Maria Auxiliadora:
Accusations without any proof against the Holy Father will not be tolerated here. I suggest you go back to the "Cathinfo" hole where you came from. Don't ever return to Rorate!
02 August, 2012 06:32
My "accusation against the Holy Father" was this:
"Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'? Remember that BXVI has never publicly celebrated the 1962 Missal". Get my point?
Marie, I think you've gotten them to admit their plot. Thanks for re-posting all this here.
It's amusing that some uncensored Rorate commentators have handles like "OnEaglesWings" - ugh!
He might use a goofy handle but he asks the best question on the page, so far
(second place, that is to "Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'?"):
OnEaglesWings said...
What a fabulous idea, this petition is!
What would be also grand, since both NO and TLM are supposed to be on the same footing (per the Vatican), is if all the priests were required to say the TLM at least once a year. This would sure take care of the "liberal left" and see if they are truly loyal to the Vicar of Christ and the Church. If this is unreasonable, then why are TLM priests mandated to say the NO at least once a year? That, to me, is not being on the same footing.
It's no longer a question of loyalty with TLM side, is it? Why not raise the bar a bit from the rest out there?
If the two are equal, why not apply it as such?
02 August, 2012 05:18
If "the two are equal," they don't apply it as such because the two are not equal.
This is what happens when you deny the principle of non-contradiction, as B16
does.
I think he's touching on a sore spot. The rules are announced for all kinds of
things, but the only rules that are
enforced are the ones that penalize Trads.
So,
even if there is a new rule that the TLM ("EF") has to be celebrated once a year
by all priests, there would be no penalty or adverse consequence for those who
ignore the rule. That is, no consequence would be APPLIED. They might SAY
there will be a consequence, but
it would be only talk, and no action. This is how
all issues are handled in the past, so why would it be different now?
And no, this would not be allowed on Rorate, where censorship squelches anything
that takes the topic to its logical conclusion. I'm surprised they allowed
OnEaglesWings to say as much as he did say. Maybe it's because his handle
is so mushy, they can't help themselves but to be nice to him?? HAHAHAHA