“So Very Precious”: How I Rediscovered the Eucharist

By Tod Warner

It was quite a few years ago when it happened. But, boy, did it make me angry. At the time, I was still Protestant and I was attending a Catholic Mass. The Liturgy of the Eucharist was well underway and I was about to participate in Communion. And then – BOOM –  I was gently asked (not by the priest) to considernot receiving it.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Stunned and deeply fuming, yet trying to be respectful, I sat back down. I can still remember manically vowing to myself that I would NEVER allow anything to come between my God and me and how could anyone even THINK to suggest otherwise and what ARROGANCE the Catholic Church must have to suggest that I was not worthy to receive the Eucharist and so on and so on and so forth.

That was not a good day.

Now prior to this Mass I was deeply committed to my Protestant faith, if not a bit stubborn and overconfident. But subsequent to this experience, I doubled down on my arguments against becoming Catholic. I still remember the caustic words that poured from my mouth regarding the Church’s stance on the Eucharist.Exclusive. Elitist. Condescending. I felt wronged. Burned.

But years would pass. I would continue to attend Mass (my wife and I would alternate Sundays attending Catholic Mass one Sunday and Protestant services the other). And yes, in an act of smug defiance, I received Communion at both churches. Take that.

And yet.

And yet, something was happening. As I attended Mass, in spite of my resistance, I began to see the Eucharist in a different light. While it was consistently valued at its monthly appearance at my Protestant church, it was always present at the Catholic Church. Every Sunday. Every Mass. And what’s more, the Eucharist was beautifully revered in the fashion described by the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium. It is “the source and summit of the Christian life”. The entire flow of the Mass from the anticipation embodied in the Introduction and the Liturgy of the Word to the sated reflection found in the Concluding Rites points, points, always points to the “source and summit” – the pinnacle – where the bread and wine are consecrated to become the Blessed Sacrament and the Precious Blood of Christ. The Real Presence…. 

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acatholicthinker/2015/02/so-very-precious-how-i-rediscovered-the-eucharist/

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to “So Very Precious”: How I Rediscovered the Eucharist

  1. Tom Fisher says:

    For about a year in the 90s I knew that I couldn’t receive communion but I was too scared of going to confession. It’s not the same as Tod’s experience, but in that time when I didn’t take communion I still felt strengthened by being present at the Mass. It’s the objective reality of the Catholic Eucharist that makes it so powerful even when you aren’t in a fit state to receive. I can’t imagine that protestants can experience that.

  2. Tribunus says:

    [The Moderator – This comment goes far beyond what is acceptable.]

  3. Tom Fisher says:

    Tribunus, unlike Jabba I’m not going to get into a fight with you. Sorry to disappoint, but I’m flattered by your efforts.

  4. Tribunus, Tom’s comment was a genuine and simply an account of his experience with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the reception of the Blessed Eucharist. Your antagonistic and sarcastic response was not necessary. You, accuse others of being pompous?
    You seem intent on having the last word on every thing. Your arrogance is one attribute you seem to take great delight in. I think you just like the sound of your own keyboard. Please give us all a break

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    I’ll second that, Geoff, and as for Tribunus’s “self-indulgent self-advertising of one’s own intimate thoughts” slur, I haven’t seen any such conduct by the party in question. My goodness, Tribunus appears on this blog for the first time about a weeek ago (so far as I know) and proceeds to foment turmoil and discord with just about every comment. Not sure which Tribunus he seeks to emulate, but might not Savonarola be a more apt pseudonym?

  6. toadspittle says:

    God knows what Tribunus said, but from what he has already excreted on here, I’d say his main defect is not his ugly and detestable approach to other people, but the fact is that he is a crashing, bloviating, bore.
    5000 words!
    And, on a website “boring” is the cardinal sin. (I reckon.)

  7. kathleen says:

    I have been extremely moved by your words Tom.
    In those few simple sentences, you have demonstrated in such an endearing and truthful way the great value and privilege that is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. If only everyone could come to your same understanding: that to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Our Blessed Lord worthily, one must abide by the rules set out by the Church. (“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily… etc.” – 1 Cor.11:27)

    Also your deep understanding that no one is ever, EVER, refused entry into God’s Presence at Holy Mass, even when Communion cannot, at that present moment, be received by them.
    Thank you for this testimony.

  8. Tom Fisher says:

    on a website “boring” is the cardinal sin. (I reckon.)

    It’s funny you should say that Toad. One of my favourite blogs ended today after 15 years, I shall miss it terribly, though I think there can’t be many people who love both The Dish and CP&S. Andrew Sullivan’s final post included the song Being boring by the Pet-shop Boys (I can’t believe that song is a quarter century old now). Like CP&S the Dish was never boring. He said something in his last post that I think ALL bloggers and commentators should remember:

    There are times when people take this or that post or sentence out of a blog and make it seem as if it is the definitive, fully considered position of the blogger. Or they take two sentences from different moments in time and insist that they are a contradiction. That, it seems to me, misses the essential part of blogging as a genuinely new mode of writing: its provisionality, its conversational essence, its essential errors, its ephemeral core, its nature as the mode in which writing comes as close as it can to speaking extemporaneously

    I’ve included a link to the full post: please note, music video contains brief black and white nudity, I don’t regard it as offensive but I appreciate that some might

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/02/06/the-years-of-writing-dangerously/

  9. Tom Fisher says:

    Thanks Kathleen

  10. kathleen says:

    Sorry to say Tom, but the blog you link to at 11:52 is not my ‘cup of tea’.😦

  11. Tribunus says:

    And you’re not going to find out here Toad, since the Moderator won’t let you. Sorry, Toad! But don’t worry. I’ll blog about it on my own Blog. You can read it there, if you can steel yourself to do so!
    Clearly the policy on this Blog is to allow as much filth as emanates from people like you, Toad, but not perfectly reasonable criticisms of the Moderator’s little clique of friends.
    I suspected this whilst writing on the other page but this latest act of censorship has confirmed it.
    Sorry to say, Moderator, but such obvious partiality is not really my “cup of tea”.

