Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?

[JayneK]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

[INPEFESS]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

I didn't tell you that if you refused to agree you weren't facing the facts. I was referring to the fact that the prayer was problematic, which is denied by so many in fear of what it means; I was not referring to the conclusion. This acknowledgment is called a confirmation; it is not the argument. In other words, these are facts that confirm one's conclusion proved by other means, but these confirmations don't, of themselves, prove the argument.

But I see that you got this impression from where I placed the comment, which was clumsy of me. I placed it there because I found it more fitting at the end, but I see that one could easily get the wrong impression from where I placed it. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've spoken with you since your return to posting, but, despite the fact that the post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it seems you are getting particularly defensive. It was in general about those who, in fear of the conclusion, make all sorts of excuses for erroneous prayers in the new liturgies of the Novus Ordo. With this sort of backward logic, the new liturgy could explicitly state blasphemy and, no doubt, there would be some here who would make specious justifications for it in fear of the conclusion. This is what I call not facing the facts. It is not directed at you.

[JayneK]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

I didn't tell you that if you refused to agree you weren't facing the facts. I was referring to the fact that the prayer was problematic, which is denied by so many in fear of what it means; I was not referring to the conclusion. But I see that you got this impression from where I placed the comment, which was clumsy of me. I placed it there because I found it more fitting at the end, but I see that one could easily get the wrong impression from where I placed it. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've spoken with you since your return to posting, but, despite the fact that the post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it seems you are getting particularly defensive. It was in general about those who, in fear of the conclusion, make all sorts of excuses for erroneous prayers in the new liturgies of the Novus Ordo. With this sort of backward logic, the new liturgy could explicitly state blasphemy and, no doubt, there would be some here who would make specious justifications for it in fear of the conclusion. This is what I call not facing the facts. It is not directed at you.

This comment was specifically addressed to me: "I don't believe that there is any evidence that could convince you that you are wrong. There isn't any evidence that can't be impugned by someone who doesn't want to face it." 

[INPEFESS]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

I didn't tell you that if you refused to agree you weren't facing the facts. I was referring to the fact that the prayer was problematic, which is denied by so many in fear of what it means; I was not referring to the conclusion. But I see that you got this impression from where I placed the comment, which was clumsy of me. I placed it there because I found it more fitting at the end, but I see that one could easily get the wrong impression from where I placed it. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've spoken with you since your return to posting, but, despite the fact that the post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it seems you are getting particularly defensive. It was in general about those who, in fear of the conclusion, make all sorts of excuses for erroneous prayers in the new liturgies of the Novus Ordo. With this sort of backward logic, the new liturgy could explicitly state blasphemy and, no doubt, there would be some here who would make specious justifications for it in fear of the conclusion. This is what I call not facing the facts. It is not directed at you.

This comment was specifically addressed to me: "I don't believe that there is any evidence that could convince you that you are wrong. There isn't any evidence that can't be impugned by someone who doesn't want to face it." 

Yes, but that didn't exist when you made your first reply to my comment. I was talking about that first reply.

As for the second reply, it is a respectful statement that states I disagree with your method of approach as well as to why I disagree, which I have mentioned before. The same cannot be said of dramatic eye-rolls that not only shows a lack of agreement but also a lack of respect. If we can't discuss this respectfully, then we shouldn't be discussing it at all.

[JayneK]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

I didn't tell you that if you refused to agree you weren't facing the facts. I was referring to the fact that the prayer was problematic, which is denied by so many in fear of what it means; I was not referring to the conclusion. But I see that you got this impression from where I placed the comment, which was clumsy of me. I placed it there because I found it more fitting at the end, but I see that one could easily get the wrong impression from where I placed it. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've spoken with you since your return to posting, but, despite the fact that the post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it seems you are getting particularly defensive. It was in general about those who, in fear of the conclusion, make all sorts of excuses for erroneous prayers in the new liturgies of the Novus Ordo. With this sort of backward logic, the new liturgy could explicitly state blasphemy and, no doubt, there would be some here who would make specious justifications for it in fear of the conclusion. This is what I call not facing the facts. It is not directed at you.

This comment was specifically addressed to me: "I don't believe that there is any evidence that could convince you that you are wrong. There isn't any evidence that can't be impugned by someone who doesn't want to face it." 

Yes, but that didn't exist when you made your first reply to my comment. I was talking about that first reply.

