D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Yeah. :yup:That’s how I usually feel about the OP’s posts.![]()
Yeah. :yup:That’s how I usually feel about the OP’s posts.![]()
The faithfulness of the “faithful” is questionable if they are more concerned with hearing Latin and seeing a priest’s back than they are in attending a licit Mass approved by the faith.The ironic thing about bishops and priests who are so antagonistic to the TLM is that they drive the faithful into the arms of the SSPX.
Thank you. You said what I wanted to, but in a far more civil manner.The faithfulness of the “faithful” is questionable if they are more concerned with hearing Latin and seeing a priest’s back than they are in attending a licit Mass.
Welcome! Have someOh boy, nine pages in twelve hours! And I just arrived at the party.
I hate to say this, but the fact that you describe it as “seeing a priest’s back” shows a lack of catechesis.The faithfulness of the “faithful” is questionable if they are more concerned with hearing Latin and seeing a priest’s back than they are in attending a licit Mass approved by the faith.
Thank you. You said what I wanted to, but in a far more civil manner.
The faithfulness of the “faithful” is questionable if they are more concerned with hearing Latin and seeing a priest’s back than they are in attending a licit Mass approved by the faith.
Showing a lack of catechesis would be driving past numerous licit Masses to reach an illicit one.I hate to say this, but the fact that you describe it as “seeing a priest’s back” shows a lack of catechesis.
Quote:Yup, I agree 100% !![]()
That’s funny!Let’s see…ask the Traditional Forum if the EF should be the OF and the OF should be stopped. Hey - do you also conduct polls for the Obama administration?![]()
What kind of an argument is that to back up your ad orientem attack?Showing a lack of catechesis would be driving past numerous licit Masses to reach an illicit one.
Exactly, totally agree.I hate to say this, but the fact that you describe it as “seeing a priest’s back” shows a lack of catechesis.
The faithfulness of the “faithful” is questionable if they are more concerned with hearing Latin and seeing a priest’s back than they are in attending a licit Mass approved by the faith.
I hate to say this, but the fact that you describe it as “seeing a priest’s back” shows a lack of catechesis.
Showing a lack of catechesis would be driving past numerous licit Masses to reach an illicit one.
TL & PV-What kind of an argument is that to back up your ad orientem attack?
I think you’re more sure of that than he is.I will give you that I did cringe a little at the “looking at the priest’s back comment”, but I do not think that it was meant as a slam to “ad orientem”.
NO! And you know what my reason is.Should the Latin Mass be the universal Catholic mass again?
It’s also assuming alot.TL & PV-
I do not presume to speak for Stylites, but, the way I am understanding what is being said is that someone who drives past a valid and “licit” Mass to attend a valid but “illicit” Mass because they prefer the externals and without them perceive something as less-than or abusive, IMHO is not very “faithful”.
I will give you that I did cringe a little at the “looking at the priest’s back comment”, but I do not think that it was meant as a slam to “ad orientem”.
I never said you insinuated it. But you jumped all over me to defend the person that did insinuate such things.You’re way off base, insinuating things I never said.
How I look at it is taking a step backward will help us move forward. Some times you have to turn back the clock on your watch to get the right time. Plus if you don’t pull backwards on a sling shot your projectile will never go forward.Should the Latin Mass be the universal Catholic mass again?
I am interested in polling how many people think we should return to just the Latin Mass within the church and phase out the Ordinary Format (the mass since Vatican II)…
Bruce
So I am “assuming” the best and you and the others the worst.It’s also assuming alot.