Fr. Z poll
#71
(09-28-2010, 08:02 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 10:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 08:42 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 10:37 AM)ies0716 Wrote: This is slightly off-topic, but is glgas the one who owns the breviary site at http://divinumofficium.com?  If so, I would like to say thank you for maintaining such an incredible site!

yes, he is.  he's also one of the nicest people here. 

Rather one of the most passive aggressive, dishonest and annoying.

I'll remind you that he began this thread by making a snotty "beat your wife" remark about what the problem with Father Z could possibly be according to Trads  Assuming the worst and making sport of the concerns of Traditionalists is what he's been warned about before on the forum.

your first sentence is pure projection.

he didn't begin the thread at all.  petertherock began it with a rant about Fr. Z. not being Catholic.  at least he realized he had misunderstood what Fr.Z. posted and amended his post and apologized.  more charity is something we could use around here.

about the sixth post or so, laszlo asked "Is your problem that he keeps the Ember day, or that he keeps is according to the 1960 runrics?"   :laughing:  it was a joke, which you obviously didn't get.  it was none of what you claim it was. 

I'd be more apt to believe it were a joke if he weren't so habitually hostile to Traditionalism, but he's often hostile in making these kinds of allusions and remarks.  So, sue me.
Reply
#72
(09-28-2010, 10:40 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-28-2010, 08:02 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 10:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 08:42 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(09-27-2010, 10:37 AM)ies0716 Wrote: This is slightly off-topic, but is glgas the one who owns the breviary site at http://divinumofficium.com?  If so, I would like to say thank you for maintaining such an incredible site!

yes, he is.  he's also one of the nicest people here. 

Rather one of the most passive aggressive, dishonest and annoying.

I'll remind you that he began this thread by making a snotty "beat your wife" remark about what the problem with Father Z could possibly be according to Trads  Assuming the worst and making sport of the concerns of Traditionalists is what he's been warned about before on the forum.

your first sentence is pure projection.

he didn't begin the thread at all.  petertherock began it with a rant about Fr. Z. not being Catholic.  at least he realized he had misunderstood what Fr.Z. posted and amended his post and apologized.  more charity is something we could use around here.

about the sixth post or so, laszlo asked "Is your problem that he keeps the Ember day, or that he keeps is according to the 1960 runrics?"   :laughing:  it was a joke, which you obviously didn't get.  it was none of what you claim it was. 

I'd be more apt to believe it were a joke if he weren't so habitually hostile to Traditionalism, but he's often hostile in making these kinds of allusions and remarks.  So, sue me.
Reply
#73
This is the problem here Traditionalist isn't Tradition. I have told you guys this more than once. The image of the Church you profer is not anything like what it was before Vatican II. I'm bewildered by this. You guys remind me of the folks in the parish that were the tiniest minority. The ones that wouldn't drink beer, wouldn't go to the carnival, and wouldn't gamble at Father's club with the priests and smoke cigars. Always pointing fingers at parishoners to Father accusing them of every mortal sin known to man, and then Father for the umpteenth jillion time has to explain that although you've studied every Church document since the Didache you still do not possess the power to see their souls.

This started as a rant against a priest on a mis-representation of his thoughts, and then an apology. Never fear, the greek chorus in unison to the rescue. You have turned it back to get him for other reasons. Father Z does a superb job at translating Latin for all of the folks there that want to learn. Along the way, you have absolved Petertherock of his objective malicious mortal sin but have backhanded Laszlo because you do not understand, nor care what he writes, because you can see his soul, to keep this rant going.

