tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post3884908915847288051..comments2023-08-07T21:58:26.720-04:00Comments on Pistrina Liturgica: A GOOD LUMP OF CLOTTED NONSENSEThe Readerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-37051729061871638702017-07-24T17:30:58.095-04:002017-07-24T17:30:58.095-04:00You seem to be beside yourself for some reason. It...You seem to be beside yourself for some reason. It's simply a pertinent question for The Reader. I ask whether he/she asked that last question mockingly or not. No answer yet.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I did answer his/her question, in a comment to a more recent blog here. And the response was one of knee-jerk denial/dismissal because of ignorance of the SSPX claims.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-66832564435699628942017-07-24T09:02:59.202-04:002017-07-24T09:02:59.202-04:00Hogwash, Anonymous! The Reader did answer your qu...Hogwash, Anonymous! The Reader <b>did</b> answer your question(s) -- actually, <i>several</i> times. But you just <b>ignored</b> his answers; and, like the greased pig that you are, you slithered off to another corner to take the argument in a different direction (and waste everyone’s time in the process) – a cheap debater’s “parlor trick.” And now, you’ve come full circle to accuse <i>the Reader</i> of what <i>you</i> are guilty of: <b>not responding</b>. Your logic is circular, and your heart is insincere; you are the “poster child” for hypocrisy. It is <b>you</b> sir, who are the game-player.The Watcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18313770117983560091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-73394548965063425762017-07-23T18:07:24.722-04:002017-07-23T18:07:24.722-04:00It's a sincere reply. I would like to take it ...It's a sincere reply. I would like to take it at face value, but since "The Reader" has already shown he likes to play dishonest games with words, my question to him stands, and I am waiting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-41356924490359276172017-07-23T13:52:26.892-04:002017-07-23T13:52:26.892-04:00Anon., is your reply a sincere reply, or a mocking...Anon., is your reply a <i>sincere</i> reply, or a mocking one? (And, oh BTW, we’re all waiting for your answer.)The Watcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18313770117983560091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-64807466602515201792017-07-22T19:55:11.147-04:002017-07-22T19:55:11.147-04:00Is that a serious, sincere question, or a mocking ...Is that a serious, sincere question, or a mocking question?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-16507063050895739042017-07-22T19:43:37.213-04:002017-07-22T19:43:37.213-04:00So, what are they?So, what are they?The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-66897081198049902332017-07-22T17:57:48.513-04:002017-07-22T17:57:48.513-04:00I have already said that historically, earlier Chu...I have already said that historically, earlier Church documents have been written where heretical meant that which was a denial of proposed doctrine as well as being applied to lesser dangers to the faith. Did you see that I said that? You said nothing to it. Though centuries went by before the Church started to use it in official condemnations only for outright denial. The point being (and you know very well how words have multiple denotations), the Church reads those older documents with the second denotation, and the Church has never forbidden its use from common Catholic parlance. Thus, yes, the SSPX are heretical, and I mean they have doctrinal errors gravely dangerous to the faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-13561841603899037962017-07-22T17:43:21.330-04:002017-07-22T17:43:21.330-04:00Rather, interesting that when "The Reader&quo...Rather, interesting that when "The Reader" said that his forum is sufficient for it, I decided to stay and do it here...did you realize that, or you just love to criticize when it is unnecessary?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-51359214628195032662017-07-22T16:54:51.683-04:002017-07-22T16:54:51.683-04:00In Latin, haereticus means both "heretic"...In Latin, <i>haereticus</i> means both "heretic" and "heretical." You're making a cognate distinction that doesn't apply in Catholic theology. The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-66556482573416557502017-07-22T16:52:15.721-04:002017-07-22T16:52:15.721-04:00No. We don't want to have a discussion with id...No. We don't want to have a discussion with idiots.The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-77066897341800678292017-07-22T16:25:00.037-04:002017-07-22T16:25:00.037-04:00The greatest virtue, Charity, requires us to take ...The greatest virtue, Charity, requires us to take people's words at face value. There was NOTHING in you message that indicated you were being sardonic. That is definitively dishonest. <br /><br />There is no waffling. I have been consistent in what I have said. Now you are confusing "heretic" with "heretical" and it's not what I said. I solely used the latter, and the latter, historically means just what I wrote in my previous post.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-25489951027987045552017-07-22T16:21:59.297-04:002017-07-22T16:21:59.297-04:00Interesting that the guy writing this website does...Interesting that the guy writing this website doesn't seem to want to have a discussion in a venue he doesn't control. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-82254007395568833952017-07-22T16:18:11.169-04:002017-07-22T16:18:11.169-04:00The art of reading requires the intelligent person...The art of reading requires the intelligent person to be aware of tone. The phrase "help us out here" is commonly used ironically and sardonically and may be used when no help is really being requested.<br /><br />What we have learned from you is that you constantly back away from what you previously averred. In your failed attempt to correct, you affirmed heresy was "denial etc." Now you're waffling.<br /><br />By way of a little education for you, we cite canon 1325.2, on what constitutes a heretic:<br /><br /><i>Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis <b>denegat</b> aut de ea <b>dubitat</b>, haereticus.</i><br />The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-60410800946624064882017-07-22T15:35:11.893-04:002017-07-22T15:35:11.893-04:00Your use of the sardonic was dishonest, since I ha...Your use of the sardonic was dishonest, since I had no way of knowing you meant the very opposite of what your words meant. Charity requires us to do the yeah, neah, and you violate that all over the place.