Vincent Vega Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Amory' timestamp='1345615325' post='2471853'] Also, I'm fairly certain that the use of "thou" to translate the second person singular in texts such as the Lord's Prayer was not so much about using the familiar form and as it was about preserving the distinction between second person singular and second person plural in the original. This is also why the translators of the King James Version used "thou" so frequently, despite the fact that by the early 17th century it already sounded rather archaic. [/quote] I would disagree. Certainly no one was trying to clear up confusion about there being only one Peter? "[color=#001320][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[/background][/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345662636' post='2472040'] I don't think, never have, that you are towing the phishy line. But, it appears you defend SSPX, before/rather the Church. You are consistent in doing this under the shield of "just giving people on the other side a voice". I am not trying to knock you, but am giving you an explanation of how I am understanding. [/quote] I think there are enough on this forum that are so quick to attack the SSPX, that sometimes they need a little buffering. I've seen many people over the years here make the SSPX out to be the bane of Catholicism. [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345662636' post='2472040'] Not directing this at any one person: I often wonder do SSPX supporters believe it is the SSPX that needs to reconcile with the Church or the other way around. There is a reason I have this impression. [/quote] I think that would depend on what you mean "supporter". I'm sure Nihil and KofC both believe that it is the SSPX that needs to reconcile with the Church, and I certainly think that. The Church has given the SSPX a lot of room to join up and save face at the same time. Benedict has been extremely generous, some might even say overly generous. It isn't the responsibility of the Church to cater to the wants of individual groups, but out of true charity and a desire for unity, I think Benedict is doing everything he can within reason to encourage the SSPX to come home. I'm afraid if the SSPX doesn't give a little, we're just going to see excommunications smacked on the SSPX and formal schism declared. No one wants that, but it would be out of charity for Benedict to do so if resolution cannot be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345662636' post='2472040'] I don't think, never have, that you are towing the phishy line. But, it appears you defend SSPX, before/rather the Church. You are consistent in doing this under the shield of "just giving people on the other side a voice". I am not trying to knock you, but am giving you an explanation of how I am understanding. [/quote] Again, please point out where I am defending the SSPX before the Church. Anytime that I have presented what might be interpreted as an "SSPX side" I have made it clear that I do not necessarily agree with everything they have done. Furthermore I have been very clear in my position: that simple answers are not sufficient in this case. I understand that you are not trying to attack me, and I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I do not think you are making a great deal of effort to parse my actual statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345666514' post='2472068'] I'm afraid if the SSPX doesn't give a little, we're just going to see excommunications smacked on the SSPX and formal schism declared. No one wants that, but it would be out of charity for Benedict to do so if resolution cannot be found. [/quote] I am very afraid that such a situation could come to pass. I hope that it can be cleared up before it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345666535' post='2472070'] Again, please point out where I am defending the SSPX before the Church. Anytime that I have presented what might be interpreted as an "SSPX side" I have made it clear that I do not necessarily agree with everything they have done. Furthermore I have been very clear in my position: that simple answers are not sufficient in this case. I understand that you are not trying to attack me, and I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I do not think you are making a great deal of effort to parse my actual statements. [/quote] Is that what you believe you did in the following post? [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345575652' post='2471353'] Just to make sure the other side isn't ignored: There have been various people, including saints throughout history, for instance Joan of Arc just because she was the first to come to my mind who, for one reason or another, were not in favour with the Roman hierarchy. For them it took some time, in some cases many years after their death, before their reputation was 'rehabilitated'. It is, in my opinion, possible that some years down the road, probably decades, at such a time that we are more removed from the situation and perhaps can view it more objectively, that the actions of Marcel Lefebvre and the other four since then may be treated with considerably more sympathy by official sources. Right now, being very much caught up in the situation, it's hard for either side to be truly objective. There is a lot of hurt both in Econe and in Rome. Harsh things have been said, rather extreme criticisms have been made, and at the end of the day a lot of people feel or felt personally attacked by the other 'side'. Therefore I don't believe we can have a truly objective look at this right now, at least such a perspective will be very difficult to uncover. Perhaps a generation or two later on a pope will look and say "most of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were correct. John Paul II did the best job he could with the information that was available at the time, but historical perspective tells us that Marcel Lefebvre acted justly." All I'm saying is that such things could happen, and it's very hard for us to say many things with certainty right now. It's a complex situation which we're still living out, and things may very well look different when we come out the other side. For now, I attend Mass every week with the FSSP, and I'm content. But there is much work yet to be done. The liturgical crisis is far from over, and speaking more broadly the Church has many challenges now and in Her future. These are confusing times, and the simplest answer may not always be the best one. [/quote] You have repeatedly argued with people at Phatmass over things the Church has spoken very definitively on, and quite regularly say things like the above that in no way support the Holy Mother Church [i]first[/i]. Your first (and only) defense above is of the SSPX, skirting the issue of your loyalty only by saying it's a very complex issue and the passing of time may give us perspective which we do not have at this time. Frankly, your saying "we need time to gain perspective" sounds a lot like "the Church needs time to pass so she can more accurately understand the actions and/or intentions of the SSPX" and perhaps even "apologize for things done or said, and