Posted on 10/10/2006 5:35:42 PM PDT by Petrosius
The ordinary magisterium of the Church requires the assent of the faithful. It's not just the extraordinary magisterium that binds. If you understood this you would shut up now.
Please direct me to the post where you were told this would not be the case.
Holy cow, I think you're right!
So, what am I not "assenting to" in your imagination??
It's pointedly obvious from the postings of the "Latin purists" that the end goal of their efforts is "all Latin, all the time".
Funny, but the forum moderator doesn't seem to think my posting style is unacceptable. The only one who has indulged in a personal attack in this exchange has been YOU.
No. Thanks for the compliment, though.
Obviously you missed the Religion Moderator's post to you (#248) asking you to not make it personal.
What part of Christian charity do you not understand?
Even if you are correct and those of us who love the Latin Mass, (Novus Ordo or Tridentine), only want Latin Masses do you really think that will ever happen?
Why don't you point out specifically where I've violated it??
Yes, I use blunt language. Too bad. Stupid ideas are stupid ideas, and I say so.
So there!
For starters you called Diva "foolish" in post 247 and the Religion Moderator evidently didn't like you doing that either, because you were called on it in post 248.
Yes, some ideas may be stupid, but there is no Christian charity in saying so bluntly. Jesus gave us the Golden Rule, and we are to follow it. Do you like it when others tell you that your ideas are "malarkey," "baloney," and "ridiculous?" Or that you are "foolish?" Even if you say you don't care, it gives a bad Christian witness to others who may be reading this thread to be so harsh. As Christians, we are to love one another, forgiving one another as Christ Jesus forgave us. St. Paul exhorts us to "speak the truth in love" and to be gentle when reproving. "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient." II Timothy 2:24 There are many more admonitions in the Scriptures regarding dealings with others, especially brother/sister Christians, which tell us that we must be kind and gentle.
It's time for all of you to step back, inhale - exhale, shake it off and return to the thread to discuss the issues without making it personal, i.e. ignoring previous offenses.
No you used childish language. There is a difference. /blunt
But, in this case, because your whole argument seems to be that we, who have a love for the traditional, are "foolish sentimentalists," and should not be allowed to have Latin, (whereas you-at least as far as I or Diva are concerned- can have your English, it's a perfectly fine language when used correctly), your “language” is not surprising. The tone of one's argument rarely ever rises above the developmental level of the theme.
To illustrate my point, perhaps you can explain to me why you even care that a few parishes have Latin liturgies? Or why you care that some of us prefer it? From what I can tell you are opposed to us preferring it. Is it really such an insult to you and your philosophy?
If you claim that you don't care, (a totally disingenuous claim, given your tone), then there is no argument. In that case, what may I ask is the point of all this fractiousness, this “blunt language" as you call it?
Y'know, you really ought to read all the posts in the thread before mouthing off. If you did, you would know that my position is (and always has been) that any parish that wants it should be allowed to have the Latin Mass as ONE OPTION along WITH the vernacular Mass.
But, the REAL position of you Latin purists is that you want to eventually drive out all liturgies other than Latin, and go back to the pre-Vatican II condition.
I also disagree emphatically with the ridiculous assertion that keeps being made that Latin is somehow "special" (more reverent, more melodious, better body odor, shinier teeth, you name it).
Hear, hear..me too. I miss it, so much.
sw
At the risk of upsetting the moderator I will ask you again, as I asked in post 262 to direct me to a post that states this intention on this thread. I have certainly never said it is what I want.
You will note that I did not, in fact claim, that that was not your "professed" opinion. It is, however, I believe not your real opinion. That was my point. Your real opinion must be that Latin and us latinists are bad. Further I'll tell you why I believe that is your real opinion. I believe it is your real opinion, weather you admit it even to yourself or not, because nothing else explains your attitude. If you really believed that, as you say "the REAL position of [us] Latin purists is that [we] want to eventually drive out all liturgies other than Latin, and go back to the pre-Vatican II condition," you would be a fool. As it is I'm merely accusing you of being a lier.
Please note that in this I'm giving you as a self-professed "rationalist" the benefit of the doubt. Some people, especially those who pride themselves on being "realists" and disdaining all that "foolish sentimentality" are usually less offended by the accusation of dishonesty- since after all, the "realist" can always say that dishonesty has its place in debate- then they are offended by the accusation of being a fool.
So assuming that you are not a fool, which you would be if you actually believed that we want to eliminate all liturgies other than the Latin rite, I will call you a lier. For nothing else explains your continued insistence on arguing with us. If we are trying to establish universal latinity, we would be fools, and you would have no logical reason to argue with us. You would be arguing with fools.
However that is not what we wish, and you know it. For example, do you think we "traditionalists" want to do away with the Greek Rite? You would be a fool to think so.
Thus your attitude MUST be based on something other than fear of us Latinists. I submit that, based upon you continued argumentativeness, and your infantile tone, you are in fact against us Latinists on a more basic, anti-traditionalist, level. To claim otherwise is to claim either that you have been arguing with people you believe to be fools, which begs the question “why waist your time?”. Or else, you would be a fool yourself to actually believe, in the face of all ACTUAL reality, that we want to establish a mono-rite Church with no other language than Latin.
Truth is always inerrant and it is also always re-defined.
These are simply areas where the most "leftwing Protestant" (not the modern political sense, but the sense of the "radical" Reformation) are lightyears to the Right of the most conservative Catholic or Orthodox.
I'm not sure if I follow you on this but the Reformationist protestants were pietist to the nth degree even as they were in rebellion against the Church. It puts me in mind of Mark's Gospel where he quotes the Christ as saying:
8 "You depart from God's command and hold onto human tradition. Indeed," 9 he said to them, "you have made a fine art of departing from God's command in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moshe said, `Honor your father and your mother,' and `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say, `If someone says to his father or mother, "I have promised as a korban" ' " (that is, as a gift to God) " ` "what I might have used to help you," ' 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus, with your tradition which you had handed down to you, you nullify the Word of God! And you do other things like this."
-Mark 7:8-13
And yes, I realize that That is what they say about we Catholics as well.
Pax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.