B
banjo
Guest
Cranch pretty much summed it up. The Forums were down for a few days or so; the word at the time was that a hacker had accessed the server resulting in the deletion of many posts.
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I did not say that it was. I said that it is possible that it was not meant in the way it was taken. A person may be imprudent in their choice of metaphors without meaning to be insulting. If we immediately assume that the metaphor was meant to be as insulting as it was, and respond angrily, when in fact it was not meant to be so, the return reaction is likely to be defensive and angry, as well. Then we’re off to the races.
I’m only suggesting that one could respond in a way that leaves open the possibility that the offense was not meant: “While it is true that changing externals won’t change the essence of a thing, can we agree that we should never use a pig as a metaphor for the Mass? It’s just not right.”
Even if the first person meant to be offensive, it is hard to respond harshly to a civilized answer without looking like a total troublemaker. If they respond that yes, they did intend the full offensiveness of they said, then they deserve to be reported to the moderator and left out of the conversation after that.
If, on the other hand, the poster responds that the comment was not meant that way, or was meant that way but was inappropriate, then the transgression can be forgiven and the discussion can continue.
There are always people who are going to dislike us, but there is no reason to cultivate emnity.
**A mild answer calms wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
The tongue of the wise pours out knowledge,
but the mouth of fools spurts forth foolishness.
The eyes of the Lord are in every place,
keeping watch on the evil and the good.
(Proverbs 15:1-3)**
B
banjo
Guest
I e-mailed Mr. Ahlquist a couple of years ago before I began using this as my signiture to be sure he actually said it. I can’t recall whether I shortened it to fit or whether that was his response. Nevertheless, it adequately conveys the idea…Just look at it as a paraphrase and not a direct quote.
E
estesbob
Guest
It adequately distorts the quote to making one beleive Chesterson thought smoking a cigar was a more serious offense than abortion. There is plenty of room for the correct quote. if you dont change it I am going to take it up with the moderators. We are not allowed to make bogus attributions.
C
catharina
Guest
In both examples given, wherein the Mass was referenced in comparison to pigs or tripe, I have no problem with anyone taking great offense and saying so at once.
When statements are so clearly beyond the pale of the most basic spirituality, someone should say so. Maybe because extremism rules some thinking, a statement is made that is so very offensive to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, EF or NO, then it would be best for all that someone acknowledge the grave error of such statement. If the poster acted/spoke through some unusual measure of inexplicable ignorance, then he/she can say so. Insisting that the Sacred is Sacred is always the best choice when irreverence is chosen to make a point.
I’ve only heard of the statements outside of the threads where they were made. No way around it, in both cases, I find it shocking. Where is our reverence? That this forum tends to allow for all posters to revel in extremism is (perhaps) the explanation for such unspeakable things being said about the Mass. When I think of the Church in China, for example, where priests are routinely arrested and imprisoned merely for saying Mass, I wonder again about the “comfort level” of those of us in the West. At the very least, we should always object to statements of grievous irreverence, whether the irreverence was intended or not.
When statements are so clearly beyond the pale of the most basic spirituality, someone should say so. Maybe because extremism rules some thinking, a statement is made that is so very offensive to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, EF or NO, then it would be best for all that someone acknowledge the grave error of such statement. If the poster acted/spoke through some unusual measure of inexplicable ignorance, then he/she can say so. Insisting that the Sacred is Sacred is always the best choice when irreverence is chosen to make a point.
I’ve only heard of the statements outside of the threads where they were made. No way around it, in both cases, I find it shocking. Where is our reverence? That this forum tends to allow for all posters to revel in extremism is (perhaps) the explanation for such unspeakable things being said about the Mass. When I think of the Church in China, for example, where priests are routinely arrested and imprisoned merely for saying Mass, I wonder again about the “comfort level” of those of us in the West. At the very least, we should always object to statements of grievous irreverence, whether the irreverence was intended or not.
C
cothrige
Guest
You are saying that traditionalism is the absence of being faithful to Rome? Because you do your best to be faithful to Rome, this precludes you from being accepted as traditional? This is the reason given by people? And then you posit, in opposition to this traditionalism, what you label “Catholics faithful to Rome”? Perhaps I am missing the subtlety of your sarcasm, but I have to say this comes across as a very uncharitable post. I really cannot see how a person could actually say that other people are not themselves doing their best to be faithful to Rome.
C
Cranch
Guest
Please read it again. Your shortened version has changed the meaning of the original. I meant to link to the original earlier. It is found here at the end of paragraph three. It is not my intent to cause you a problem, only to point out an inaccuracy.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
“Chesterton could see from long ago that smoking a cigar can be more offensive than performing an abortion.”