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    Ditto, Kathleen. Actually, on the basis of your (^) judgement, I didn’t go there. So glad I’ve never provided a link to a questionable website or YouTube…well hardly ever😉

  13. Tribunus says:

    If I had any doubts about Jabba’s intellectual accuracy, his ill-informed post on the Imperial Prayers confirms them.

    He references the below Blog (not, of course, any kind of academic source) to claim (erroneously) that the Imperial prayers were said:

    …NOT “from Apostolic times” and NOT until 1955 — until 1806.

    http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-long-forgotten-prayer-to-emperor-in.html

    The Blog merely extracts from Wikipedia – see here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet

    You can readily see that it cites no beginning for the Imperial prayers at all and, as regards the end, only says this:

    “Until 1955, the Exsultet ended with a long prayer for the Holy Roman Emperor”

    i.e. exactly what I said.

    There you have it: “until 1955” and from Jabba’s own source!

    Jabba, whilst himself relying upon Wikipedia, conveniently ignores this.

    Or, to put it the charming way that Jabba himself put it he is “in fact presenting direct falsehoods as if they were ‘a matter of fact’”.

    In short, the unfortunate Jabba calls me a liar in terms that actually apply only to himself, not me.

    The Wikipedia quote continues:

    “The head of the Holy Roman Empire alone could be prayed for with this formula, and the resignation in 1806 of the prerogatives of that position by Emperor Francis II of Austria, left that position unfilled thereafter, so that the prayer was in practice not used. And so, after 1804, the prayer actually ended with the immediately preceding petition for the members of the Church”

    Actually, the prayer remained in the Roman Missal and rite, and continued to be used, particularly in the lands of the Austrian Emperor, as is clear from the fact that it continued to be printed in missals and prayer books there (and elsewhere).

    I have a copy of a missal printed in Belgium in 1911 which contains the Imperial Prayers, with Gregorian chant setting (Belgium had been a former Habsburg territory) clearly intended for use every year in Holy Week.

    Dom Prosper Gueranger OSB, the great French expert liturgist, re-founder and Abbot of Solesmes and reviver of the Roman rite, himself recognised that the Imperial prayers continued to be used as is clear from his reference thereto in his monumental L’Annee Liturgique.

    Moreover, the Imperial prayers continue to be used even today – I have myself heard them in use (but of course referring only to the head of the Habsburg family, being the heir presumptive).

    Jabba then further embarrasses himself by pretending that I said that the Emperor was prayed for in the Exultet “from Apostolic Times”.

    I was careful NOT to say that (but – hey! – what is that to Jabba? He’s not going to let the facts stand in the way of a good rant).

    What I said was this:

    “It is a matter of fact (as you would know if you had read the Roman Christendom Blog) that the Catholic Church so supported the idea of the Roman imperial monarchy that it instituted, from the beginning, special prayers for the Emperor, in the most sacred parts of the liturgy (e.g. Good Friday intercessions, the Exultet on Holy Saturday). These imperial prayers remained part of the official liturgy of the Church right up until 1955 when the Holy Week services were changed by Mgr Bugnini.”

    And earlier:

    “Here is a part of the prayer for the Emperor in the Great Intercessions for every Good Friday from Apostolic times until 1955”

    Jabba then goes off on a tangent about the origins of the Exultet, not the Great Intercessions.

    In fact, it is the general view of Roman rite scholars – not least Dom Prosper Gueranger – that the Sacred Triduum of Holy Week is the oldest extant liturgy in the Church and that most of its prayers (as they stood up until changed in 1955), including the Great Intercessions, were almost certainly part of that original rite.

    It is also probable that the Imperial prayers were included therein, not least because the first Pope, St Peter, himself ordered that the Roman Emperor, even the pagan Roman Emperor, should be given his due honour and, for Christians, that means in prayer as well as actions.

    St Peter, in his first Epistle (or encyclical letter) wrote, at 1 Pet 2:13-17:

    “[13] Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether it be to the Emperor as excelling; [14] Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: [15] For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men[16] as free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. [17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the Emperor.”

    This is sometimes translated as “King” but the Koine Greek word used in the New Testament Greek text is “Basileus”, thus in verse 17:

    πάντας τιμήσατε, τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε, τὸν θεὸν φοβεῖσθε, τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε.

    “Basileus” was, in Roman times, the “Koine or “common usage” title of the Roman Emperor.

    Before Jabba flogs off to Wikipedia, let me help him by quoting from its article on “Basileus”:

    “Under Roman rule, the term basileus came to be used, in the Hellenistic tradition, to designate the Roman Emperor in the everyday and literary speech of the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean…”

    Prayers for the Roman Emperor were amplified and extended once the Emperor and Empire became Catholic under the Emperor Theodosius.

    A view of the wider extent of other imperial prayers can be gained from these scholarly articles:

    http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=leit&NF=1&contents=contents.asp&main=texts&file=5.htm

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history3.aspx

    So, yes, Jabba, “Imperial prayers from Apostolic times”. I’m sorry if that upsets you but there it is.

    As for the rest of Jabba’s ill-informed post, he is clearly unaware that Catholic monarchy was expressly, openly and deliberately based upon that of the Roman Empire and that with the blessing and concurrence of the Church.

    Jabba, however, thinks the Roman Empire was “radically unlike Catholic monarchy”, clearly oblivious of the fact that all the emperors from Theodosius I in 347 to Romulus Augustulus in 476, and then in the East until at least the Photian schism in 863-7 and, at least nominally, until the Great Schism of 1053, were Catholic monarchs (apostates excepted).

    So, yes, Jabba, the early Christian Roman Empire was not only “a” but “the” “Catholic monarchy”. I’m sorry if that upsets you but there it is.

    There was no “Prayer to the Emperor” as Jabba wrongly writes but only “Prayers for the Emperor” and they, as we have seen, were Apostolic in origin, and were amplified and extended once the Emperor became Catholic – richly so in the Byzantine Empire.