Do you get it ? The SSPX is not going to fix this. The SSPX is only a two bit player in the drama.  This will only be fixed by the Consecration of Russia.
tim

PS Look up objective before you accuse me of doing similar !
Reply
#74
I agree with timoose's comment above.  This thread is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with SSPX and its fellow-travelers.  The SSPX and sede members of this forum consistently display an unbelievable amount of arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness.  Fr. Z offers the TLM wherever he goes, trains NO priests to offer the TLM, and provides a service to many people throughout the Church with his translations.  But that's not good enough for the self-appointed Popes on this forum.  No, he must refuse to say the NO at all.  And he must accept the ludicrous position that SSPX is an equal negotiating partner with the Vicar of Christ.  SSPX refuses to even engage with the rest of the Church, refuses to acknowledge that a Catholic can legitimately attend a NO Mass or even a diocesan TLM, and picks and chooses which Papal teachings it will accept and which ones it won't.  Then every SSPX member sets himself up as judge and jury to those of us Catholics who are actually engaging with the problems in the Church and trying to do something about it instead of sitting on the sidelines acting smug. 

I was highly sympathetic to SSPX before joining this forum and often defended them against the attacks of some of my friends, but if the attitudes of the SSPX members here are reflective of the Society as a whole, I can't defend them in good conscience anymore.
Reply
#75
(10-03-2010, 12:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I agree with timoose's comment above.  This thread is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with SSPX and its fellow-travelers.  The SSPX and sede members of this forum consistently display an unbelievable amount of arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness.  Fr. Z offers the TLM wherever he goes, trains NO priests to offer the TLM, and provides a service to many people throughout the Church with his translations.  But that's not good enough for the self-appointed Popes on this forum.  No, he must refuse to say the NO at all.  And he must accept the ludicrous position that SSPX is an equal negotiating partner with the Vicar of Christ.  SSPX refuses to even engage with the rest of the Church, refuses to acknowledge that a Catholic can legitimately attend a NO Mass or even a diocesan TLM, and picks and chooses which Papal teachings it will accept and which ones it won't.  Then every SSPX member sets himself up as judge and jury to those of us Catholics who are actually engaging with the problems in the Church and trying to do something about it instead of sitting on the sidelines acting smug. 

I was highly sympathetic to SSPX before joining this forum and often defended them against the attacks of some of my friends, but if the attitudes of the SSPX members here are reflective of the Society as a whole, I can't defend them in good conscience anymore.

I see a lot of self-righteousness on your side of things too.  Should I just leave the Church altogether because of people like you?

There's no end of self-righteous smugness when I look at speed bumps like Karl Keating and his lot.  Such dorks.
Reply
#76
(10-03-2010, 05:35 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-03-2010, 12:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I agree with timoose's comment above.  This thread is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with SSPX and its fellow-travelers.  The SSPX and sede members of this forum consistently display an unbelievable amount of arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness.  Fr. Z offers the TLM wherever he goes, trains NO priests to offer the TLM, and provides a service to many people throughout the Church with his translations.  But that's not good enough for the self-appointed Popes on this forum.  No, he must refuse to say the NO at all.  And he must accept the ludicrous position that SSPX is an equal negotiating partner with the Vicar of Christ.  SSPX refuses to even engage with the rest of the Church, refuses to acknowledge that a Catholic can legitimately attend a NO Mass or even a diocesan TLM, and picks and chooses which Papal teachings it will accept and which ones it won't.  Then every SSPX member sets himself up as judge and jury to those of us Catholics who are actually engaging with the problems in the Church and trying to do something about it instead of sitting on the sidelines acting smug. 

I was highly sympathetic to SSPX before joining this forum and often defended them against the attacks of some of my friends, but if the attitudes of the SSPX members here are reflective of the Society as a whole, I can't defend them in good conscience anymore.

I see a lot of self-righteousness on your side of things too.  Should I just leave the Church altogether because of people like you?

There's no end of self-righteous smugness when I look at speed bumps like Karl Keating and his lot.  Such dorks.

It's funny you're calling people smug when in a few pages of this thread you've managed to call people idiots, simpering gits and dorks. Classy man.
Reply
#77
(10-03-2010, 05:35 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I see a lot of self-righteousness on your side of things too.  Should I just leave the Church altogether because of people like you?

