My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[dellery]

This thread, in a nutshell.

I could not find video of this exchange without a bunch of left-wing nonsense included in it.

[awkwardcustomer]

You have no way of possibly knowing any of the accusations you've included in this strawman.

Of course I do. I've seen at least 40 trad chapels. I know over 100 trad priests. We all know the type. It's a joke because we speak about "that 1 crazy person" and it's usually the same type found in half to 33% of the chapels, and less frequently in diocesan indults but more frequently with societies of apostolic life.

If you think I'm wrong go ask your trad priest. He'll either lament or start laughing because they've all gone through it. They joke about this type of person because they make everyone miserable.

I did say "usually" but she can reply if she likes (she won't except to say SNOWFLAKE or SJW).

I mean anyone who finds fault with someone enjoying stories of children in Mass as a liberal IS that type of person.

BTW you said I had no way of knowing about this strawman but you finished your post with your own.

Two can play at this game.

I've seen quite a few Trad chapels too, and known a few Trad groups.  Haven't you heard the jokes about that one Trad family who lets their babies and toddlers disrupt every Mass and every event they attend?  They are know as the family with the appallingly behaved children .  And it's usually the same type found in half to 33% of the chapels etc etc

Then meet the priest who complained to me in private (always private) about how disturbing it was to have little Jimmy "express" himself, in other words scream, all through the Mass.  And the other priests who have expressed their dismay at the noise and disruption caused by babies and toddlers at Mass (again in private).

I've know this happen at more than one chapel, and coupled with what you have said BBT, suggests that there are groups of Trads who are very annoyed with one another, but never in public, except on threads like this.

[Aeternitus]

So, Aeternitus, I did look up that book and started on a few sections... 

Truly great post, Munda, and one that is worthy of a reply.  I just don't have the time at the moment, but will over the next few days.  I think I agree with all of what you say, with just a few qualifications.    But I just wanted to say that you have no cause for scrupulosity. You are doing your best and that has been completely obvious the whole thread.  I hope you and your children will say a prayer for me!   

[diaduit]

2towers, did you go to the latin mass yet?

[Lynne]

2towers, did you go to the latin mass yet?

I wouldn't blame him if he fled the forum...

[Gardener]

2towers, did you go to the latin mass yet?

I wouldn't blame him if he fled the forum...

I've long operated under the baseline premise that people suck. That way, I can judge things which don't involve sucky people on the merits of the objective reality (for example, I think most people in freestyle rap suck as people, but the art form of freestyle rap is a fascinating thing unto itself). That sucky people attend the TLM is not part and parcel to the TLM, which is, on its own, the farthest thing from sucky on planet earth.

As for forums, not that beautiful, I only stick around for those who have surprised me by not sucking; hoping, therefore, to learn how to suffer/bear each others' faults (Col 3:13; Imitation, ch 16). In order to not exclude or include (and thus exclude) anyone from said category of "doesn't suck", I'll shall leave it to the reader to judge themselves. As for me, I thank you all for putting up with such a sucky person as myself.

Until God ordains otherwise, a man ought to bear patiently whatever he cannot correct in himself and in others. Consider it better thus– perhaps to try your patience and to test you, for without such patience and trial your merits are of little account. Nevertheless, under such difficulties you should pray that God will consent to help you bear them calmly.

If, after being admonished once or twice, a person does not amend, do not argue with him but commit the whole matter to God that His will and honor may be furthered in all His servants, for God knows well how to turn evil to good. Try to bear patiently with the defects and infirmities of others, whatever they may be, because you also have many a fault which others must endure.

If you cannot make yourself what you would wish to be, how can you bend others to your will? We want them to be perfect, yet we do not correct our own faults. We wish them to be severely corrected, yet we will not correct ourselves. Their great liberty displeases us, yet we would not be denied what we ask. We would have them bound by laws, yet we will allow ourselves to be restrained in nothing. Hence, it is clear how seldom we think of others as we do of ourselves.

If all were perfect, what should we have to suffer from others for God's sake? But God has so ordained, that we may learn to bear with one another's burdens, for there is no man without fault, no man without burden, no man sufficient to himself nor wise enough. Hence we must support one another, console one another, mutually help, counsel, and advise, for the measure of every man's virtue is best revealed in time of adversity– adversity that does not weaken a man but rather shows what he is.

http://catholicarchive.org/thomas_a_kempis/the_imitation_of_christ/1/16.html

Sadly, bloggers and talkers about unity and charity and civility (ya know, everything the Mass should inculcate but doesn't due to hardness of heart), supposedly daily readers of the above, don't seem to bear the cobbles of conversation a hundred yards, let alone a mile or two. Such folks don't don't-suck enough to realize that sharp stones of a person's path can only be worn down through patience and having trod it with them.

And alas, patience is the problem. One must wonder how loud the cacophony of their shrieking conscience must be to be so bothered by the whimpering of a child.