recognize them for all the good they do and have done". A bit of a stretch? Maybe. But every time you post about the organization, the more and more I distrust what you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1345667969' post='2472078'] Is that what you believe you did in the following post? You have repeatedly argued with people at Phatmass over things the Church has spoken very definitively on, and quite regularly say things like the above that in no way support the Holy Mother Church [i]first[/i]. Your first (and only) defense above is of the SSPX, skirting the issue of your loyalty only by saying it's a very complex issue and the passing of time may give us perspective which we do not have at this time. Frankly, your saying "we need time to gain perspective" sounds a lot like "the Church needs time to pass so she can more accurately understand the actions and/or intentions of the SSPX" and perhaps even "apologize for things done or said, and recognize them for all the good they do and have done". A bit of a stretch? Maybe. But every time you post about the organization, the more and more I distrust what you claim. [/quote] [quote]You have repeatedly argued with people at Phatmass over things the Church has spoken very definitively on[/quote] Please back that up. When you find that you cannot do so, then retract that statement please. [quote]and quite regularly say things like the above that in no way support the Holy Mother Church [i]first[/i][/quote] So my frequent disclaimers are not enough for you? It is not enough when I say "I do not necessarily support what the SSPX and Marcel Lefebvre did"? At what point did the standards change, where the things I [i]actually[/i] say suddenly are not the things I [i]actually[/i] mean? Frankly I find attitude to be enormously uncharitable. What exactly do you want me to say? What would satisfy your weird need to force me to prove my orthodoxy? I am all ears. [quote]Frankly, your saying "we need time to gain perspective" sounds a lot like "the Church needs time to pass so she can more accurately understand the actions and/or intentions of the SSPX" and perhaps even "apologize for things done or said, and recognize them for all the good they do and have done".[/quote] Or perhaps it just means [i]exactly what I said[/i]. Why is that such a difficult concept? [quote]A bit of a stretch? Maybe. But every time you post about the organization, the more and more I distrust what you claim. [/quote] I am so sorry that you do not trust a person you never have met, never will meet, and have never spoken to. This is starting to get extremely ridiculous. I have not said anything hurtful on this thread to anybody, nor have I spoken against the Church in any way. I do not appreciate being treated like this. Edit: [i]Especially by an administrator on this site.[/i] Edited August 22, 2012 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345668545' post='2472082'] So my frequent disclaimers are not enough for you? It is not enough when I say "I do not necessarily support what the SSPX and Marcel Lefebvre did"? At what point did the standards change, where the things I [i]actually[/i] say suddenly are not the things I [i]actually[/i] mean? [/quote] You're not addressing what you quoted. I was addressing a flaw in your logic in a reply you made to Papist. Papist made an excellent post trying to help you to see where people get the idea that perhaps your belief system is not exactly what you claim it to be (often through vague, flowery language) OR, as he understands, that you maybe don't approach your discussions from an angle that puts people at ease about your beliefs. Regarding your meaning what you say, I have no comment. I will, however, say that when you include the word "necessarily", you open yourself up for distrust from people like me. Either you do or you don't. I'm a very black and white person; it may be a character flaw, but that's fine by me in cases like these. I'd much rather err on the side of obedience than be mistaken for the opposite. [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345668545' post='2472082'] I am so sorry that you do not trust a person you never have met, never will meet, and have never spoken to. [/quote] Hold, please. Not sure I want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1345669563' post='2472090'] You're not addressing what you quoted. I was addressing a flaw in your logic in a reply you made to Papist. Papist made an excellent post trying to help you to see where people get the idea that perhaps your belief system is not exactly what you claim it to be (often through vague, flowery language) OR, as he understands, that you maybe don't approach your discussions from an angle that puts people at ease about your beliefs. Regarding your meaning what you say, I have no comment. I will, however, say that when you include the word "necessarily", you open yourself up for distrust from people like me. Either you do or you don't. I'm a very black and white person; it may be a character flaw, but that's fine by me in cases like these. I'd much rather err on the side of obedience than be mistaken for the opposite. Hold, please. Not sure I want to go there. [/quote] The [i]whole entire point[/i] of what I have been saying in this thread is that my understanding of the situation is that it is too complex for simple answers. Rome, you will also find, does not typically offer simple answers in this situation. Perhaps you find the language coming from Rome to be too vague or flowery? You seem to be, yet again, trying to force me to give simple answers, where I have stated numerous times that I do not consider such answers sufficient. If you are not content with my current position, one that primarily wishes to refrain from hasty judgements in order to better understand the situation as a whole, then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. I asked you once already, what is going to satisfy this strange need you seem to have to force me to prove my orthodoxy? Once again, I do not appreciate being treated this way, especially by an administrator. This is not appropriate behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I don't know why I didn't realize F-hart was a Regulator. So, you're like a boss, here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345672391' post='2472105'] I don't know why I didn't realize F-hart was a Regulator. So, you're like a boss, here? [/quote] dUSt is the boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345670717' post='2472091'] This is not appropriate behaviour. [/quote] It's okay to like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Also it just suddenly occurred to me to mention that Apotheoun is a pretty radical dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1345672466' post='2472108'] dUSt is the boss. [/quote] Like a boss. Akin to one. You have a position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345672516' post='2472111'] It's okay to like it. [/quote] Stop projecting, anarchist scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345672565' post='2472114'] Stop projecting, anarchist scum. [/quote] You know it to be true. 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