There's no end of self-righteous smugness when I look at speed bumps like Karl Keating and his lot.  Such dorks.

Am I being smug?  If so then that is my personal weakness.  Ditto for Karl Keating.  Luckily for us, our claim to truth doesn't rest on our own personalities but on our status of being in full communion with the Successor of Peter.  SSPX's claim to truth, on the other hand, rests completely upon the personal interpretation of a single man that claimed to judge the Pope and the entire Church based upon his own personal interpretation of Vatican II documents.

My problem with SSPX isn't that I've met the occasional arrogant, self-righteous SSPX'er.  My problem is that every single person I've ever encountered who is associated with SSPX talks about nothing other than 1) how heretical the NO is 2) how much better they (SSPX) are then all of us poor modernist Catholics who dare to remain in full communion with the Pope and 3) how they are more loyal to the Pope than us poor fools ever can be despite the fact that they refuse to allow their members to attend TLM Masses celebrated by FSSP priests who are in full communion with the Pope. 

As I've said many times, I support SSPX's goals and used to be something of a sympathizer.  I've even contemplated checking out our local SSPX chapel for the 7:30 AM Sunday TLM, but every time I'm about to pull the trigger on that I read some post by an SSPX member on this forum insulting the Pope and acting self-righteous and I shy away.

If we're going to continue this discussion maybe we should move to the "vs" forum before we draw the wrath of the almighty moderators.
Reply
#78
(10-04-2010, 04:51 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(10-03-2010, 05:35 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-03-2010, 12:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I agree with timoose's comment above.  This thread is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with SSPX and its fellow-travelers.  The SSPX and sede members of this forum consistently display an unbelievable amount of arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness.  Fr. Z offers the TLM wherever he goes, trains NO priests to offer the TLM, and provides a service to many people throughout the Church with his translations.  But that's not good enough for the self-appointed Popes on this forum.  No, he must refuse to say the NO at all.  And he must accept the ludicrous position that SSPX is an equal negotiating partner with the Vicar of Christ.  SSPX refuses to even engage with the rest of the Church, refuses to acknowledge that a Catholic can legitimately attend a NO Mass or even a diocesan TLM, and picks and chooses which Papal teachings it will accept and which ones it won't.  Then every SSPX member sets himself up as judge and jury to those of us Catholics who are actually engaging with the problems in the Church and trying to do something about it instead of sitting on the sidelines acting smug. 

I was highly sympathetic to SSPX before joining this forum and often defended them against the attacks of some of my friends, but if the attitudes of the SSPX members here are reflective of the Society as a whole, I can't defend them in good conscience anymore.

I see a lot of self-righteousness on your side of things too.  Should I just leave the Church altogether because of people like you?

There's no end of self-righteous smugness when I look at speed bumps like Karl Keating and his lot.  Such dorks.

It's funny you're calling people smug when in a few pages of this thread you've managed to call people idiots, simpering gits and dorks. Classy man.

I take the source into consideration as much as what's being said.
Reply
#79
(10-04-2010, 10:43 AM)ies0716 Wrote:
(10-03-2010, 05:35 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I see a lot of self-righteousness on your side of things too.  Should I just leave the Church altogether because of people like you?

There's no end of self-righteous smugness when I look at speed bumps like Karl Keating and his lot.  Such dorks.

Am I being smug?  If so then that is my personal weakness.  Ditto for Karl Keating.  Luckily for us, our claim to truth doesn't rest on our own personalities but on our status of being in full communion with the Successor of Peter.  SSPX's claim to truth, on the other hand, rests completely upon the personal interpretation of a single man that claimed to judge the Pope and the entire Church based upon his own personal interpretation of Vatican II documents.