    Jabba is simply wrong, therefore, to say that Imperial prayers were “strictly reserved for the Monarch of the Holy Roman Empire which was an entirely different political entity”.

    The Holy Roman Empire, far from being an “entirely different political entity” was expressly and consciously a continuation of the early Christian Roman Empire and both Pope and Emperor considered it so.

    Most fatuously of all, Jabba writes:

    Indeed, your bizarre notion that the pagan Emperors of Rome who ordered the mass persecutions of Christ’s Church were prayed for every Easter in Apostolic times is mind-bogglingly weird.

    The simple fact is that this is precisely what happened. The early Christians were in the habit of praying for their enemies.

    And, one might add, with great success, too, since the Emperor and Empire eventually became Christian and Catholic and in a truly remarkable and semi-miraculous way.

    The Emperor Constantine miraculously saw, in the sky, the Chi-Rho symbol of Christ (from Christos in Greek) with the Greek motto underneath Ἐν τούτῳ νίκα, meaning “in this [sign] conquer” and caused it to be painted upon the shield of each of his soldiers before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.

    When Constantine won the battle he was so impressed that he liberated Christianity throughout the Empire and, eventually, himself became a Catholic.

    I’m sorry, Jabba, if you find this “mind-bogglingly weird” but perhaps you haven’t yet quite understood the truly radical nature of Roman Catholic Christianity.

    Jabbawocky, anyone?

  14. Tribunus says:

    [The Moderator – Tribunus, a blog is not a democracy, it is more like a monarchy (I know, the irony), you don’t have a right to have your comments posted here, especially when they are personally abusive of other commentators. In caritas caritate. Thank you for the correction, Tribunus.]

  15. Tribunus says:

    Oh and sorry to you Raven. I can’t respond to you on this Blog. The Moderator won’t let me. If you want to carry on the discussion, I invite you to swap over to Roman Christendom where you will be permitted the freedom to put whatever case you wish and be responded to as freely.
    See you in cyberspace!

  16. johnhenrycn says:

    I took a peek at your blog, Tribunus, but sorry: although I found it ‘unique’ – even sui generis, as you Romans used to say – it didn’t excite me quite as much as this one does. Nice knowing you and God bless.

  17. Gertrude says:

    In an age where everyone seems to receive Communion every Sunday, because ‘that’s what we do’.( Astonishingly, the queues for Confession are exceedingly short – but that is just a personal observation) It was not always so. Making a Spiritual Communion was common, and Confessions made before Holy Mass started. It seems a relatively recent movement toward frequent Communion. Infrequent Communion was the norm in the Middle Ages, and remained the norm in religious communities up to the nineteenth century. This usually meant that when Reception did take place it was lengthily prepared for, and a state of grace never assumed thus Confession made as near to the time of the Holy Mass as possible.
    Interesting how times and customs change.
    Tomorrow is the last of the Gesima Sundays (Sexagesima) and completes our preparation for Lent. I wish you all a happy and holy Lent.

  18. kathleen says:

    “Sorry to say, Moderator, but such obvious partiality is not really my “cup of tea”.”

    Tribunus, with your use of my own turn of phrase (cup of tea) that I had used a bit earlier (to Tom), you appear to believe that I was the “Moderator” who said those above words to you. It was not me in fact, and I never even saw your comment… But no matter; we work as a Team here on this blog, and although each one of us can make personal decisions when necessary, when there are matters of importance we work as a team and decide things together.

    As you will have already seen, the Raven and I were not ‘on the same page’ in our ideas or judgement of the old Astro-Hungarian Empire. That however matters not at all; it is not of fundamental importance and we both know it. What is important is that we, and the other four members of the Team, have a passionate love for our Holy Catholic Church and all she teaches. IOW, we are traditional Catholics, not liberals, and so we work very well together. If one of my team-mates has moderated you, he/she will have had good reason to do so.

    I am sorry you feel you have been censored unfairly, but I can assure you that only when one is unacceptably abusive, cruel to someone, or heretical (as Toad has been on occasions BTW), will you have your comment removed. Otherwise we welcome differing opinions and points of view.

    God bless you (and I mean it).

  19. Tom Fisher says:

    Sorry Kathleen, I really linked because of the written post and it’s remarks about blogging. — The music video certainly is a bit risque. It was the post content itself that I thought was meaningful for bloggers and commentators.

  20. toadspittle says:

    1: Toad won’t “steel” himself to read Trib’s blog , for fear of being bored, yet again, by him.
    2: I think of a good blog, like this one, as a verbal dinner party. Someone states an opinion and people round the table comment, briefly, pointedly, and sensibly.
    Not drone on for five million words, until everyone else is asleep face-down in their shepherd’s pie.
    Of course, no one sane would invite Tribunus into to sit down and eat with them, so he doesn’t “get” it.

  21. Tribunus says:

    Of course you won’t, Toad. You had it so handed to you on a plate that you’re not bored, just furious. You wouldn’t keep harping on about it, if it were otherwise. As for comments “briefly, pointedly, and sensibly”, nice idea but not something we’ve seen from you, eh Toad? Discussion beyond a few sentences taxes your powers of concentration to the limit.

  22. Tribunus says:

    Dear Kathleen, I responded to your email but your “Moderator” friend simply censored it.

    What I said was that I didn’t agree with your claim that the historical theme “matters not at all; it is not of fundamental importance”. Understanding the political system that the Church blessed and supported for centuries is clearly very important, not least in an increasingly politically unstable world.

    Sadly, I can’t share your benevolent view of your fellow Team members’ approach to either religion or truth. In my view, they clearly do not welcome differing opinions and points of view. They simply censor those they do not like.

  23. Tribunus says:

    I took a peek at your blog, Tribunus, but sorry: although I found it ‘unique’ – even sui generis, as you Romans used to say – it didn’t excite me quite as much as this one does.

