Rich, educated not necessarily less active in religion
#51
(04-10-2010, 06:20 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Your point in nomine partris?



A Eucharistic Miracle where the Host turns to flesh and blood would have to signify the real precence, and it was a NO mass. And a seminarian I correspond with sent me a story about another one, but that one got deleted.
Reply
#52
No one is arguing that all NO masses are invalid.
So u have no point
Reply
#53
(04-10-2010, 07:42 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: No one is arguing that all NO masses are invalid.
So u have no point



and you have no brain, several on here have argued just that ex NO being 1
Reply
#54
(04-10-2010, 10:43 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: No i don't ignore that its called modernism and its been around along time. another straw man padre. you seem to be full of them
What utter nonsense you write. where is this Novus Ordo Church you imagine to exist? The Vatican? Where the Vicar of Christ is? Are you suggesting the Holy Father is not a legitimate Pope?
Reply
#55
[quote='Scipio_a' pid='547710' dateline='1270932700']


All he falls back on are worn out arguments (destroyed here time and again on many threads on that exact
Reply
#56
[quote='littlerose' pid='547766']

You would be better advised to wonder on prayer, the Scriptures and leading a holy life
Reply
#57
(04-10-2010, 07:42 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: No one is arguing that all NO masses are invalid.
So u have no point
Really? And who decides if they are valid or not? A group of malcontents on an internet forum? You?  If they are performed by a Catholic priest, they are valid. They are valid even despite some of the abuses. To not accept this is to set oneself above Christ and His Church.
Reply
#58
(04-10-2010, 05:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-10-2010, 04:51 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: so fgrt just finally saw that the majority on this board know the NO that gets his little insides tickled starting way back in semenary is a bastard, protestantized service...a service fraught with so many problems that a declaration calling it the OF is silly beyond a laugh, that he is so infected with heresy that few here would consider him Catholic except in name only.

All he falls back on are worn out arguments (destroyed here time and again on many threads on that exact topic)  that the Church uses it, therefore it's OK...LOL

fghp...the NO is at odds with the Church..you can find this argument over and over here on threads dedicated to the idea...

Just so you know, Scipio does not speak for as many people here as he claims.  There are plenty who disagree with him.  Apparently he thinks that claiming that everybody is on his side strengthens his argument.  He also apparently thinks that deliberately getting people's names wrong is a witty put down.  Of course, he also thinks that somebody who writes something that agrees with his view has destroyed the opposing argument. He does not seem to understand that just because it convinces him does not mean it is a good argument.  (Hint for Scipio: it convinces you because you already believe it.)


Yes it is true...women in burkinis...claiming to be Catholic, disagree with me.

As for the finer point that I claim lots of people agree with me on matters of substance...if not on every detail...I don't claim it, I insist on it.  It is proven in thread after thread about this very topic, and yes, before I stopped reading almost all threads, I read most of them...every gruling response...the pattern becomes clear.   This of course does not mean that my propositions are right....but the logic ALWAYS stands on its own...nothing I have ever posted has been torn apart, not one thing...not even my outlandish modesty post...

As for the NO and people knowing it's a mess, it turns out that a mojority of people on this board would go to a Mass using the 1956 missal when traveling if they visited a place where the only option was a TLM using the 1956 one or an NO....and EVERYONE who responded knows what using the 1956 missal typically means.

As of today 42 1956 Indie TLM, 26 NO...no doubt this change a little.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33167179

Other non scietific polls of FEers show similar resluts....none suggest the other way around.
Reply
#59
(04-10-2010, 10:03 PM)fcgv Wrote:
(04-10-2010, 07:42 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: No one is arguing that all NO masses are invalid.
So u have no point
Really? And who decides if they are valid or not? A group of malcontents on an internet forum? You?  If they are performed by a Catholic priest, they are valid. They are valid even despite some of the abuses. To not accept this is to set oneself above Christ and His Church.

None of us decide if they are invalid or not unless we can see one of the 3 required elements missing...and there have been publicly obvious examples of missing or improper elements...thus invalidity....that's not the issue....why would anyone waste their time with a service that has a high probability of sacrilege, let alone invalidity, not to mention a lot of "light in their loafers" presiders?  Or endanger their faith by swimming in a cesspool that has cause countless millions to walk away from the Church?

No one that goes to the FSSP or SSPX or SSPV or indie chaple is a malcontent...we got the Mass baby, and most of us have the other sacraments too...in a completely orthodox environment where our children are safe, and the Faith is taught and practiced


your notion that if a "Mass" is perfomed by a priest it is valid shows you are either wholly ignorant of what is required...or you are a lier trying to sow confussion...sory bud...most here know what the 3 elements are...and if they don't...well they can look it up or PM me...it's all over this board.
Reply
#60
(04-10-2010, 10:00 PM)fcgv Wrote:
(04-10-2010, 04:51 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: All he falls back on are worn out arguments (destroyed here time and again on many threads on that exact topic)  that the Church uses it, therefore it's OK...LOL
Writing it over and over does not make it true. A minority of people, fanatics, think as you do. Fanatics on either side are the same, left or right, opinionated, intolerant and lacking the spirit of Christ. There is not such an entity as a "Novus Ordo" Church. If you believe that, you make the assumption that the legitimate authority of the Church, the Vatican and the Pope, are in error. A very dangerous assumption to make for one who calls themselves "Catholic".

I already adressed this heresy of middle of the roading...the thuth stands alone...not in the middle...and it is held by fanatics who demand truth interstingly enough.

Your first sentence is the only true thing you said here...oddly...it applies to the NO aparatus.  Fanatics like me are not intolorant at all...you will see this if you sift through my posts...It is guys like you that are intolorant....you yell tolorance or charity or some other plea everytime you like like a toad in an argument...that also can be seen on FE time and again...the "spirit" of Christ is the "spirit" of truth.  I know...you don't like that since it has clear walls that deliniate it from what is false.  And there is an NO church...that is clear, it's followers diverge from the Faith in countless ways not the least of wich is lip service to the Pope untli he stands for something actually Catholic.  You are part of it.


Yeah, that's right fgcy, we're on to you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)