-Dale Ahlquist
The only issue I can see from your quote of Dale Ahlquist it makes it seem as if Chesterton is really saying that smoking a cigar can actually be more offensive than an abortion, without any qualifiers in the sentence to show that it’s a statement about a future warped society and not something inherently true or possible. God bless.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
no, that distinction belongs to the philosophy sub-forum of apologetics, where perhaps 2 or 3 true philosophy questions have been posed during its history.
since no thread here which has asked the question “What is a traditionalist?” has ever resulted in a coherent answer, my guess is that most people who come here will continue to be disappointed in their expectations.
P
palmas85
Guest
Hackers got in and shut down the server for a while. Close to a week I think it was and when it got back up it was spotty for a good while. Numerous posts and threads were lost forever. I wish they hadn’t been as they had some real jewels in there.
There was some speculation as I recall that the culprit was a poster who normally utilized several different screen names and would start highly inflammatory posts and have intense conversations with himself if the thread didn’t get as hot as he liked. He was one of a small group that would do this. If I’m not mistaken, some of them are still lurking around, although they are nowhere near as inflamatory as they were pre-crash.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I know how you feel! I always thought of myself as a “traditional Catholic” because I believe and support the traditions of the Church. I’m a post VII cradle Catholic and I’ve never been to an EF Mass, but I certainly wouldn’t bash it and would like to go to one someday. My wife is very liturgically minded. I understand the beauty of the ad orientam theology, and it makes more sense to me than ad populum. I’d much prefer to hear Gregorian chant at Mass that Simon & Garfunkle. I can be pretty anal about things (I organized my M&Ms by color as a child), so variations from the rubrics do irk me (although, I have been trying more and more to put things in their proper perspective and let go of the little things).
But then I come here and see many people that seem to think rejecting Vatican II, JP II, and the CCC are prerequisites for being a “traditionalist”. It seems like, not only do you have to have a preference for Communion on the tongue (which I do, unless the priest or EMHC is an elderly person that is a foot shorter than I am), but, in order to be a true “traditionalist”, you also have to be angry at those who receive in the hand (even though, as it stands now, both are acceptable options).
I’m sorry, but this made me laugh. I think there is a tendency (on internet forums especially) to lump together all those who disagree with you into the same extreme camp whose views are ridiculous caricatures and polar opposites of your own beliefs. I know I’ve been guilty of this before. I can speak only for myself, but when I’ve caught myself doing this, it’s usually a shortcut in logic that makes it easier to assume that I’m right.
C
cothrige
Guest
Never received a coherent answer? It isn’t a coherent question. I don’t believe for a second that there are people out there capable of logging into this forum who don’t know what a tradition is. But, regardless of that, people have still given cogent and clear responses to this ridiculous demand, though I doubt they continue doing so at this time. It is clearly only being brought up by particular people intent on trolling.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The question is this: are you willing to make corrections in a polite and fraternal way, a way that is open to the possibility that the comment was made in the heat of the moment or without full realization of how inappropriate it was going to read?
If not, do not be surprised when the fur begins to fly. IMHO, you play right into the hands of those who actively seek to be provocative, and will put others on the defensive who might otherwise have issued an apology.
E
estesbob
Guest
So the problem with someone comparing the mass to a pig is not the revolting comment-its those who take offense to the revolting comment.
S
Spiller
Guest
Just out of curiosity, why couldn’t you have typed “EF or OF”?
“Novus Ordo” and particularly “NO” is quite offensive to many Catholics. It’s not what the Church calls the Pauline Mass. Why use it?
To suggest that others do not find “NO/Novus Ordo” to be offensive or that it’s in common use within the Church is to be utter disingenuous.
Everything I see it on these forums, it send a little negative message about the person who cannot simply use “OF”, “Pauline Mass” or “Mass of Pope Paul VI.” Particularly those that dig deep to show where the Church actually did use that moniker a few times, many, many years ago.
B
banjo
Guest
My apologies to anyone who was offended or misled by my abbreviated signature, neither was ever my intention nor did I see it as Chesterton actually saying or believing that smoking a cigar can be more offensive than abortion. At last attempt, the link you provided wasn’t working.
C
catharina
Guest
I guess I’ll stay with my primary response - that I’ve avoided this forum for weeks since I couldn’t bear reading any more of the insults put forth by both sides. When the insult is directed at the Mass, though, no one should hesitate to speak up. While ideally, it should be done in a chariatble way, the end result has to be a statement that says:
“It’s unacceptable to speak irreverently about the Holy Mass.”
The rwo examples given (in this thread), one from each side of the aisle, so to speak, are shocking. I don’t know who made either statement and I don’t want to know who did. I know that when rhetoric becomes so unhinged, then reverence for the Holy can be at stake and no discussion should ever reach that point, especially on a Catholic site.