    JH then cites a blog purely to insult.

    Nice knowing you and God bless.

    Rank hypocrisy, JH. But – hey! – why should you care?

    You’ll just “moderate” this post away, too, won’t you, JH?

  24. Tom: Your Blog link at 1152 leaves me wondering the h… you are on about. The video had no redeeming features what so ever. Apart for the word ‘boring’ it has no relevance. Mate, you can do better than that.
    Not My ‘cup of tea’………

    BTW Kathleen, ‘SCRAFYS’…..”Still Cant Receive Anything From Your Site”…… ‘HYCDSRS’…”Hope You Can Do Something Real Soon”….. Just demonstrating that some abbreviations in these pages leave me wondering…. must be getting old… ‘G,HTDCO’… “Gee, Hope This Doesn’t Catch On….

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    You wouldn’t keep harping on about it

    One wonders about your own “reasons” for harping on, trib me old matey.

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    Tribunus: sorry that my comment and link at 19:45 yesterday went down the wrong way, but as your sockpuppet special friend, Hapsburg Restoration Movement asked me the day before yesterday: “can’t take a joke?” Surely you don’t really think that I really think that your blog is duller than the one I linked on which the author writes about the time his doormat was at a slightly crooked angle, thus prompting him to reach down and move it back into its correct position parallel to the door? That blog – not yours – is the dullest one in the world, even though the doormat post generated 171 comments, compared with 5 to your post about the Hapsburgs, 2 of which are your own.

  27. kathleen says:

    “I responded to your email but your “Moderator” friend simply censored it.”

    What e-mail Tribunus? Do you mean my comment (^) at 20:15 yesterday, or the one I left on the Astro-Hungary post we re-blogged from your site?

    However, you say in your comment that appeared: “What I said was that I didn’t agree with your claim that the historical theme “matters not at all; it is not of fundamental importance”. Understanding the political system that the Church blessed and supported for centuries is clearly very important, not least in an increasingly politically unstable world.

    Yes, okay, that the old Empire is important (owing to the Church’s “blessing and support for centuries”) is true, and I see your point and agree with you there, so for me too, it is “important”. I certainly believe it was the inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire, and stood (in spite of human failings among some) as a bastion of faith, piety, chivalry, etc., before its tragic dismantling after WWI. (I made all my thoughts on this belief quite clear on the post anyway.)
    But I still say that it is not of “fundamental” importance, in the sense that no one is obliged to believe this. I am pretty sure that many traditional Catholics do believe it, and will have been greatly edified by all the historical information you cited… but those who view it from another angle, and thus differently, are not as a consequence “bad” Catholics. Who is right and who is wrong? I believe you are right, but that will not lead me to fall out with fellow Catholics who still do share what is of fundamental importance with me.

    Just one last thing; Johnhenry was just joking when he put that terrible link to the doormat post as an example of “the most boring blog in the world”. He was showing how this stupid blog was at the other end of the spectrum to yours. (Can you imagine – 171 comments on such a boooooooring subject as arranging a doormat??! That sent me into peals of laughter!)

    P.S. “BTW” stands for “By The Way”. The ones you mention above were new to me.🙂 You live and learn.
    P.P.S. Oh no, sorry… I see it was Geoff who first mentioned them.

  28. Tribunus says:

    I’m not harping, Jabba. I’m defending. See if you can spot the difference.

  29. Tribunus says:

    Gee, John Henry. You must be really sorry, eh? And truly contrite?
    Well, golly. I’m impressed at your humble, Christian confession. Powerful stuff, JH. And really moving, in its way.
    I guess the Sockpuppet Restoration Movement [who he? – ed] must have changed your mind, no?
    But you’re right about one thing: you and I only get 5 or so replies to our posts but “doormat” gets 171 or more.
    And what high quality posts they are, too, eh?
    I liked these:
    “Before coming to this site, I did not know what a doormat was.”
    “Doormats are ok. I don’t like them a lot, but I don’t hate them, either.”
    “That is awesome.”

    And this laconic masterpiece:
    “Leaving a comment”.
    I guess you must really enjoy these intellectually giant contributions, eh, JH?
    Wow. You are one cool guy. Or is it “dude”. Being a restorationist sort of chap, I can never quite remember.
    Anyway. Have a nice day, won’t you, hero?

  30. Tribunus says:

    What I said to Jabba, folks, was that I didn’t hunt in packs, as he does.
    I can defend myself without relying on a mob to back me.
    But Moderator couldn’t let that through, now, could he?

  31. Tribunus says:

    Dear Kathleen,

    What e-mail Tribunus?

    Yours of February 7, 2015 at 20:15
    I replied but, since Moderator censored it, of course you won’t have seen my reply.

    But I still say that it is not of “fundamental” importance, in the sense that no one is obliged to believe this.

    We are all obliged to believe that which is known to be true, Kathleen, or else what is the point of truth? For instance, it would be pointless denying that there was a First World War or that Winston Churchill was once Prime Minister.

    A Catholic who denies the known truth because he or she finds it inconvenient has a much more fundamental problem than denying a point of faith. Matters of faith can be denied innocently (albeit wrongly) but anyone denying the known truth has no regard for the truth and that is a serious moral issue.

    Thus, to say “I don’t get the importance of ancient Christendom, so I dismiss it” could be said innocently (albeit wrong). But to say “I don’t ever think there was a Christendom, and if there was it certainly wasn’t based on the Roman imperial idea and Christian monarchy has nothing to do with either”, is a positive statement of falsehood, not merely an excusable lack of knowledge.

    As to falling out with fellow Catholics, that is a matter for them. I have been abused, insulted (by no less than a pack of your “friends”), censored and even had obscenities hurled at me. I’m not falling out with them; they are with me. Their choice, not mine. See the difference?

    But they are your people, my dear Kathleen, so you will know them better than me. Not least your charming friend John Henry.

