Papist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345642338' post='2471928'] I've known Nihil and Slappo for sometime now and I've seen them express both positive and negative views about the SSPX. I've never seen them actually say the type of things that you say their tone says. [/quote] SSPX supporters not= Nihil and Slappo. If that is what you understood, you are mistaken and/or I failed to articulate it. My experiences re this topic are not limited to the posts of Nihil and Slappo nor this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) I was speaking about post 145 that is a response to Slappo. I don't believe the tone you see is what he is actually saying. A similar tone has been applied to Nihil earlier in the thread and it is also not what he is actually saying. Edited August 22, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345590379' post='2471530'] Time and time again in Church history we have seen church heirarchy wrong on non dogmatic non doctrinal matters. Gallileo anyone? It most certainly does not mean they are always wrong or usually wrong, but to discount the possibility is a little silly. It certainly isn't speaking against the Vatican to say that in the future it may be determined that they were mistaken in some regard on a matter that is not infallible. I personally don't ever foresee the Church coming out and saying the SSPX was totally in the right on everything, but she's already come out and admitted fault with a few things associated with the SSPX (Summorum Pontificum re-instating a form of the mass that should never have been removed, lifting of the excommunications without the bishops recanting anything). [/quote]Actually the Church was not wrong on Gallileo.... the Church was perfectly happy if he would teach his stuff as a THEORY but he refused, even though he had no proof at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dells_of_bittersweet Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Galileo got in trouble for obedience, not his science. SSPX got in trouble for obedience, not for their love of tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345644142' post='2471938'] I was speaking about post 145 that is a response to Slappo. I don't believe the tone you see is what he is actually saying. A similar tone has been applied to Nihil earlier in the thread and it is also not what he is actually saying. [/quote] Nutshell for you, I see defending SSPX. tone = SSPX in the right I do not see defending the Church. tone = Church in the wrong Obvious, you and I are wearing two different pair of glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1345623454' post='2471876'] um, am I the only one that sees studiem's 'friend' comment to mean that God is not just another homie, albeit through a flawed manner? [/quote] When did we ever not care about technicalities on Phatmass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345644142' post='2471938'] I was speaking about post 145 that is a response to Slappo. I don't believe the tone you see is what he is actually saying. A similar tone has been applied to Nihil earlier in the thread and it is also not what he is actually saying. [/quote] When people don't say what they mean, it's really difficult to [i]know [/i]what they mean. Adults don't beat around the bush; they say what they mean and, generally speaking, mean what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345647655' post='2471961'] Nutshell for you, I see defending SSPX. tone = SSPX in the right I do not see defending the Church. tone = Church in the wrong Obvious, you and I are wearing two different pair of glasses. [/quote] Tone too often equals what someone thinks was said not what was actually stated. If they actually believed those things they as grown men would be men enough to state those things without need of tone interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1345649295' post='2471970'] When people don't say what they mean, it's really difficult to [i]know [/i]what they mean. Adults don't beat around the bush; they say what they mean and, generally speaking, mean what they say. [/quote] I believe these two grown men have stated as clearly as they can their views on a complex problem and hopes of positive things that may happen in the future. I believe you have misunderstood them. Unless you can read minds and hearts you really have no idea if they really meant to say something that they did not actually state. Edited August 22, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that what they said might come across differently than they intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1345656767' post='2472011'] And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that what they said might come across differently than they intended. [/quote] There is nothing wrong with asking what someone meant. It is dangerous to tell someone what they meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyAnn Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345656656' post='2472010'] I believe these two grown men have stated as clearly as they can their views on a complex problem and hopes of positive things that may happen in the future. I believe you have misunderstood them. Unless you can read minds and hearts you really have no idea if they really meant to say something that they did not actually state. [/quote] Remember this is the internet. It's very, very easy for things to come across differently than intended and yes, to be misunderstood. You may not see how it is being misunderstood, but clearly a lot of people here do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345656219' post='2472006'] Tone too often equals what someone thinks was said not what was actually stated. If they actually believed those things they as grown men would be men enough to state those things without need of tone interpretation. [/quote] My interpretation is not infallible. This is true. However, my interpretation, as wrong as it may be, should not be dismissed or discounted. Perhaps my wrong interpretation reflects the writer. Also, b/c of these misinterpretations is why we dialog in these threads. If my nutshell is not accurate, I am open to a dialog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1345657069' post='2472013'] There is nothing wrong with asking what someone meant. It is dangerous to tell someone what they meant. [/quote] What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1345645952' post='2471945'] Actually the Church was not wrong on Gallileo.... the Church was perfectly happy if he would teach his stuff as a THEORY but he refused, even though he had no proof at that point. [/quote] I just got schooled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now