[patent]

One, this was posted in the Religion forum, er, ghetto.

This, of course, was not my criticism.

Two, there are many philosophical, cultural and scientific discussions on FR (from before the News/Religion split) that aren't exactly newsworthy (nor directly related to rooting out corruption or the Constitution) and Jim Robinson has deemed them OK to remain.

Nor was this.

Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic Council of Trent are schismatic? I don't think that is exactly what you meant.

Then why, ELS, do you suggest something so absurd? Can you explain to me what I have said that leads you to question whether I am calling an Ecumenical Council schismatic? Please quote me.

I think you have entirely missed my point, which is that Narses had appeared to me to be engaged in a pattern, not that he was schismatic for posting any one article or for saying we should receive on the tongue.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[ventana]

I understand your sensitivity and your loyalty. That said, I think it is important that the laity who are interested have all the facts at hand regarding the hierarchy, in order to proceed with their eyes wide open. JMHO. V's wife.

[ELS]

I never said those were your criticisms. They were my responses to what I saw as an unfair criticism. Let's look at your comment that I was replying to.

narses: This was just a few years ago, does that age make it less worth discussion?

patent: It makes it highly likely that, on a news forum, it was discussed within the period of the last several years. This is not news, it is another in a line of your postings of articles encouraging schismatic sensibilities.

You appear to be making the point that since the article was not published recently, that it should not be posted "on a news forum." You then go on to say that the article is not newsworthy. The point I was making was that many articles from the recent past and the distant past have been posted on FR as well as articles that do not fit the primary mission of FR, so trying to beat up narses with this reasoning IMHO was unfair. I also pointed out that narses posted this article in the Religion forum which lessens the effectiveness of your non-news argument as well.

You claimed that narses has been posting articles "encouraging schismatic sensibilities" and then include reference to an article complaining about Communion in the hand. If one is not supposed to conclude that you think those who are critical of Communion in the hand are schismatic or have schismatic sensibilities, then I suggest you clarify what you meant.

When given the choice between the Council of Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas versus some idea hatched during a tidal wave of Modernism, I'll follow the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas.