Society of Saint Gregory

Its called having a say, Callum. It's allowed, you know. I have never contended that you should not be allowed your say. I still fail to see how you having your say does not display a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy, which would result in the depriving of Latin in...

Then why did your attempt at justification of your stance end in banality?

Nick Baty wrote:Because you said, "Are you both telling me they don't wear them [cassocks] at mass?" Now stop making me giggle while I'm sorting out my briefs!

And so Nick's failed attempt to justify cultural intolerance, disinheritance and disenfranchisement ends in banality.

Nick Baty wrote:We weren't discussing albs. We were discussing cassocks.

You mentioned them as alternatives to cassocks when you wrote, "Nope. We're a tad quirky up here. They wear albs and chasubles."

You are confusing me. I have never suggested that priests don't wear albs! You did by implication when you wrote, "And do you know a priest who wears one?" No. Why would they? They'd roast! Then they might be wearing cassock-albs. m Nowadays, the alb is the common vestment for all ministe...

1.58pm

Calum Cille wrote:And do you know a priest who wears one?

The implication here is that priests customarily don't wear albs, a vain attempt to evade my point.

3.22pm

Calum Cille wrote:And no cassock underneath the alb?

I believe it was yourself who wrote at 3.37pm, not I.

No, it was your presentation of yourself of being unaware of priests wearing cassocks which led me to suggest the smallness of your world. I didn't say I was unaware. I said I didn't know any! You did not say that you were aware of them, which was an attempted evasion of my point and, combined with...

Gwyn wrote:Maybe I don't really need to understand it.

This puts me in mind of Jean Vanier's writings.

which is a de facto objection to the proposition that it should be done generally, which is equivalent to you raising your voice against having it in the liturgy. Yes, objecting to your earlier idea that we should all be able to celebrate Mass in Latin for the odd occasion when a few might find the...

Just objecting to your proposition that we should all be able to. ... Just prefer to sing it in English. Indeed you are, which is a de facto objection to the proposition that it should be done generally, which is equivalent to you raising your voice against having it in the liturgy. Why is this an ...

Nazard, let me stress again, I have nothing against Latin in the liturgy. And for those who wish to so celebrate who could object. No, indeed you have nothing against Latin in the liturgy, you just raise your voice against having it in the liturgy with a litany of reasons not to. Who are you trying...

...I don't do logic. I think I may remember for a long time that you wrote that. ...I wasn't aware low Mass still existed. But am happy to be corrected. Just as well, as I went to one on Tuesday. Or perhaps its me (alright, I) who doesn't exist. Well, why do they need cassocks? And do you know a pr...

CC, I take you aren't as languages teacher then? Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion? I am just trying to gauge the relevance of Latin to the teenagers I used to teach RE to in inner city Liverpool. Somehow I think there were more vitally important things to teach them. The sam...

But, Dear CC, you're suggesting we learn a language we don't know and will never need. As I've said, you're talking about it as if, by suggesting that we learn the mass in Latin that I'm suggesting that people need to learn how to hold a fluent conversation in Latin, which I have not suggested. If ...

But, like Latin, it is not necessary. Latin is a symbol of our unity through space and time to the Holy See. Whereas the cross is a symbol of our Redeemer. Yes, Nick, you've just said that. My point is that neither are necessary. Your logic to remove one is the same logic to remove the other. What ...