Question for SSPX chapel-goers.

[maurin]

Isn’t that an obstacle to regularization? You have said, I believe, that the SSPX will be fully regularized within a few months.

stopped reading after this dishonesty.

 

[Lujack]

stopped reading after this dishonesty.

You haven’t? Someone has. That’s why I added the “I believe” qualifier. I wasn’t 100% sure, and I had no time to check.

I’m truly sorry if I offended you, but I vaguely remembered reading that. It wasn’t dishonesty on my part.

Please don’t storm out of the thread.

 

[maurin]

You haven’t? Someone has. That’s why I added the “I believe” qualifier. I wasn’t 100% sure, and I had no time to check.

But you ascribed to me words that weren’t mine, thought it was ok because you had “no time to check” and so did it anyway. And you don’t add fuel to the fire?

I’m truly sorry if I offended you, but I vaguely remembered reading that. It wasn’t dishonesty on my part.

If it wasn’t dishonesty it was laziness. Qualifying your apology with statements which downplay your responsibility isn’t an apology. An apology is an apology.

Please don’t storm out of the thread.

Your modus operandi is to put spins on things which were neither hinted at, nor said outright.

 

[Lujack]

But you ascribed to me words that weren’t mine, thought it was ok because you had “no time to check” and so did it anyway. And you don’t add fuel to the fire?

If it wasn’t dishonesty it was laziness. Qualifying your apology with statements which downplay your responsibility isn’t an apology. An apology is an apology.

I’m sorry for misattributing a position to you. It was my fault. I sincerely hope you accept my apology.

Your modus operandi is to put spins on things which were neither hinted at, nor said outright.

Don’t accuse me of debating in bad faith. That’s insulting. Can we get to the debate, please?

 

[maurin]

I’m sorry for misattributing a position to you. It was my fault. I sincerely hope you accept my apology.

Don’t accuse me of debating in bad faith. That’s insulting. Can we get to the debate, please?

Don’t pull the victim card, and don’t put words in my mouth. I did not accuse you of debating in bad faith. I pointed out something you have done on a number of occassions, which is to spin things in ways that were neither intended nor hinted at. It is unfruitful to debate with you until you realize that you are doing this, even though it is unintentional.

This is what I have meant by pointing out your declarations, such as when you declared that the SSPX will not be regularized until they…", and why I have congratulated you on your apparent appointment as spokesman.

Look, Lujack, I don’t mean to be unkind, I really don’t. I have very strong opinions, but that also does not mean that my opinions can’t be changed by cold hard facts as they were when the whole Williamson affair was being discussed.

I have never said and would never say that the NO Mass is invalid, on the contrary I’m a loyal son of the Church and if His Holiness says it is, then it is. I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to attend it, but I can point out why I don’t like, and why I don’t attend it, and why I pray that it be abrogated. And I have not done so from emotional arguments, about how the NO makes me feel, but from the respective Missals directly.

Neither do I say what the Church should or should not do, or what the Church will or will not do, rather I express my wishes as wishes, my hopes as hopes and my opinions as my opinions.

It is my opinion that you do not, although I hope fervently that you would, and I wish strongly that you would debate in a similar manner. We can resume when you do, otherwise resuming would bear no fruit for either of us.

 

[Lujack]

Don’t pull the victim card, and don’t put words in my mouth. I did not accuse you of debating in bad faith. I pointed out something you have done on a number of occassions, which is to spin things in ways that were neither intended nor hinted at. It is unfruitful to debate with you until you realize that you are doing this, even though it is unintentional.

This is what I have meant by pointing out your declarations, such as when you declared that the SSPX will not be regularized until they…", and why I have congratulated you on your apparent appointment as spokesman.

Look, Lujack, I don’t mean to be unkind, I really don’t. I have very strong opinions, but that also does not mean that my opinions can’t be changed by cold hard facts as they were when the whole Williamson affair was being discussed.

