Rich, educated not necessarily less active in religion
#21
(04-09-2010, 11:12 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I supported Sarah Palin over everyone else but Ron Paul in '08, but conservative politicians are shooting themselves in the foot by not sponsoring a major presidential candidate who's media-savvy, cosmopolitan, and at least appears to be an intellectual; pretty much everything that ensured Barack Obama's slam dunk election. Elections are won by appearances, and the soccer mom/pseudo-country thing that Palin is going for is what's going to ensure she never gets elected to the Presidency.

I don't think the fact that she's going star in a reality show will help her come 2012 either...
Reply
#22
(04-09-2010, 11:14 AM)Pilgrim Wrote: I don't think the fact that she's going star in a reality show will help her come 2012 either...

What? I haven't heard anything about that.

A reality TV show would work miracles for the right kind of politician, or if someone like Donald Trump decided to run for office. I can't see it as leading anywhere but down for Palin, though.
Reply
#23
it's amazing how much this thread just ..... derailed.  LoL.  :laughing:

*Golf clap*

Reply
#24
(04-09-2010, 11:12 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(04-09-2010, 10:46 AM)Pilgrim Wrote: I'm glad to see that at least someone is pointing out that being educated doesn't mean being an atheist.  Sadly, when people like Gov. Palin are the public face of religion in America, the faithful get made fun of.

I supported Sarah Palin over everyone else but Ron Paul in '08, but conservative politicians are shooting themselves in the foot by not sponsoring a major presidential candidate who's media-savvy, cosmopolitan, and at least appears to be an intellectual; pretty much everything that ensured Barack Obama's slam dunk election. Elections are won by appearances, and the soccer mom/pseudo-country thing that Palin is going for is what's going to ensure she never gets elected to the Presidency.

The problem with politicians like that is that they are often squirmy on important issues. Mit Romney is a poster child for that. He has everything you listed, except he waffles on important issues that us Catholics have to take seriously when voting.
Reply
#25
(04-09-2010, 09:22 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-09-2010, 09:01 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: People like me? R reffering to my race? My sex? My religion? Where I go to mass? My nationality? What exactly does a priest such as yourself mean by "a person like you"?

For what it is worth, I understood him to mean a person who apparently sets out to be deliberately offensive.  It seems to me that he believes you to be a troll.  If so, his decision not to engage you in conversation is a reasonable course of action.  I find this an understandable conclusion to draw from your posts.


Well you have to admit dk IS a little rough around the edges. Maybe the padre is a proper guy and dk's rough attitude rubs him the wrong way. THAT, I could understand
Reply
#26
(04-09-2010, 10:36 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: padre the issue with the No is not its validity. though most wouldn't meet the criteria of being valid some do. the plm with the No and there are many is formost one of sacrilege. and its theology not being catholic but protestant.
hence its a protestant mass. it is a bastard mass as well as like a bastard it has no father but instead was made up on the spot banal fabrication



Except for 1 thing dk. It has the real presence. Padre's right. You are questioning the magestrerium of the church. And what are you gonna tell Jesus if He asks whu you called the mass a bastard mass.


Fools rush in......
Reply
#27
Yes it does as do orthodox mases. Ur point? And it only has that if it valid.
Fools rush in indeed but maybe u should take your mouth out from your ass first
Reply
#28
CHRIST knows full well the NO is a bastard as does the holy father. Few can argue the NO isn't a bastard. Well few will be able to make that arguement stand up to scrutiny. By definition a bastard has no father. The NO has a father but that father is protestantism which is not catholic. Hence the use of the word Bastard to identify NO. We are not talking about validity. That is a serperate issue which again has been discussed to death on this forum. But its a save assumption due to the sacrelege of the NO to view most as not being valid. It mist meet certain criteria that sadly most NO don't meet. Again to bring this back to the NO being a bastard I take no credit for using bastard to perfectly in a nutshell says what the NO is,  as ABL also used this term to describe the NO.
in nomine patre is your mouth out from your ass yet?
Reply
#29
(04-10-2010, 07:53 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Yes it does as do orthodox mases. Ur point? And it only has that if it valid.
Fools rush in indeed but maybe u should take your mouth out from your ass first
His point, quite simply, is that it IS the normal Mass for the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. You and I may despair of this, and wish it were otherwise, but we would be deceiving ourselves. It is fine to yearn and strive for tradition, and a return to most parishes of the EF (Tridentine) Rite. But let us not fall victim to imagining in doing so we are somehow the "real" Church and the other exists as a "Novus Ordo Church." There is no such an entity as the "Novus Ordo" Church. There IS the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict 16th, as its head on earth. THAT Church has two Rites for its main body-the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo Missae), and the Extraordinary Form, The so-called "Tridentine" Mass.

The priests who say the OF are fully valid, fully "Catholic" priests of unquestionable apostolic succession and valid orders. That their education, is SOME cases, may have lacked the formation of our clergy in the past is certainly a sad truth. None-the-less, these men are the valid clergy of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

If you doubt anything I've written, you are at odds with the Church. Period. If you claim the OF is an invalid Rite, you are declaring yourself an authority over the Vatican. You are, in effect, indicating a belief that the Vatican is false since this NOM is approved of and was instituted by that very place.

As I wrote, this does not mean that faithful Catholics cannot work and pray to restore some of those things we seemed to have put aside. But we must do so within the Church and we must cease questioning the Magisterium of the Church.

Real change comes from within an organization, and will take time. We will never be what we were in the 1950's. And thanks be to God for that! The innovations found in the Church after Vatican 2 did not pop out of thin air. They arrived at from men and women raised in the pre-V2 Church. Many so-called "trad's" seem to ignore that fact.

Let us indeed restore our traditional faith to the Church, but let us not return to a time when the rubrics of the Mass ruled our hearts instead of Christ.
Reply
#30
(04-10-2010, 08:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: CHRIST knows full well the NO is a bastard as does the holy father. Few can argue the NO isn't a bastard. Well few will be able to make that arguement stand up to scrutiny. By definition a bastard has no father. The NO has a father but that father is protestantism which is not catholic. Hence the use of the word Bastard to identify NO. We are not talking about validity. That is a serperate issue which again has been discussed to death on this forum. But its a save assumption due to the sacrelege of the NO to view most as not being valid. It mist meet certain criteria that sadly most NO don't meet. Again to bring this back to the NO being a bastard I take no credit for using bastard to perfectly in a nutshell says what the NO is,  as ABL also used this term to describe the NO.
in nomine patre is your mouth out from your ass yet?



It never was in there  Kanadian Kook. You could say that it seems less reverant at times, but to use that language about the Mass where bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus, like I said, fools rush in. I cannnot picture any good catholic using that term. One of the trad priests I know, who writes articles on occassion for Tradition in Action, and has been written about in Catholic Family News, once addressed this and said he would not use that term. Maybe he's not enlightned as you. He only had 4 years of college, 4 years of seminary and has a masters degree. But perhaps you can enlighten him on this. He will never say the NO, but he will not use such language in talking about any mass. Fools rush in.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)