  32. Tribunus says:

    [The Moderator – Tribunus, a blog is not a democracy, it is more like a monarchy (I know, the irony), you don’t have a right to have your comments posted here, especially when they are personally abusive of other commentators. In (caritas) caritate. Thank you for the correction, Tribunus.]

    And thank you for the personal abuse, oops sorry, charity, JH Moderator!

    Forgive me for labouring the point, but there is a difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship. It’s all on my Blog which you didn’t read as you were diverted by the “doormat” blog.

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    “I guess you must really enjoy these intellectually giant contributions, eh, JH?”

    I concede your point, Tribunus: the doormat blog does indeed lack the intellectual rigour, the scholastic precision, one looks for on your blog. We’re never told, for example, if the doormat in question was a front, side or back doormat.

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    What I said to Jabba, folks, was that I didn’t hunt in packs, as he does.
    I can defend myself without relying on a mob to back me.

    You really haven’t the faintest clue about anyone in here, have you, and your openly aggressive and near-systematically obnoxious representations towards various members of this online community are unlikely to garner positive reactions towards you.

    Your outright fantasies regarding posting styles and personalities are risible.

  35. JabbaPapa says:

    And thank you for the personal abuse

    What “personal abuse” ???!!???!?

    There was none.

    Nobody in here can help it if you insist on viewing each disagreement as an attack, and everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy.

  36. johnhenrycn says:

    “JH Moderator!”
    …a point of order, dear Tribunus: you have twice or thrice now mistaken me for a moderator. I’ve never had that privilege and responsibility bestowed upon me, so you’ll have to look elsewhere for your tormenter.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    Tribunus: you complain to Kathleen at 19:48, describing your hurt at being abused and insulted by her “pack of friends” (who you’d previously described as a “little clique”) “…not least your charming friend John Henry.”

    Remember, dear boy: in my first comment ever concerning you (to be found on the Catholic Monarchy thread at 21:40 on 04 Feb) I complimented both you and The Raven as “articulate scribes”, and I mentioned how much I was enjoying the back-and-forth debate you were then engaged in. If you now feel alienated from me and others, can you not see why that might be, objectively speaking?

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Please feel free to have the last word on this unpleasant episode, Tribunus, because I don’t plan on revisiting it. Pax, as they say in Rome.

  39. Tribunus says:

    Thanks, John Henry, I shall. I don’t feel “alienated” from you. I don’t even know you. Your first comment notwithstanding, your recent comments have, by any standard, been of no substance but merely an attempt to be offensive. It matters not the least to me but don’t pretend that you haven’t been.
    But I’ll grant you this: you haven’t made as “openly aggressive and near-systematically obnoxious representations towards” me as Jabba has, nor hurled ad hominens whilst risibly pretending not to do so, as Jabba has. And you’ve not jurled obscenities as the Toad has.
    So you are ahead to that extent.
    May I wish you all happiness and joy with your new doormat.

  40. Tribunus says:

    Jabba persists:

    It’s inaccurate historically, Kathleen — though very much of what he says is correct.

    So, Jabba. It’s both correct and incorrect, right? No, Jabba. It’s one or the other.

    And let’s not forget that you have already admitted that this is not “your” period and you know little about it. But as usual you pontificate without providing anything by way of a proper source for your pontificating. You are merely advancing your own unsupported opinion.

    Since, despite my giving you evidence to the contrary, you persist with your error that “the prayer to the Emperor was not said between 1807 and 1954 — because there was no such person”, let me QUOTE you those sources verbatim:

    “The Church of Rome, in the following prayer, had in view the emperor…this prayer is now omitted, excepting in those countries which are subject to Austria.”

    [Gueranger OSB, Dom Prosper, L’Annee Liturgique1841-1875, Vol VI “Passiontide and Holy Week”, re-published by Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam NH, 2000, p.482]

    [p. 211] Good Friday – Great Intercessions. Feria VI in Parasceve: “Oremus et pro Christianissimo Imperatore nostro N. [Si non est coronatus, dicitur electo Imperatore]…”

    [p. 231] Holy Saturday – Exultet. Sabbato Sancto. Benedictio Cerei: “Respice etiam ac devotissimum Imperatorem nostrum N. [si non est coronatus, dicitur electum Imperatorem]…”

    [Missale Romanum, Ratisbonae, Romae, Neo Eboraci et Cincinnati, sumptibus et typis Friderici Pustet, typographi S. R. Congregationis, 1911, p.231]

    I cannot for the present find my Belgian Missale but I do quote from a German Pustet edition of 1911.

    Friedrich Pustet established his liturgical press in Regensburg (Ratisbon). The success of Friedrich earned for him in 1870 the title “Typographus S. R. Congregationis“and the Vatican commissioned Pustet to print the editio typica of all the liturgical works. Branch firms were established in New York (1865), Cincinnati, Ohio (1867), and Rome (1898).

    Quite clearly, then, Jabba, you are simply wrong. The Imperial prayers continued to be said after 1806, both in the 19th and 20th centuries, and for the Austrian Emperor as successor of the Roman Emperor.

    If you don’t believe me then look it up for yourself. I have given you the references.

    As for your claim –

    prayers to the Emperor were instituted during the Holy Roman Empire, and they effectively ceased to be said in 1806, although their text was only removed from the Exultet in 1955.

    you are simply wrong there, too.

    They were not “prayers to the Emperor”, but prayers to God “for the Emperor”, as I have already told you but you simply ignore.

    As I prove above, they did not cease in 1806. Moreover, they were not only removed from the Exultet in 1955 but also from the Great Intercessions and from the Missa pro Imperatore.

    Lastly, you provide not a skerrick of evidence for your claim that they were instituted during the Holy Roman Empire and you are wholly unable to rebut the obvious fact that Imperial prayers were said for the Byzantine Emperor, and, indeed, are still part of the Byzantine liturgy, even today (albeit transferred to the Russian Caesar, the Tsar – or, in fact, his heir presumptive).

