What do you think of this?

[DavidJoseph]

I’m debating a radical traditionalist on the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass (he claims it’s invalid – at least most vernacular versions). We’re exchanging articles. However, this guy says that he will treat this like a court case and decide which articles are to be admitted as evidence. And he says he’ll decide that based on the author’s credentials. For example, it stands to reason that a priest who’s an expert on the liturgy and Church history or a canon lawyer would, in his mind, be a more reliable source than a lay Catholic apologist. I provided an excellent article for him, but since it was written by a layperson (from whom I haven’t been able to round up much info) he claims that while he’ll read it he won’t admit it as evidence until he’s gotten some more info on the author. Yet the article is from an excellent apologetics site: matt1618.freeyellow.com

I’m beginning to think his treating this like a court case is dumb. Anyone agree? What should I say to him if y’all agree?

While I’m at it, can anyone here give me any info on Matt1618 – e.g. credentials?

 

[Nan_S]

DavidJoseph:

We’re exchanging articles. However, this guy says that he will treat this like a court case and decide which articles are to be admitted as evidence. And he says he’ll decide that based on the author’s credentials. I’m beginning to think his treating this like a court case is dumb. Anyone agree? What should I say to him if y’all agree?

Sounds like a kangaroo court to me. He’s the judge, jury, and executioner, and you only get to present evidence if he decides to accept it. He wins, hands down, before you ever get started.

The only way I could debate someone like that if a third party was making the rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

 

[slinky1882]

Nan S:

Sounds like a kangaroo court to me. He’s the judge, jury, and executioner, and you only get to present evidence if he decides to accept it. He wins, hands down, before you ever get started.

The only way I could debate someone like that if a third party was making the rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

Hey, I have to agree on the other person’s role of judge and jury. Why don’t you submit the writings of John Paul II (Ecclesia Dei) or now Pope Benedict XVI along with their credentials??? Their doctorates should hold the weight being sought, and if not, it’s not possible to meet the indivdual’s requirements. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[marty1818]

You could ask him where he gets the authority to disagree with the wisdom of Holy Mother Church.

matt

 

[jjwilkman]

Nan S:

Sounds like a kangaroo court to me. He’s the judge, jury, and executioner, and you only get to present evidence if he decides to accept it. He wins, hands down, before you ever get started.

The only way I could debate someone like that if a third party was making the rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

clap clap. i don’t know how to put those balls

 

[DavidFilmer]

DavidJoseph:

I’m beginning to think his treating this like a court case is dumb. Anyone agree?

YES. Why are you casting your perls before swine?

 

[Catholic2003]

What does he mean by invalid? Is he denying the Real Presence?