<br /><br />No, I didn't miss the "denying" at all. I can read, and I know that "heretical" can apply to BOTH denial, and lesser things that are dangerous to the faith. Your exclusively looking for just the denial aspect shows you don't know you theology about doctrine, nor moral theology about the necessity of avoiding danger to the Faith, even when they are not denials. Yes, you have just learned something, and it is pretty late you are learning such simple things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-2466603839654764742017-07-22T15:22:00.311-04:002017-07-22T15:22:00.311-04:00At 12:37 you assured us you could read. How, then,...At 12:37 you assured us you could read. How, then, did you miss our word <b>"denying"</b>?<br /><br />Remember you were the one who used the word "heretical" and the phrase "<i>doctrinal</i> errors." Now you're introducing different terms. Are you walking back your accusations now?<br /><br />BTW, we'll set you straight. We really didn't want your "help." You're the one in need. Our phrase was a manner of speaking sardonically.The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-73058781342334716602017-07-22T14:58:15.769-04:002017-07-22T14:58:15.769-04:00I said that I will help you, I didn't say the ...I said that I will help you, I didn't say the help would be in my last message. By the way, heresy is the denial, etc., but there are lesser errors against the faith that are mortal sins, and seriously endanger the faith. These we must avoid also. Sorry, but your blog here is so putrid, that if you sincerely want my help, you will go to the forum I suggested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-5601679177558142932017-07-22T14:40:48.646-04:002017-07-22T14:40:48.646-04:00Well, we see we stumped you. Not even one itty-bit...Well, we see we stumped you. Not even one itty-bitty instance of SSPX's denying a truth proposed <b><i>by the Church</i></b> as revealed? <br /><br />Apart from the time delay, moderation is no obstacle to a discussion here. We only started it because culties violated the basic norms of civilized communication.The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-12786227399022532922017-07-22T13:55:18.105-04:002017-07-22T13:55:18.105-04:00I'll help you out. Go to a level playing field...I'll help you out. Go to a level playing field. Sign-up for traditionalcatholicsclub at groups.yahoo.com and we can discuss these things without any moderation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-10915750001137437522017-07-22T13:08:25.303-04:002017-07-22T13:08:25.303-04:00Hogwash! You can't discern phrasal nuances.
W...Hogwash! You can't discern phrasal nuances.<br /><br />We'll stick with criticizing all the Tradistani doubtful priests ordained by "One-Hand Dan." That's "more serious" and "more prevalent." People need to stay away from them more than they need to avoid the SSPX.<br /><br />But you can help us out here. What are the specific <b>heresies</b> and <b>doctrinal errors </b> of the SSPX? We hope you're not referring to the <i>una-cum</i> hypothesis dreamed up by men who don't even possess an STL.The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-71264560262976382502017-07-22T12:37:47.915-04:002017-07-22T12:37:47.915-04:00I read very well. You are promoting the SSPX over ...I read very well. You are promoting the SSPX over independent by preference. And you spend full-time on perceived quirks and perceived lack of virtue when the SSPX is heretical and have doubtful priests in the veins, and you don't criticize them! Regardless of your conviction, priority should be for what is MORE serious and MORE prevalent, and you should be warning people to stay away from a danger to Faith. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-26083010842372537322017-07-22T11:30:16.711-04:002017-07-22T11:30:16.711-04:00There's nothing in our remark about promoting ...There's nothing in our remark about promoting or supporting anything (although some of us at <i>PL</i> are SSPXers). Boy, you need to learn how to read.<br /><br />This blog attracts a wide readership from every traditional viewpoint, so we frame our answers as best we can to match their conscience-informed preferences. Besides, not everyone believes the cult masters' lies about the ecclesiology of their competition.<br />The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-81061826001717775782017-07-22T11:11:18.034-04:002017-07-22T11:11:18.034-04:00Wow, promoting the SSPX and their doctrinal errors...Wow, promoting the SSPX and their doctrinal errors! Give it up. You shouldn't try to make yourself a superior judge when you don't even know the rudiment of moral obligation that says to separate completely from what is against the Faith. And if you don't know the SSPX has doctrinal errors...boy are you ignorant! Not to mention you are supporting a group that is starting already to merge with the Novus Ordo, and has many doubtfully valid priests.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-73958120528959778372017-07-22T10:41:04.680-04:002017-07-22T10:41:04.680-04:00As you'll see later today with this week's...As you'll see later today with this week's post, we can't do as you request because <b>no <i>sede</i> has the brief to guide (oversee) and care for a flock</b> as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. <br /><br />If you're unwilling to go to the SSPX or convert to the Eastern rite, then our best recommendation is to find an independent who is offering valid sacraments. Whether or not the man possesses episcopal consecration is of no import. Just do your research first to make sure you're not getting into a cult. <br /><br />The Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09191910319072202603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-40264724314529574052017-07-22T10:40:27.167-04:002017-07-22T10:40:27.167-04:00Ordinarily a good priest is all that you require -...Ordinarily a good priest is all that you require - why the fixation on a bishop - sounds like a cultish mentality to me. Before the Council residency was determined by the Bishop of the Diocese just a location for employment and a family and one's local parish church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426244098779533128.post-78782060929791863922017-07-22T09:21:06.431-04:002017-07-22T09:21:06.431-04:00Tell us, what living bishop today would you recomm...Tell us, what living bishop today would you recommend that Catholics move to his location, if they could, and put themselves under his spiritual guidance and care?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com