New TLM Parish in Cincinnati
#41
(12-08-2010, 03:21 PM)Vivace Wrote:
(12-08-2010, 03:07 PM)icecream Wrote: what this candyland thread i keep hearin g about?

In case you haven't found it already: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...097.0.html

vivace the forum gumshoe to the resuce again!!!  :)

i intend to read it all, but at 65 pages i hope my add can handle it!
Reply
#42
The Candyland thread is where miserable traditional Catholics gather for company to insult everyone else.  It's a sad place that I recommend avoiding.  There are better uses of time.
Reply
#43
(12-08-2010, 09:06 AM)Ockham Wrote:
(12-07-2010, 10:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: It is wrong to try to snare him by forcing him to answer a question concerning his views on a banned topic here.

I think what he asked bears re-asking:

If there are to be no snares then what he asks has no bearing.  The incessant Pope-bashing speaks for itself.

Asking someone if they are a sedevacantist has no bearing on the present discussion.

Moreover, citing "Fr. Ratzinger" as the author of a book written by Father (at the time) Ratzinger is not incorrect. I have done so many times before when referring to Benedict XVI's work published at the time of the council.

I think you are reading into this a little too deeply in an attempt to discredit (by pursuing a "sedevacantist" label) a poster  who is proposing that Benedict XVI said something controversial.
Reply
#44
(12-08-2010, 02:17 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Even more so, according to a certain priest (whose name shall remain anonymous) who spoke with Bp. Fellay very recently, Benedict XVI has stated that Rome has no intention of abandoning the new ecumenical direction of the Church.

Well, that sure is disheartening...

Anyway, I'm happy for the Catholics in Cincinnati getting the TLM and such a beautiful Church.
Reply
#45
(12-08-2010, 04:32 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I think you are reading into this a little too deeply in an attempt to discredit (by pursuing a "sedevacantist" label) a poster  who is proposing that Benedict XVI said something controversial.

I'll be delighted to be proven otherwise.
Reply
#46
(12-08-2010, 05:09 PM)Ockham Wrote:
(12-08-2010, 04:32 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I think you are reading into this a little too deeply in an attempt to discredit (by pursuing a "sedevacantist" label) a poster  who is proposing that Benedict XVI said something controversial.

I'll be delighted to be proven otherwise.

???

The burden of proof is on me to prove that your assumption is false?

You assumed that referring to BXVI as "Fr. Ratzinger" in context of his writings as a priest makes one suspect of sedevacantism, and now you are implying that such a suspicion must stand until another can prove that this is not his intention.

I think the burden of proof is on the one doing the assuming.
Reply
#47
(12-08-2010, 05:28 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: You assumed that referring to BXVI as "Fr. Ratzinger" in context of his writings as a priest makes one suspect of sedevacantism, and now you are implying that such a suspicion must stand until another can prove that this is not his intention.

I think the burden of proof is on the one doing the assuming.

If this is the biggest issue you have on your plate you are most fortunate.  I have more important things to spend time on.
Reply
#48
(12-08-2010, 08:58 PM)Ockham Wrote: If this is the biggest issue you have on your plate you are most fortunate.  I have more important things to spend time on.

Then please attend to them.  ;D

This isn't a tribunal, and we're not the inquisition.  If someone is or is not a sedevacantist is irrelevant to having this type of discussion and amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem or an argument about motivation rather than the question at hand.
Reply
#49
(12-09-2010, 06:37 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-08-2010, 08:58 PM)Ockham Wrote: If this is the biggest issue you have on your plate you are most fortunate.  I have more important things to spend time on.

Then please attend to them.   ;D

This isn't a tribunal, and we're not the inquisition.  If someone is or is not a sedevacantist is irrelevant to having this type of discussion and amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem or an argument about motivation rather than the question at hand.

I'm assuming that you're going to start posting the same thing every time that someone is called a modernist or a neo-Catholic on the forum now as well?
Reply
#50
I got called a "NOer" the other day.  I wasn't asked if I was a "NOer" it was stated as factual.  Should that be reported to the Moderator?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)