As for the second reply, it is a respectful statement that states I disagree with your method of approach as well as to why I disagree, which I have mentioned before. The same cannot be said of dramatic eye-rolls that not only shows a lack of agreement but also a lack of respect. If we can't discuss this respectfully, then we shouldn't be discussing it at all.

You have accused me in the past of refusing to face facts enough times for me to know that you applied the general comment to me.  And indeed, in your next post you said it directly to me.  You are basically accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.  If that is your idea of respectful, then I guess we can't discuss it. 

[INPEFESS]

By the way, I would just like to point out that the eyeroll emoticon gives the impression of extreme arrogance, condescension, and intellectual superiority when used in serious discussions. It is difficult to want to debate with someone who thinks so little of others' view. It is difficult to appear sincere while using it, so it is simply a discouragement from continuing meaningful discussion.

Kind of like telling a person that if they agree with you they refuse to face the facts.

I didn't tell you that if you refused to agree you weren't facing the facts. I was referring to the fact that the prayer was problematic, which is denied by so many in fear of what it means; I was not referring to the conclusion. But I see that you got this impression from where I placed the comment, which was clumsy of me. I placed it there because I found it more fitting at the end, but I see that one could easily get the wrong impression from where I placed it. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've spoken with you since your return to posting, but, despite the fact that the post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it seems you are getting particularly defensive. It was in general about those who, in fear of the conclusion, make all sorts of excuses for erroneous prayers in the new liturgies of the Novus Ordo. With this sort of backward logic, the new liturgy could explicitly state blasphemy and, no doubt, there would be some here who would make specious justifications for it in fear of the conclusion. This is what I call not facing the facts. It is not directed at you.

This comment was specifically addressed to me: "I don't believe that there is any evidence that could convince you that you are wrong. There isn't any evidence that can't be impugned by someone who doesn't want to face it." 

Yes, but that didn't exist when you made your first reply to my comment. I was talking about that first reply.

As for the second reply, it is a respectful statement that states I disagree with your method of approach as well as to why I disagree, which I have mentioned before. The same cannot be said of dramatic eye-rolls that not only shows a lack of agreement but also a lack of respect. If we can't discuss this respectfully, then we shouldn't be discussing it at all.

You have accused me in the past of refusing to face facts enough times for me to know that you applied the general comment to me.  And indeed, in your next post you said it directly to me.  You are basically accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.  If that is your idea of respectful, then I guess we can't discuss it. 

Actually, my first comment had nothing to do with you. It applies to 90% of Catholics who don't really care whether the prayers are problematic according to Catholic theology, which is what I was talking about. If you don't choose to believe me, and you want to think I was attacking you personally, then I can't choose to force you.

My next post was addressed to you because it was in response to you.

As for intellectual dishonesty, I have told you what I think before about your approach: it starts with a conclusion and then seeks evidence to support it and excuses evidence that disagrees with it. I start with facts and then use it to come to a conclusion, whatever that might be. I believe the second method is more objective, and I have told you this before. If you want to interpret this into me telling you that you are intellectually dishonest, then so be it, but that is not what I am actually saying.

[JayneK]

As for intellectual dishonesty, I have told you what I think before about your approach: it starts with a conclusion and then seeks evidence to support it and excuses evidence that disagrees with it. I start with facts and then use it to come to a conclusion, whatever that might be. I believe the second method is more objective, and I have told you this before. If you want to interpret this into me telling you that you are intellectually dishonest, then so be it, but that is not what I am actually saying.

That is not my approach.  It is how you portray my approach.  Your portrayal isn't true, but it is insulting and offensive. It is far worse than an eye-roll emoticon. 

[Norbert]

If someone's going to start with a conclusion and work backwards, there are worse conclusions you could draw then "the Church hasn't promulgated an intrinsically invalid rite".

[INPEFESS]

As for intellectual dishonesty, I have told you what I think before about your approach: it starts with a conclusion and then seeks evidence to support it and excuses evidence that disagrees with it. I start with facts and then use it to come to a conclusion, whatever that might be. I believe the second method is more objective, and I have told you this before. If you want to interpret this into me telling you that you are intellectually dishonest, then so be it, but that is not what I am actually saying.

That is not my approach.  It is how you portray my approach.  Your portrayal isn't true, but it is insulting and offensive. It is far worse than an eye-roll emoticon. 

Then I apologize if I have misrepresented your approach.

[DrBombay]

The Internet

http://you-win-the-internet.com/?n=DrBombay

Yay!

Now, where in the world am I going to keep it?