Mabel wrote:

Quote

I think you saying people should be banned for not going to Christmas mass, which were the terms you specifically dictated, is a problem.

Passing that off on to Matthew is hogwash.

Nope.  I know what I wrote, and I know what I meant.  I don't care what you did on Christmas.  Or why.  I just know that I went to Mass, and I wanted to put some distance between myself and you while Matthew and I are discussing me.  

Seriously, I just don't care what you do about Mass.  

This is strange since you wrote on this same thread:

I went to Christmas Mass.  If you want to know who didn't, so you can consider deleting them from your forum, there is a thread on here, called "First Christmas without Mass" and they all posted in there.  

Why would you ask Matthew to consider banning women on here who were saddened by their inability to attend Christmas Mass?  

You wrote Matthew asking him to consider banning them, so did you mean that or not?  If you meant it, then why would you do such a thing?  

Because (as is obvious) I expected to be deleted on the grounds that I was placing purity above the sacraments.  I thought Matthew was speaking to me, individually.

As it turned out, once again Matthew was very patient with me and  (as he explained) he was giving general guidelines.  



Why do I have to explain these simple things to you?  Try to follow the conversation as written and have some sensitivity for context and tone.  

I understand all that, but I still fail to grasp why you specifically cited these women for consideration for banning.  

You could have made your defense just fine without bringing them into it.  They did nothing to you, and they are not home-aloners.  

I didn't even read your thread.  I used it as a reference to make a point. Period.  I didn't "bring you in" to anything.  So, time-suckers, I'm done.  Out.  

Wow, you are so lost here, you don't understand a rhetorical device.  I thought Matthew was about to ban me for not going to Mass.  I said "That's not me.  That's these other people.  If you're going to ban me for it, you better ban them too."

That's it.  Try to understand that.



As it turns out, I misinterpreted Matthew and jumped the gun.  He was not speaking specifically to me.  He was giving a general instruction.  



Now, I have broken that down so far that a third grader could grasp it.  Do we all have it now?  I really, really am leaving this thread now.

I realize that you're not that far to the "right" -- but again, usually when I hear people criticizing the Council of Trent (or St. Thomas, St. Pius X, etc.) it's a really bad sign.

I was just giving you and everyone else a friendly reminder of the rules. I don't believe I did you any wrong; I didn't even go so far as to threaten you.  I was very much on the soapbox and speaking in general there. I shouldn't have used an "Icterus warning" post to do that; that was sloppy of me.  I just threw that second part out there "just in case".

The complaint I received was regarding your language.

But let's just say I'm very leery of criticizing Holy Mother Church before there was a problem. I've been moderating this zoo for over 7 years now, and YOU BET I'm a bit trigger happy. You would be too.

And you hit the nail on the head when you said I don't have time for it. I don't.

On the heading, "mistakes of the Catholic Church", I just chalk it all up to "everything man touches turns to dust". The fact that the Church is still here after having a human head & members for 2000 years proves that She is a divine institution.

I suppose we can philosophize what went wrong during each century, critiquing the various popes and councils with 20/20 hindsight. But is that really a fruitful endeavor? Wouldn't that time be better spent learning our Faith and raising our families?

That's where I'm coming from.

Well said. Very well said. Thus, why is icterus the only other participant in this thread who hasn't completely ignored this comment?

I suppose we can philosophize what went wrong during each century, critiquing the various popes and councils with 20/20 hindsight. But is that really a fruitful endeavor? Wouldn't that time be better spent learning our Faith and raising our families?

This sentiment of yours—"keep first things first!"—is the part most roundly ignored. Or are all the unaffiliated freelance ecclesiastical historians, canon lawyers, and sacramental and moral theologians who grace us with their wisdom (1) independently wealthy heirs and heiresses, (2) lottery winners, (3) TV quiz show millionaires, or (4) beneficiaries of some Nigerian Internet scheme that turned up trumps for once?

Most of all, are they all single?