum, that one ought not to be able to defame another person - from the safety of anonymity - without being called to produce evidence; it is a matter of basic truth, and justice.
Why are you not concerned with these issues? Would you be so urbane is somebody was spreading defamation against your character? Hmmmmmm?
Fr. Joe Horn, O Praem. was asked:
“What do you think the temperature is in hell?”
His reply:
“Many are cold, but few are frozen.”
Howzat?
The issue is, netmilsmum, that one ought not to be able to defame another person - from the safety of anonymity - without being called to produce evidence; it is a matter of basic truth, and justice.
Why are you not concerned with these issues? Would you be so urbane is somebody was spreading defamation against your character? Hmmmmmm?
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Sean O L:
Although, I do like being called NetmilsMUM! That’s too cute and reminds me of my sister in Sydney. I really do appreciate it. It’s sad not to have her near and my nieces that I have never seen.
Happy New Year! (almost yesterday for you!)
So ask for clairification but calling a person a cad is just the kind of statement that gets threads closed.
Although, I do like being called NetmilsMUM! That’s too cute and reminds me of my sister in Sydney. I really do appreciate it. It’s sad not to have her near and my nieces that I have never seen.
Happy New Year! (almost yesterday for you!)
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
McElhinney wrote:
McElhinney, claims “No”! Apparently you, JNB are so blinkered with the hate that you ascribe to "McElhinney and his “likes’” that you would answer “Yes, they did worship the [tabernacle]/wall”!
In THAT he does NOT "basically dismiss people … - he DOES make an argument (which may well be countered or argues against!) against a suggestion that the priest facing the people may bring about a situation of the prists worshipping the people (or vice versa).
But, if you are so concerned with his possible answer - then, why not ask him?
I am sorry to see that it is yourself who are demonstrating the arrogance and errors of the type that you attribute to I. Shawn McElhinney!
That is for the sake of argument! But, please follow the logic, and answer the question: “Did our ancestors worship walls for seventeen centuries” while facing the [tabernacle]/wall?
McElhinney, claims “No”! Apparently you, JNB are so blinkered with the hate that you ascribe to "McElhinney and his “likes’” that you would answer “Yes, they did worship the [tabernacle]/wall”!
In THAT he does NOT "basically dismiss people … - he DOES make an argument (which may well be countered or argues against!) against a suggestion that the priest facing the people may bring about a situation of the prists worshipping the people (or vice versa).
Nor does he discuss the price of tea in China! One has to limit the amount of writing - else the message does not get through.
But, if you are so concerned with his possible answer - then, why not ask him?
I am sorry to see that it is yourself who are demonstrating the arrogance and errors of the type that you attribute to I. Shawn McElhinney!
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
JNB wrote:
I really do not believe that JNB is in control of the words of the language he is using. In the English language, “all” means a totality. I am one of “the likes of I. Shawn McElhinney”, and I certainly protest that
Of I. Shawn McElhinney “and his ‘likes’” - this is just another blatant “porkie”! (an untruth).
I really do not believe that JNB is in control of the words of the language he is using. In the English language, “all” means a totality. I am one of “the likes of I. Shawn McElhinney”, and I certainly protest that
- I do NOT “paint all Traditionalists as radicals.”
- Nor do any of the persons I listed as being “the likes of I. Shawn McElhinney.”
- I (and the “likes” of me and he) abhor any and all abuses in the liturgy, and I will now produce evidence publicly, and briefly - evidence that I produced privately to Joe Monaghan, a Moderator of this forum concerning the battle that I engaged in in my local parish:
It man be briefly viewed at
jloughnan.tripod.com/appeal.htm
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
No need to apologize, friend. I thought we had settled the 10% vs. .10 argument weeks ago. But I’m such a scatterbrain sometimes that I get my memories all jumbled up. Obviously it wasn’t settled in the manner I thought it was.
Perhaps I should apologize if I’ve misrepresented someone’s position. Sorry Petergee and thistle. And Seano too.
A blessed an prosperous New Year to you and yours.
And thanks, mom, for having my back. You’re a sweetie.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Dr Bombay wrote:
0.1 does NOT equate with 0.1%
Both 10% and 0.1 x 120 DOES = 12
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200 DOES = 120
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200,000 DOES = 120,000
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200,000,000 DOES =120,000,000
But,
0.1% of 120 DOES = 0.12
0.1% of 1,200 DOES = 12
0.1% of 1,200,000 DOES = 1,200
0.1% of 1,200,000,000 DOES = 1,200,000
And contrary to your assertion, Petergee wrote 0.1**%** - NOT 0.1
Even blind Freddy (or any “Honest Injun”) should be able to see this?
You also are a good man Dr Bomb - and I generally admire you and your posts. However, in respect of mathematics - you “bomb out” BIG time - and pertinaciously!
