The Work of Human Hands, Part III
#21
(11-20-2011, 01:49 AM)aquinasg Wrote: I am sorry. What am I missing here?

You're simply saying the same thing over and over again and not listening. I'm sorry but I simply don't have time to debate this issue with someone whose mind is already made up and who doesn't listen.

From your posts it is apparent that you are not here to learn or engage in meaningful discussion; you are here to simply promote a one-sided view that is based upon an ignorance of (or a willful disregard for) basic facts. I am very busy and don't have the time to debate with someone like that. I trust that you will understand my position.

Pax tecum.
Reply
#22
I just said I am open to what you have to say, but you don't even want to address what I wrote about the TM. My basic question on this thread is why the TM never states that this sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, not a new sacrifice, especially in view of the Reformation. The Tridentine Mass can thus be seen as "imperfect for its historical stituation" just as the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo was used in the Catholic medieval ages, there would have been no problem.

And it wasn't me who said there could be a valid non-Catholic mass. That's either self-contradictory nonsense or heresy


Reply
#23
(11-20-2011, 02:12 AM)aquinasg Wrote: I just said I am open to what you have to say, but you don't even want to address what I wrote about the TM.

O.K. Here is what happened. You posted a particular statement on the forum, to which I responded. My response was directly aimed at the post I quoted from you. My response was not intended to specifically address your original post. This is why I quoted your specific post on your own thread and not your OP (Original Post).

So, no, I am not interested in what you wrote about the TLM. I am interested in providing you with the information I provided you. That was the point of my post. You followed up my post with a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with what I said. My post was very specifically about one aspect of the Mass and a very specific aspect at that. You then proceeded to write a paragraph containing a whole bunch of points that had nothing to do with that very specific point.

Please stick to the specific point being discussed and don't go off on a tangent about other points that aren't directly related to the original point being discussed (the point of my post). If you do not stick to the original point then there is no point in having a discussion in the first place.

Quote: My basic question on this thread is why the TM never states that this sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, not a new sacrifice, especially in view of the Reformation. The Tridentine Mass can thus be seen as "imperfect for its historical stituation" just as the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo was used in the Catholic medieval ages, there would have been no problem.

No. This represents your misunderstanding of the point. You should read very carefully the words written and not assume what you think the point is. If you don't understand something, or if you are not sure, then please ask. Say, "Are you saying ____ or are you saying ____?"

Quote:And it wasn't me who said there could be a valid non-Catholic mass. That's either self-contradictory nonsense or heresy

O.K. Please read very carefully. You are not comprehending what you are reading.

You said:
Quote:If it's not Catholic, it's not valid.

So I responded:
Quote:You are making the claim that there is no such thing as valid, non-Catholic liturgy?

I said this because it is absolutely false to claim that a valid Catholic priest can't leave the Church, become an Anglican, and then offer a valid Anglican Mass provided that the proper matter, form, and intention are present. This doesn't make the Anglican Mass a Catholic Mass. Hence, there are non-Catholic liturgies that can be valid.

But then you just posted in your last post:
Quote:And it wasn't me who said there could be a valid non-Catholic mass. That's either self-contradictory nonsense or heresy

This last statement implies that you are not following the discussion. Please focus on the specific point and follow the discussion so that we don't go in circles. This is absolutely essential for any sort of meaningful discussion.

Does this make sense?
Reply
#24
(11-20-2011, 01:49 AM)aquinasg Wrote: I am sorry. What am I missing here?

You are missing that while illicit, certain Orthodox liturgies can be valid, for one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)