My problem with SSPX isn't that I've met the occasional arrogant, self-righteous SSPX'er.  My problem is that every single person I've ever encountered who is associated with SSPX talks about nothing other than 1) how heretical the NO is 2) how much better they (SSPX) are then all of us poor modernist Catholics who dare to remain in full communion with the Pope and 3) how they are more loyal to the Pope than us poor fools ever can be despite the fact that they refuse to allow their members to attend TLM Masses celebrated by FSSP priests who are in full communion with the Pope.

I don't buy that you've talked to many people in the SSPX.  You sure haven't talked to me, but I'm not an SSPX member either, most of the laity who go tot he chapels AREN'T members of the SSPX and many of them are actually registered as parishoners elsewhere.  You're just like that "cheeky pink girl" who had ONE bad experience with SSPXer and inflated that and what are probably her own delusions into a miscalculation she likes to repeat often to her fans on her blog who largely consist of conservative housewives like herself who aren't too interested in really finding out the truth but are more concerned about harboring grievances
Quote: 

As I've said many times, I support SSPX's goals and used to be something of a sympathizer.  I've even contemplated checking out our local SSPX chapel for the 7:30 AM Sunday TLM, but every time I'm about to pull the trigger on that I read some post by an SSPX member on this forum insulting the Pope and acting self-righteous and I shy away.
  I don't see anyone associated with the SSPX insulting the Pope.  I don't even see it here, although there are Sedes who do from time to time go overboard on this forum, perhaps.  AngelQueen, for example, if you'd check it out, actually has a policy AGAINST insulting His Holiness.
Quote:If we're going to continue this discussion maybe we should move to the "vs" forum before we draw the wrath of the almighty moderators.

You should go to the SSPX chapel.  They're just people.  That's all.
Reply
#80
(10-04-2010, 02:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I don't buy that you've talked to many people in the SSPX.  You sure haven't talked to me, but I'm not an SSPX member either, most of the laity who go tot he chapels AREN'T members of the SSPX and many of them are actually registered as parishoners elsewhere.  You're just like that "cheeky pink girl" who had ONE bad experience with SSPXer and inflated that and what are probably her own delusions into a miscalculation she likes to repeat often to her fans on her blog who largely consist of conservative housewives like herself who aren't too interested in really finding out the truth but are more concerned about harboring grievances

I don't see anyone associated with the SSPX insulting the Pope.  I don't even see it here, although there are Sedes who do from time to time go overboard on this forum, perhaps.  AngelQueen, for example, if you'd check it out, actually has a policy AGAINST insulting His Holiness.

You should go to the SSPX chapel.  They're just people.  That's all.

Perhaps I am attributing anti-papal comments to SSPX'ers when they are actually sedes.  It can be difficult to tell who is associated with whom on a forum.  If that is the case, than I apologize for my accusation.

I had a friend a few years ago stop attending diocesan Masses a few years ago and begin exclusively attending SSPX.  Her attitudes got extremely radical and insulting toward our local bishop and toward the Pope.  She acted like someone who had just joined a cult, and it was very off-putting.  At the time, I wrote it off as a problem she had personally, but I have also encountered a number of SSPX members on this forum (Stubborn and Nic come to mind) who have acted in a like manner, attacking me for being a "New Order" Catholic because I have the temerity to attend diocesan TLM's or NO Masses instead of going to SSPX.  If you do not share their views, then I apologize for grouping you in with them.  I can only base my judgments based off of what I have seen and SSPX members I have interacted with.  It can be difficult to pin down what the society actually believes, especially when some in the hierarchy (Bp. Fellay) are very positive toward the Holy Father and in favor of reunion while some (Bp. Williamson) attack Rome at every opportunity and don't appear to favor any reconciliation with Rome at all.

I may head to the SSPX chapel for Mass one of these weeks.  My wife and I have to switch off Masses on Sundays due to our 11-month-old daughter's inability to sit still during Mass. I've been looking for an early TLM on the days I go to Mass first, and SSPX has the only early TLM that I could find.  We'll see what happens, I guess.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)