Off-topic discussion thread / moved as clogging other threads

You are still confusing things and you keep mentioning The Latin Mass. Huge numbers of parishes have a Latin mass on a Sunday and the pope himself celebrates Latin masses in Rome.

The Latin Mass isn't something the Pope has a problem with nor does Vatican II. What the Pope and Vatican II has a problem with is the Tridentine Mass which isn't just different in that it is in Latin.

I don't know where you're from (your syntax is a bit blah), but in the Anglosphere "Latin Mass" is common shorthand for the "Extraordinary Form," or the Tridentine Mass (or, the Tridentine Mass according to the pre-Vatican II 1962 missal, since you're being so fussy about exact terminology).

If you're in the UK, for example, there's a Latin Mass Society of England & Wales committed to the promotion and preservation of the Tridentine Mass. They're using the terms interchangeably, which is how most Catholics understand them. This is because the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI is rarely celebrated entirely in Latin. It is typically a vernacular Mass, with occasional snippets of Latin at the celebrant's discretion, usually in the Ordinary. You know this, but for some reason you're being cute about it.

Telling me what traditional Catholicism is isn't the same as telling me what you did that made you a "traditional Catholic" as you state. So what did you do that made you state your were a "traditional Catholic" that made you different from every other Catholic on the street? Did you attend Tridentine masses? There aren’t many places that is possible.

I did tell you what made me different. Most Catholics accept the reforms at Vatican II; I believed that Vatican II was heretical and that the Church was in a state of chaos unseen since the Arian crisis. I was a total retrograde loony. And yes, I attended Tridentine Masses. At first there were not many. I started at an SSPX chapel until it closed, then moved to a diocesan indult parish reachable by rail, and finally ended at a local parish after Summorum Pontificum greatly increased the availability. Is that now sufficiently asked & answered? Are there any more personal questions? Goddamn.

There is an element of truth regarding money, or at least that is what some minority supporters such as the FFSP and supporters of the usus antiquor believe.

Their argument is that the likes of Germany which has 22 million Catholics who by vote don’t support these ancient traditions bring in 6.73 billion euros to the Catholic Church in net tax revenue annually. Conversely the income from traditional communities number less than 1 million globally and their financial income to the coffers is negligible.

Right, but I didn't say it was "situation critical" for the Church at this very moment. Francis is looking at the long game. In terms of demographics in my own country, older Catholics are still overwhelmingly supportive of the reforms of Vatican II, whereas the Latin Mass is more attractive to younger Catholics. And as you can see in the chart in the first link there, among self-identified young Catholics, only 28% are regular Mass-goers, compared to 56% of Catholics over 65. When the herd thins, that'll be a massive financial cliff for the Church in America to go over. After taking consecutive hits from the pedophile scandals and the increase in atheism/agnosticism in the aughts, the Church will desperately need that committed portion of the currently young Catholics, and it's not looking good for Francis' liberal agenda if they're increasingly becoming conservative &/or traditional Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Dah, why didn't we think of that? Thank you for your insights, Captain Obvious!
was wondering when you would rear your ugly head,are you scared to post on here,you lurk more than skinny.
 
I often wear the same clothes more than once. Every day. For months.
And years.
2139BDAD-009A-4470-B32C-4C284A789363.png
 
My argument was perfectly clear. I made a reasonable point that a 'goodbye' for Boz would have been nice and that a lack of a goodbye looked strange - as did others, it seems - and you jumped down my throat with some nonsense about fans thinking they 'deserve a public explanation', when nobody had said anything of the kind. Nor had anybody implied animosity between Boz and Moz. Yes, you were defensive, and unreasonable and damn out of order for a moderator.
Ridiculous.
There is no 'jumping' down anyone's throat - all imagined.
FWD.
 
Ridiculous.
There is no 'jumping' down anyone's throat - all imagined.
FWD.
Cor blimey FWD you're reacting just like the rest of us. I always thought of you as like H.A.L. 9000 but without the tendency for insanity. Smooth, meticulous, logical and basically brilliant, but impervious to the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism. None of that is meant as an insult. You're always great. You can move this to off-topic with my blessing!

Fek I didn't really mean to be moved to off-topic. Well I kinda did but....I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.


shutterstock_5886285ag.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cor blimey FWD you're reacting just like the rest of us. I always thought of you as like H.A.L. 9000 but without the tendency for insanity. Smooth, meticulous, logical and basically brilliant, but impervious to the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism. None of that is meant as an insult. You're always great. You can move this to off-topic with my blessing!

shutterstock_5886285ag.jpg
No dear heart.
"He just disappeared to YOU. How Morrissey & Boz dealt with each other is unknown and does not automatically mean or deserve a public explanation for other people's satisfaction.
FWD."

Isn't: jumping down anyone's throat.
A nonsense argument.
Isn't some deeply personalised 'attack' at anyone.
Isn't some reflection of an inability to moderate.
Nor was it 'unreasonable', 'defensive' or 'damn out of order for a moderator' - utterly ridiculous over-emotive loading to try and make a point. Doesn't wash.
There is no response to 'criticism' here - more a reaction to someone being OTT in their response to seeing a different view to their own.
Water meet duck's back.
Regards,
FWD.
 
No dear heart.
"He just disappeared to YOU. How Morrissey & Boz dealt with each other is unknown and does not automatically mean or deserve a public explanation for other people's satisfaction.
FWD."

Isn't: jumping down anyone's throat.
A nonsense argument.
Isn't some deeply personalised 'attack' at anyone.
Isn't some reflection of an inability to moderate.
Nor was it 'unreasonable', 'defensive' or 'damn out of order for a moderator' - utterly ridiculous over-emotive loading to try and make a point. Doesn't wash.
There is no response to 'criticism' here - more a reaction to someone being OTT in their response to seeing a different view to their own.
Water meet duck's back.
Regards,
FWD.
Yah I know. It's just you don't tend to get involved in replying to people no matter how incendiary their comments are. That's all I meant.
 
No dear heart.
"He just disappeared to YOU. How Morrissey & Boz dealt with each other is unknown and does not automatically mean or deserve a public explanation for other people's satisfaction.
FWD.
I'm surprised that you can read that first response of yours, Caps and all, and think that it wasn't snappy (at best) or inferring that fans wanted a public explanation. I don't think I was being OTT but even if you did, you didn't say it - just Skinny-level cracks about 'critical thinking'. You were the one being OTT.
 
Last edited:
fwd does seem a little uncharacteristically feisty. normally he just sounds sexily sarcastic and weary of entertaining fools. that's okay, maybe he's having an off day. his replies are still sweeping and majestic.
 
Back
Top Bottom