C
catharina
Guest
Good question. Not earth-shattering but good.
Until I discovered this forum I used the terms, the Mass and the Latin Mass.
I have no investment (positive or negative) in any particular usage.
PS - For the record, you’re the first I’ve heard object to the use of NO shorthand.-
C
Cat
Guest
No one “sets themselves up” as a apologist, and if they do, they’re crazy. It’s not exactly a money-making proposition. The popular Protestant-convert apologists that I have heard (Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Michael Cumbie, Rosalind Moss, etc. etc.) ** were hired by various Catholic organizations** because they demonstrated mastery of apologetics in a speaking situation and therefore, are useful servants at various seminars and conferences. Scott Hahn has also demonstrated an ability to write.
I believe that Scott Hahn has some kind of special credentials from the Pope that qualify him as a “teacher.” JREducation mentioned it in another thread. He didn’t “set himself up” to get these credentials. He earned them, and from what I understand, they were given to him by Catholics.
And I don’t believe that their motive is to “instruct the ignorant Catholics.” I’ve heard these guys and gals speak several times, and they are very humble and grateful to their Catholic mentors, priests, and instructors. Tim Staples in particular speaks a great deal about the Army C.O. who used the Bible to instruct him in the Catholic faith.
And the love is mutual–Catholics love to hear these people speak, and love to read their books.
When Scott Hahn spoke in our parish back in February, the church was PACKED. Shoulder to shoulder people in every pew, including the choir loft. Every single book, CD, and pamphlet sold out. And so many people stayed for the vigil Mass that the parish ran out of hosts–even though they were broken into tiny fragments during Holy Communion–and the liturgical director had to call around on Saturday night and ask other churches for some hosts so that our parish would have enough for the six Sunday Masses!
The most precious moment for me came the next day. I was sitting at Mass near an elderly woman who has always said “hello” to me during and been pleasant enough. But that day after Mass, she asked me if I had heard Scott Hahn and she said, “I’ve never been so excited about my Church before! It’s just amazing!”
Pax et Caritas, do you have some kind of problem with Protestant converts who have this kind of effect on Catholics? I don’t understand what your objection is to enthusiasm.
Scott and Kimberly Hahn are not lording it over “ignorant Catholics.” I think you should re-think your opinion and I think you should be a little less quick to criticize these people who work so hard to bring others home to the Catholic Church.
I am a Catholic convert, and I try never to forget to give public (and private) thanks to all the Catholics who “prayed me into the Church.” According to our priests, there is a group of elderly women who have spent an hour a week before the Blessed Sacrament praying specifically for the conversion of Protestants. THOSE ladies have my eternal thanks!
My husband has given a “Rosary Talk” to local Catholic groups, in which he tells about an experience with a Catholic woman who prayed a Rosary for us over 20 years ago. He credits that woman and her prayer for getting us on the road to Rome.
Finally, Pax et Caritas, what exactly is “Protestant spirit” or “Protestant flavor” and why do you object to it?
I don’t want to sound like a braggert, but what I and my husband have been told over and over again is that Catholics love us because we have brought enthusiasm, knowledge of the Bible, and curiousity about the Catholic Church into their parish, and they are grateful! It’s contagious–we are so excited about the Catholic Church, and that helps THEM to get excited about the Catholic Church. We point out things that they never noticed!
We are also willing to work like horses and do any task that the priest or others in the Church set us to do. We are so used to working for the Lord and serving Him and His people, so when they call us, we generally say, “yes, we’d be glad to help!”
Also, we are willing to give money. A lot of Protestants are faithful tithers. (We’re not, I’m sorry to say. Not enough faith yet.) But we are faithful to give as much as we can possibly give, and we respond to the various appeals for money with joy.
Do you think we ought to be “quiet” until we are “thoroughly Catholic?” And when exactly would that be? We have been through RCIA and studied hard to learn as much as we can. We’ve been received into the Church–baptized, confirmed, and now we are privileged to receive Jesus in Holy Communion.
The Church recognizes us as Catholics. I have not heard of any further “tests” that we have to pass to be considered “truly assimilated” into the Catholic Church.
I agree that Protestants need to respect the Authority of the Church and not start anything without the permission and blessing of the local Bishop. I think we need to submit to our Bishop and priests, and be humble and docile.
But I don’t think we need to just sit in a corner and be quiet.
Again, Pax et Caritas, I encourage you to re-think this attitude that seems to condemn Protestant converts. If this was not your intent, I apologize for thinking badly of you.
C
CradleCath
Guest
:yup: :yup: :yup:
According to some, we must all join hands & sing, “Jesus loves me”. Your use of the word “pablum” was right on the money. And quoting & discussing anything of substance makes you a rebel.
- Status