I have never said and would never say that the NO Mass is invalid, on the contrary I’m a loyal son of the Church and if His Holiness says it is, then it is. I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to attend it, but I can point out why I don’t like, and why I don’t attend it, and why I pray that it be abrogated. And I have not done so from emotional arguments, about how the NO makes me feel, but from the respective Missals directly.

Neither do I say what the Church should or should not do, or what the Church will or will not do, rather I express my wishes as wishes, my hopes as hopes and my opinions as my opinions.

It is my opinion that you do not, although I hope fervently that you would, and I wish strongly that you would debate in a similar manner. We can resume when you do, otherwise resuming would bear no fruit for either of us.

I always have been, but I phrase things a little bit more definitively than I should. For that, I sincerely apologize, again. If I guarantee you I’ll be more careful in how I type things, and be much more explicit when something is my opinion, will you agree to resume the debate?

 

[maurin]

I always have been, but I phrase things a little bit more definitively than I should. For that, I sincerely apologize, again. If I guarantee you I’ll be more careful in how I type things, and be much more explicit when something is my opinion, will you agree to resume the debate?

It all depends on how you proceed…we’ll see.

 

[LilyM]

Ok, you’re right. And while we’re at it, let’s tear down the great cathedrals and replace them with eye-sores, or sell them to muslims. Let’s sell all the priceless art, strip all the gold, remove all the altar cloths and so on. And all this time I thought the Catholic Church was against iconoclasts and puritanical sour-pusses. Perhaps the Magi could have appeared with gifts more…relevant and handy to the holy family. Perhaps a new bandsaw for St. Joseph?

Uhhh - tearing down beautiful old cathedrals would be just as impractical as giving fish or lambs as tribute to Jesus would have been. Besides the fact that these things are important parts of cultural and artistic as well as religious heritage. Those considerations alone suggest that where possible we keep and preserve them. NO supporter is not the same thing as philistine

The old widow didn’t give him ANYTHING significant either. Her last two small coins to the temple? What is that? Oh yeah, it, along with her great faith, was the best gift that she was able to give. She didn’t withold her money. Sounds to me like faith working in love…

And a church that isn’t plated with gold is somehow indicative of less faith? The little Croatian Catholic community I grew up in started in a very humble little wooden church. When the community grew, as BOTH need AND means dictated, a larger and better-provisioned but still not ostentatious church was built for us.

I know these people - THEY and their faith were precisely the same in each situation. If we’d had Mass in a tent in the middle of a field to start with and continued to this day - same people, same gift of faith.

I hear that a lot from NO folk. “But it’s still valid” they scream. Now if only they’d work on expelling all the abuse and sacrilege they tolerate in the middle of their valid liturgy. Then it just might be more pleasing to God, knowing that He’s not being abused amid the splendor of the Mass.

Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. The Mass is a place to get away from the errors of the world instead of bringing them with us. Yes, the liturgy is valid, but this is the minimum requirement, right? It should also be reverent and as free from error as possible…That’s what rubrics are for! Perhaps many priests should find theirs!

“It’s still valid!!!”

Pshaw.

Your first misconception is to think that having Jesus present is somehow equivalent to having only a bare sufficiency. HE is never a minimum requirement, neither is any Mass at which He deigns to make Himself present.

Case in point - some of our Protestant brethren (and I’ve seen a High Anglican Church service that would very much rival the TLM in reverence and solemnity) have all the bells and smells and solemn and reverent prayers, but no valid sacrament.

You are dangerously close to saying that such a mockery of the Eucharist, totally bereft of the Real Presence, would be acceptable as a substitute for an abuse-ridden NO, and that such doesn’t offend God EVERY bit as much as our abuses.

Your second mistake is to think that we who attend the NO (or I should say I - I cannot speak for everyone, but I’m sure I’m not alone in this) don’t make the effort to report abuses, and hopefully correct them, when we see them, AND to find the most abuse-free Mass that is practicably available to us.