    Since almost all General Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church were called by, and presided over by, the Roman Emperor from Nicea I in 325 to Constantinople IV in the 9th century, i.e. for most of the first 1,000 years of the Church, it is unsurprising that the Church prayed for the Emperor in a most prominent part of the Sacred Liturgy.

    You paint a very confusing picture — because after having first claimed, erroneously, that the Prayer to the Emperor was said (implicitly, throughout Christendom) from Apostolic times until 1955, you are now using the existence of particular prayers for particular monarchs as if they were the same Universal prayer for “the Emperor”, which they were and are not.

    No, that, too, is wholly wrong.

    I am speaking of prayers for the Roman Emperor and always was – not “particular prayers for particular monarchs”. You need to go back and read, Jabba.

    And imperial prayers were, indeed, said for the Roman Emperor from Apostolic times, and, as I said, most scholars say that the Great Intercessions come from Apostolic times.

    It is you who are getting confused.

    And I say this as someone who has often prayed at Mass for our own Catholic Sovereign.

    Excellent, Jabba. I am glad to hear it.

    And I have no doubt whatsoever that should another Catholic Emperor arise in the future, then the Prayer would be said again.

    I agree with you, there, Jabba. Indeed, as I say, I have been to Holy Week services where the prayers are sung (naming Archduke Otto, whilst he was still alive, and now naming his heir presumptive).

    I was quite obviously referring to the Roman Empire and Emperors “in Apostolic times”.

    And? That makes no difference to the fact that you were wrong to say that the “political structure of the Roman Empire…was radically unlike that of a Catholic Monarchy” when, as a matter of historical fact, the first Catholic monarchy WAS the Roman Empire.

    Catholic monarchy was not “radically unlike” but, in fact, directly modelled thereon – Roman emperor, senate, comitia, consuls, praetors, tribunes, Roman military rank structure, Roman titles of nobility, Roman law, Roman land tenure, Roman city government etc etc and so it remained for centuries and centuries.

    Don’t tell me that I am “misinterpreting” your words. You as good as accused me of lying (“presenting direct falsehoods as if they were ‘a matter of fact’ ” – remember?) and, as you can see, I was, in fact, right. You should be withdrawing that <ad hominen calumny.

    So you think that Apostolic times include the mid-4th Century and later ???

    No, Jabba.

    I think that Apostolic times were the times when the Apostles were still alive and when, according to the most reputable liturgical scholars of the old Roman rite, the Great Intercessions on Good Friday were first confected, the Sacred Triduum of the Roman rite being the oldest liturgy in the Christian world.

    Don’t take my word for it. Read what the great scholars like Dom Prosper Gueranger OSB and Rev Adrian Fortescue say about it.

    It is your persistence in error which is “bizarre”, not me.

    The Great Intercessions were a part of the Exultet

    No, Jabba. That is quite wrong.

    The Great Intercessions are not part of the Exultet. They are sung on Good Friday, not Holy Saturday.

    They are sung directly after the Passion has been sung, when the Church intercedes for the necessities of the whole world (including, for example, the prayers for the Jews – you must have heard of those, no?).

    Do yourself a favour. Don’t pretend to pontificate about a subject you know very little about. No-one minds you not knowing. It is when you pontificate and accuse others of lying that they tend to mind.

    separate Prayers for a Catholic Monarch are, in my experience, said or sung separately.

    Your experience is, I fear, too limited. There are certainly some separate prayers for monarchs. That is probably what you are used to under the modern liturgy in the UK, or Luxemburg or Liechtenstein or wherever you live. Also in Britain, we sing the Domine salvum fac for the Queen at the end of the main Sunday mass.

    The Imperial prayers, however, were an integral part of the Sacred Triduum. As I say, don’t take my word for it. Look it up in the references I have given you.

    As to St Peter, in his first Epistle (or encyclical letter), you say:

    I do, at least, completely agree with this — and you neglect to mention Christ’s own command to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar

    Thank you. I could also have mentioned the obedience of the Holy Family to the decree of the Roman Emperor that everyone should be enrolled.

    — except that none of it constitutes evidence either pro or contra regarding the earliest date of these prayers.

    I didn’t offer it as proof, Jabba. I offered it as collateral support to the proof I had already given.
    The difference between us, Jabba, is that whilst I have offered proof, you have offered nothing more than your own unsupported opinion or feeling.

    By way of further example, Fortescue tells us that the Sacred Triduum, including the Great Intercessions, originated in Apostolic times and Gueranger tells us that it was held in the greatest veneration in the early 3rd century, by the testimony of St Denis, Bishop of Alexandria ( Epistola ad Basilidem, canon i) and of St John Chrysostom in the next century (Homilia xxx in Genesi).

    …which were introduced during the Holy Roman Empire

    You persist, mulishly, in this claim with not one jot of proof.

    Are you seriously suggesting that there were no prayers for the Christian Roman Emperor in the liturgy before the Holy Roman Empire e.g. under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and the many other Christian Roman emperors?

    You found it “mind-bogglingly weird” that Christians prayed even for the pagan Roman Emperor but now you admit that they prayed even for their enemies.

    Next you persist in your further error of continuing to claim that the Holy Roman Empire, was an “entirely different political entity” and not expressly and consciously “a continuation of the early Christian Roman Empire”.

    Indeed, you again as good as call me a liar and say that I am making a “clearly false statement”.

    Where is your evidence, then, Jabba, that the statement is false?

    You have none. All you can say is that you would “doubt it” even though it is not “one of [your] periods”. Aren’t you being a little arrogant, there, Jabba? Not your period but you claim to pontificate?