0.1 does NOT equate with 0.1%
Both 10% and 0.1 x 120 DOES = 12
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200 DOES = 120
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200,000 DOES = 120,000
Both 10% and 0.1 x 1,200,000,000 DOES =120,000,000
But,
0.1% of 120 DOES = 0.12
0.1% of 1,200 DOES = 12
0.1% of 1,200,000 DOES = 1,200
0.1% of 1,200,000,000 DOES = 1,200,000
And contrary to your assertion, Petergee wrote 0.1**%** - NOT 0.1
Even blind Freddy (or any “Honest Injun”) should be able to see this?
P
palmas85
Guest
I still want to know where the 10% or 0.1 or 0.1% came from. Which source in particular, church statistics, car counting church attendance, wishful thinking, magic elves, where?
Somebody has to know.
I mean after all, it must be a valid statistic, right?
Somebody has to know.
I mean after all, it must be a valid statistic, right?
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Sean O L:
I hope we never go to war with Australia. You guys are tenacious! Once you get ahold of something, you won’t let it go.
Okee do, Seano. I was never any good at math. It gives me a headache.
I hope we never go to war with Australia. You guys are tenacious! Once you get ahold of something, you won’t let it go.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
I vote for the magic elves. They’re quite the stats freaks.I still want to know where the 10% or 0.1 or 0.1% came from. Which source in particular, church statistics, car counting church attendance, wishful thinking, magic elves, where?
Somebody has to know.
I mean after all, it must be a valid statistic, right?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Palmas85 wrote:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1156970&postcount=12
The figure was, simply, speculative and NOT authorative - but it sure stirred up a flurry, and exposed the non-maths, guys. They even completely ignored the post of a maths major at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1163700&postcount=30
Question: Mass
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1156970&postcount=12
The figure was, simply, speculative and NOT authorative - but it sure stirred up a flurry, and exposed the non-maths, guys. They even completely ignored the post of a maths major at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1163700&postcount=30
J
JNB
Guest
I stand by what I have said. He leaves gaps in his “scholarship”, his conclsuions dubious at best. As for writing, his writing is so nebulous that the point often gets lost, both on his tirades and his blog, As for defmation of characterm he does a great job of doing that himself by taking many thing out of context and twisting the truth. You are the one who accuses me of hate, no I do not hate him, I am just annoyed by the tactics he uses, and the people he misleads, and his distortions.
The fact he doesnt bring up the fact that Easteren churches all celebrate Ad Orientem still, the fact he doesnt bring up that what he calls EMHCs were infact instituted Acolytes, the fact he doesnt bring up what people had tabernacles in their homes because the church was underground at the time tells me he either is sloppy in his scholarship or pushing an agenda. I am not backing down with what I am saying, no matter what names you call me.
Sean O L:
The fact he doesnt bring up the fact that Easteren churches all celebrate Ad Orientem still, the fact he doesnt bring up that what he calls EMHCs were infact instituted Acolytes, the fact he doesnt bring up what people had tabernacles in their homes because the church was underground at the time tells me he either is sloppy in his scholarship or pushing an agenda. I am not backing down with what I am saying, no matter what names you call me.
Sean O L:
J
JNB
Guest
I have nothing to hide, here is my blog.
classificationyard.blogspot.com/
You can find my information there. Again, I Shawn McIlheny has prestented his views in a public manner, you can e mail him and have him defend himself on these forums. I am not defameing him, but telling my opinuion of him and his “scholarship” andmy opinions of why he is doing what he is doing. If he has issues aginst the SSPX fine, Pete Vere is someone who also has had bad problems with the SSPX yet doesnt go off the deep end, in my OPINION, I Shawn McIlheny does. Again, he is free to defend his “scholarship” in these forums, or go to my blog and e mail me.
Sean O L:
classificationyard.blogspot.com/
You can find my information there. Again, I Shawn McIlheny has prestented his views in a public manner, you can e mail him and have him defend himself on these forums. I am not defameing him, but telling my opinuion of him and his “scholarship” andmy opinions of why he is doing what he is doing. If he has issues aginst the SSPX fine, Pete Vere is someone who also has had bad problems with the SSPX yet doesnt go off the deep end, in my OPINION, I Shawn McIlheny does. Again, he is free to defend his “scholarship” in these forums, or go to my blog and e mail me.
Sean O L:
P
palmas85
Guest
Sean O L:
TOTALLY MADE UP
I actually figured that out already. I was just wondering if anyone would comment on it.Thanks for pointing it out. Kind of displays a prejudice, wouldn’t you say, to just make up figures to support your viewpoint?:
I see, speculative, not authoratative, in other words:
TOTALLY MADE UP
I actually figured that out already. I was just wondering if anyone would comment on it.Thanks for pointing it out. Kind of displays a prejudice, wouldn’t you say, to just make up figures to support your viewpoint?:
- Status