[awkwardcustomer]

And alas, patience is the problem. One must wonder how loud the cacophony of their shrieking conscience must be to be so bothered by the whimpering of a child.

Does bearing patiently with the faults of other include misrepresenting what they say?  What you wrote here and in the rest of your "people suck" post above demonstrates to me that you are in an over-emotional and highly reactive state and cannot think rationally about this topic.

If you and other posters here could think rationally, and had a rational argument to present, you would not stoop to misrepresentation, insult and personal attack, over and over again.  But that's all you've got it seems.

You can post passages from Thomas A Kempis as much as you like.  Since they apply to you too, you would do well to study them.  But I don't remember Thomas A Kempis advocating the kind of rage you keep spitting out here.

Do you ever attend Mass alone?

[awkwardcustomer]

How often does the typical Trad parent attend Mass alone?

i) sometimes

ii) rarely

iii) never

I'm guessing never.

[bigbadtrad]

To summarize we have a doctor of the Church, Church tradition, and the continued practice of the East as a living example of the tradition. We have pictures, stories from our grandparents and elders to prove children at Mass was normal. We also have priests who say "if the church isn't crying it's dying."

On the other side of the argument we have an innovation, a regional custom and a quote from a priest (and other priests to be fair as I've heard 2 trad priests talk about it in sermons) who admit children attend as  they "ought not to" which means they were present. Ought is not a command, it's a recommendation.

A recommendation vs tradition, recommendation, and a doctor. Those are facts.

As they say in tennis: game, set, match Tradition and doctor of the Church

Just wanted to make sure the scorecard is kept tidy so arguments don't try to confuse the facts.

[awkwardcustomer]

How long does the typical Trad parent at Mass spend attending to babies and toddlers and not the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar?

i) Most of the Mass

ii)  Half the Mass

iii)  About 10 minutes or less.

[orate]

 

I think it's time to just bury this dead horse.  If we all agreed to just stop further comment, maybe it could rest in peace.

[dellery]

To summarize we have a doctor of the Church, Church tradition, and the continued practice of the East as a living example of the tradition. We have pictures, stories from our grandparents and elders to prove children at Mass was normal. We also have priests who say "if the church isn't crying it's dying."

On the other side of the argument we have an innovation, a regional custom and a quote from a priest (and other priests to be fair as I've heard 2 trad priests talk about it in sermons) who admit children attend as  they "ought not to" which means they were present. Ought is not a command, it's a recommendation.

A recommendation vs tradition, recommendation, and a doctor. Those are facts.

As they say in tennis: game, set, match Tradition and doctor of the Church

Just wanted to make sure the scorecard is kept tidy so arguments don't try to confuse the facts.

All that and your side still had to misrepresent the other side's argument?

Remember what started this? I'll refresh you.
Awkwardcustomer was criticizing

constantly crying babies and toddlers having tantrums.

during mass.

Your "side" didn't win anything. You couldn't even argue honestly. Just a bunch of white knighting and tilting at strawmen. Where was "the whimpering of a child" ever criticized?

Not only did your side totally misrepresent the other's argument, you did so in the most embarrassingly pathetic way.

"Come along little St. Francis, we can larp more after the chores are done."

"But mother, what about the whimpering children?"

How cringy.

[awkwardcustomer]

To summarize we have a doctor of the Church, Church tradition, and the continued practice of the East as a living example of the tradition. We have pictures, stories from our grandparents and elders to prove children at Mass was normal. We also have priests who say "if the church isn't crying it's dying."

On the other side of the argument we have an innovation, a regional custom and a quote from a priest (and other priests to be fair as I've heard 2 trad priests talk about it in sermons) who admit children attend as  they "ought not to" which means they were present. Ought is not a command, it's a recommendation.

A recommendation vs tradition, recommendation, and a doctor. Those are facts.

As they say in tennis: game, set, match Tradition and doctor of the Church

Just wanted to make sure the scorecard is kept tidy so arguments don't try to confuse the facts.

All that and your side still had to misrepresent the other side's argument?

Remember what started this? I'll refresh you.
Awkwardcustomer was criticizing

constantly crying babies and toddlers having tantrums.

during mass.

Your "side" didn't win anything. You couldn't even argue honestly. Just a bunch of white knighting and tilting at strawmen. Where was "the whimpering of a child" ever criticized?

Not only did your side totally misrepresent the other's argument, you did so in the most embarrassingly pathetic way.

"Come along little St. Francis, we can larp more after the chores are done."

"But mother, what about the whimpering children?"

How cringy.

The question is - what's driving the behaviour?

[dellery]

It probably wouldn't be possible, or even charitable, to accurately speculate on that.

[lauermar]

This thread, in a nutshell.

I could not find video of this exchange without a bunch of left-wing nonsense included in it.

I'd like to tie up Thunberg in a chair and make her watch an endless loop of Woody Allen's "The Universe Is Expanding " segment from Annie Hall until she can repeat it verbatim. If that doesn't work, then Lyndon LaRouche's people can try to indoctrinate her into eating babies.