Comments on: Thanks to Lola

By: crusader88

crusader88 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:30:41 +0000

If traditional Catholicism is the mark of insecurity, it is because we are concerned with the ends of souls and the fates of civilizations; we are the few awake in the night, watching for threats to all that is good, true, and beautiful in the world.

I wish “insecurity” didn’t have such a bad rap; the Britons could’ve used some when they considered inviting the Saxon tribes across the channel.

By: JSP

JSP — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:06:19 +0000

I miss the loopy quasi-traditional people who used to comment on here.

Cudgel toting on this blog has lost all its fun.

By: Visitor

Visitor — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:07:55 +0000

*Your brand of Catholicism masks deep insecurity. You are no better than the Taliban. Re-read the New Testament.*

This is only one “brand” of Catholicism – the one, true, and apostolic version. All others are not Catholic no matter how hard they want it to be.

I agree. That person’s zinger was rather funny indeed!

By: Clara

Clara — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:02:33 +0000

Oh, but you know, I still read the Latin Mass newsletter, which has often been the source of edifying information and good devotional suggestions. In fact, I meant to post the Novena for Pope Benedict on this blog, but I forgot. Shame on me.

I’ve been intrigued to hear about the upcoming Palestrina Mass that’s being prepared. If only the Doctor and I could be there!

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:10:07 +0000

My envious congratulations, Clara. I am embarrassed to admit that my only similar praise recently received — in apparent response to the Latin Mass newsletter you used to follow — was a request that I

“Please always remember the 1970s Catholic liturgy is also known as the ordinary form of the mass and one of its lovers was Pope John Paul 2 of happy memory.”

But in comparison to the fulsome tribute you received, this is thin gruel, indeed. Hmm … I wonder whether this my admirer, as meager as is his praise of me, would appreciate a link to a certain post entitled, if I recall correctly, “John Paul the Fair”.

By: Bonifacius

Bonifacius — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:57:09 +0000

“Dominus tecum”

You Talibanis, always quoting the Koran . . .

I hope that my posts played some role in eliciting this response.

Now, off to Dreher’s blog to shoot him an email denouncing him as a formal schismatic . . .

By: Clara

Clara — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:53:23 +0000

Well, yes, there are some positives to getting the hostiles. People tell me that Rod Dreher gets an incredible number on his blog — more hostiles than friendly readers, in fact. I have some doubts about Dreher, but that is rather a feat, is it not? It would be interesting to be writing regularly for a readership like that.

On the other hand, friendly readers enable a different kind of conversation that too many hostiles would render impossible. So.

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:41:43 +0000

Clara, I myself am rather saddened that we don’t get as much hate mail as in the old days. But when we do get a sweet missive like this, I treasure it! I tucked it away for safe keeping in my CSGT mail box (seriously). It’s good when we get the occasional visitor who affirms us in our mission.