    Let me, on the other hand, provide you with evidence from a recognised and unbiased source, James, Viscount Bryce DCL, in his work The Holy Roman Empire, MacMillan, London, 1925, pp.1-3:

    “Of those who in August 1806, read in the newspapers that the Emperor Francis II had announced to the Germanic Diet his resignation of the imperial crown there were probably few who reflected that the oldest political institution in the world had come to an end. Yet it was so. The Empire, which a note issued by a diplomatist on the banks of the Danube extinguished, was the same which the crafty nephew [Octavian, later Augustus] of Julius [i.e. Caesar] had won for himself, against the powers of the East, beneath the cliffs of Actium; and which had preserved, almost unaltered, through eighteen centuries of time…Nothing else so directly linked the old world and the new…From the days of Constantine till far down into the Middle Ages it was, conjointly with the Papacy, the recognised centre and head of Christendom, exercising over the minds of men an influence such as its material strength [alone] could never have commanded….We shall see the old Empire…we shall mark how the new religion, rising in the midst of a hostile power, ends by embracing and transforming it…”

    To be sure, the Empire waxed and waned and underwent many changes and transformations but what never changed was its claim to be, expressly and consciously, a continuation of the early Christian Roman Empire with a Christian and Catholic Caesar at its head. As Bryce demonstrated, all other Christian monarchies looked to it as their model and (at least in theory) deferred to the Emperor as the doyen of the sovereigns.

    Even after 1806, the Austrian Emperor was regarded as the successor of the Roman Caesars; so much so that it took Bismarck some 3 days and nights of non-stop haranguing to get his own sovereign, the Prussian Frederick William, to agree to take on the title of Kaiser, i.e. Caesar, because even the Protestant Frederick William felt it was irreverent and wrong to usurp a title which so clearly belonged to the Catholic Austrian emperors.

    The Roman imperial idea was, and always had been, from the very beginning, the cornerstone of Roman Catholic Christendom.

  41. JabbaPapa says:

    jurled” ???

    to jurl : “to be made a ham out of; usually out of your fat that surrounds your bellybutton”

    Is that what you meant ? Not exactly very friendly, is it ?

  42. JabbaPapa says:

    BTW the Toad isn’t at all overweight just FYI … 😉

  43. JabbaPapa says:

    … though of course — the passive form of a passive verb is an active ; so are you in facr saying that you yourself have been made a ham of by the Toad’s remarks ?

  44. Tribunus says:

    so are you in fact saying that you yourself have been made a ham of by the Toad’s remarks?

    Not exactly very friendly, is it, Jabba?

    But of a piece with your:

    “…openly aggressive and near-systematically obnoxious representations…” and “outright fantasies…are risible”

    Not to mention your other choice epithets and insults.

    You have a curious habit of abusing others for the very same faults that you, yourself, primarily exhibit.

    Physician heal thyself.

    Luke 6.42 springs to mind.

  45. Tribunus says:

    But no doubt, Jabba, you have conveniently forgotten the sage words of Toad, let through so readily by the Moderator.

    Let me remind you of a small sample:

    Toad can “…write like a civilised human being.” He just doesn’t want to, on CP&S.

    He will know exactly whereabouts, and at which level, to stick his insults.

    tedious, monomaniacal, windbags

    vomiting up great gouts of this kind of irrelevant, pompously self-applauding, antiquated gibberish

    [At this point,Toad had to be told by GC that, in fact, the thread was top runner that day!]

    interminable, insane, and irrelevant, “War and Peace” length, Habsburg-glorying, twaddle on CP&S – if that is what the unwashed canaille clearly demand.

    obsessive, bee-in-the-bonnet, crackpot, commentators

    Regardless, it was certainly the silliest – by several million miles, which is a considerable achievement.

    stupefying the gobshite

    dreary, repetitive, old windbag.

    boring other people into catalepsy

    what he has already excreted here

    ugly and detestable approach

    crashing, bloviating bore

    no-one sane would invite you to sit down and eat with them

    But – hey! – none of that is insult or ad hominem, eh, Jabba?

    Of course, Jabba. of course.

    And that’s before we get onto your own choice little epithets, eh Jabba?

    All of which you spewed at me, in alleged defence of Toad (as if he needs defending!) before I had written a single word to you, or about you, let alone anything negative.

    Nice!

  46. kathleen says:

    Tribunus @ 19:48 yesterday

    “We are all obliged to believe that which is known to be true, Kathleen, or else what is the point of truth?”

    I agree, but here we are not talking about dogmatic truths that form part of our Catholic Faith, but “truths” that have been interpreted in different ways by different people… owing to their being truths about history of vast countries covering centuries of time. That is what makes it so hard for many to see through the conflicting data and interpretations to find the real truth about the Habsburg dynasty. I believe it has had many envious enemies who have craftily disfigured much of it – owing to the fact that it stood so majestically for Holy Christendom (read Catholicism* here) – and have successfully managed to lead many, through perhaps no fault of their own, to see these negative slants on its history rather than the overriding and real positive ones.

    *Just by this fact alone, anyone searching for the truth should have their antennae up, for the Holy Bride of Christ will always be a sign in the world that the Devil will seek to destroy.

    P.S. Johnhenry is not a CP&S Moderator.

  47. JabbaPapa says:

    But – hey! – none of that is insult or ad hominem, eh, Jabba?

    You’re deeply mistaken if you imagine the Toad to be exempted from my genre of critique. As I’m sure he’d be only too happy to confirm for you himself.

  48. toadspittle says:

    Tribunus is right of course.
    Toad doesn’t need defending. He needs a good verbal kicking. – that’s what the little green blackguard needs, all right, by jingo – and Trib is clearly the very fellow to administer it.
    You go Trib!
    Poor old Toad.

  49. Tribunus says:

    Poor old Toad. Having vented his spleen, he now feels it’s unfair that anyone objects. Yes, indeed. Go, Toad!

  50. Tribunus says:

    Jabba,

    You started on me in order to defend the Toad, remember? ‘Twas not I who started on thee, remember? I said not a word to, or about, you. Indeed, I was agreeing with you.

    Until you started vomiting abuse at me, that is…

    And, of course, you miss the point.

    Your complaining about ad hominems is lop-sidedly selective, Jabba.

    THAT’S the point.

    Bu, hey ho, you’ll not get it….

  51. Tribunus says:

    Thanks, Kathleen, for your friendly reply!

