[patent]

I agree his words were chosen carefully, and I take offense at them.

That is rich. The words of mine you quote are well explained in my post to Narses. For you, of all people, to take offense to these rather plain words: “Most folks seem to have both intentions to some degree” is hypocritical on so many levels. First, those words are hardly a personal attack of the sort you so frequently engage in. You call people like me “neos” “neo catholics” “protestants” and the like. You refer on this thread to me as speaking with a “lawyer forked-tongue.” You are as bitter and insulting as they come, and you have little moral ground to whine about “offense” to your poor delicate little ears.

Try to act with a tiny little bit of class, then your whine will at least not grate so pathetically.

Moreover, your one of those whose conduct proves my point. By your conduct on so many threads you clearly indicate a desire for a separation from Catholics who are clearly in communion with the Pope. This proves the very point that you objected to as “offensive,” that you have both a devotion to the 1962 missal, and the desire to be separate from Catholics in communion with the Pope who don’t attend the 1962 Rite Mass.

No wonder you find the phrase offensive. It is you.

patent  +AMDG

[Land of the Irish]

you clearly indicate a desire for a separation from Catholics who are clearly in communion with the Pope.

There you go again, Oh Omniscient One.

[ultima ratio]

"you have little moral ground to whine about “offense” to your poor delicate little ears. Try to act with a tiny little bit of class, then your whine will at least not grate so pathetically."

You talk about class? Read the above post of yours. It is totally ad hominem, the epitome of vulgarity in response to a pretty innocuous comment. The one with the thin skin is you.