    It’s like water in the desert for a man surrounded by venomous snakes.

    My point was really a philosophical one. The reason why clerical students study philosophy first, and then theology, is because the latter builds upon the former, just as Grace (supernature) builds upon nature.

    Certainly theological truths are higher than philosophical ones, but you cannot have the former without the latter.

    If one refuses to accept a known and unchallengeable fact e.g., say, that there was a Christian Roman Emperor long before the Holy Roman Empire, or that black is not white, or that circles are not square, then you cannot even begin to discuss theological truths. This is the problem when debating with atheists. They think “nothing” is “something”, for instance (see Laurence Krauss), when, in fact, they don’t mean nothing (as in nihil) at all.

    Toad, for instance cannot understand the natural theology of God’s permissive will. Therefore, he cannot understand sin, Original Sin, and thus the need for the Atonement and the Resurrection.

    Likewise, if you cannot understand philosophical truth, you cannot understand any theology.

    This is, of course, not to say that there won’t be differences of detail but that’s a different matter.

    Trib

  52. kathleen says:

    You make a very convincing argument here at 22:05 Tribunus – and yes, I do see your point.

    Trouble is, there is such an immense amount of, if not actually conflicting, at least irreconcilable, factual, documented information available on the subject, that it is no straightforward path to prove even very solid arguments like this concerning the Holy Roman Empire etc. What has been discussed these last few days on this blog (leaving aside all the squabbling and accusations bandied about) is a perfect example of this unsurmountable difficulty.

    The Raven and Jabba are not ignoramuses talking off the top of their heads (quite the opposite) – and in fact, in part, they both go along with you anyway if you truly read between the lines – but they still have differing overall views. One day we shall all know the truth, the one and only truth; it will be revealed to us, but maybe not in this world of confusion where so many lies and falsehoods have been spread abroad by biased sources, parading as reliable ones.
    And don’t we all know who is the author of confusion?!! Also known as the ‘author of lies’ of course.

  53. Tribunus says:

    Thanks, Kathleen, but the job of the laity is to conform the temporal order to the will of Christ and we cannot even begin to do that if we don’t even know (or care) what the will of Christ for the temporal order is and, instead, prefer our own will.

  54. JabbaPapa says:

    You started on me in order to defend the Toad

    Totally false — in fact, when I asked you to stop piling up insults against multiple members of this community, your response was to start attacking me as well.

    Until you started vomiting abuse at me

    You’re the one who started this whole insults and name-calling business, matey, as is clear to everyone except, it seems, yourself.

  55. JabbaPapa says:

    venomous snakes

    … aaaaaaaand here we go again, eh ?

    Lovely.

    /face-palm/

  56. Tribunus says:

    And those who think that the job of the laity is just to “pay, pray and obey”, or, as Monsignor Talbot put it to Blessed John Henry Newman, “to hunt, to shoot, to entertain” (fun, but hardly the sacred mission of the laity), have seriously missed their whole vocation.

    Worse still are those who think the job of the laity is to adapt resignedly to the current worldly political views and convince themselves that is the best one can do and nothing more is required.

  57. Tribunus says:

    Facepalm

    Oh, here we go again, eh Jabba? Puerile.

    But – hey! – as long as you say “you write like an obnoxious [fill in your favourite Jabba insult here]”, that’s ok, is it Jabba? After all, it’s only about the post, not the person, eh Jabba?

    Apparently.

    However much you are in denial, Jabba, it is a matter of record, Jabba, that I said nothing to you or about you, until you started vomiting abuse at me.

    [Kathleen: Please Tribunus, stop this lashing out at Jabba – it is so futile. Apologies, but I cannot let your last two comments onto the blog. They say much the same as you just say here anyway!]

  58. Tribunus says:

    But you can congratulate yourself, Jabba, on your wonderful Christian ability to do as you would be done by. Matey. Oh hang on…

  59. Tom Fisher says:

    Didn’t Toad just comment?

  60. Tribunus says:

    Kathleen, if you look closely you will see that it is HIM lashing out at ME.

    Will you please apply the same rules to him? Impartially, please? I know he is your friend but you cannot have one rule for your friends and another for the rest. That is precisely what bias is.

    I am sorry to see that you are not prepared to be as objective as I had expected you would.

  61. Tribunus says:

    You invited me, Kathleen, to come and defend the Christendom position on this Blog. I attempted to do so. But it has been one long stream of abuse ever since I did. But it seems you are not willing to “moderate” any of that.

    I refer you to my post listing some of Toad’s choicer epithets. Jabba is little better but his tedious and abusive rants are left un-“moderated”.

    Is this really CP&S’s idea of balance?

  62. toadspittle says:

    I thought I did comment, Tom, about mixed metaphors. Something is going very haywire on here since “Trib” turned up.
    Anyway, there seems total agreement that he’s barking.
    Kathleen is now beginning to cotton on.

    Let’s see what happens to this.

  63. Tom Fisher says:

    I thought I did comment, Tom, about mixed metaphors.

    That’s a relief, I’m trying to do several things at once, but I was sure a comment just vanished.

  64. Tribunus says:

    And, having taken a peek at Jabba’s Blog, I can see that he is a chap who thinks quite highly of his own Catholic credentials (a visionary, even!).

    Yet when he is taken to task, rightly, for making some pretty elementary mistakes (e.g. Great Intercessions on Saturday, not Friday, imperial prayers never said after 1806), he responds with another abusive rant, all the while complaining about other people’s conduct.

    But his rants are unmoderated apparently….

  65. Tribunus says:

    And another very obvious and insulting ad hominem from Toad goes sailing through…

    “Moderation”, Kathleen?

  66. kathleen says:

    @ Tribunus

    I’m sorry, but I am truly trying to be objective… as are my Team-mates who have also been moderating here. I let through your comment of 9:59, but the two short ones straight afterwards were only saying much of the same unpleasant stuff. There is really no point filling up the comment thread with this sort of thing.

    @ Tom – re Toad’s comment

    Toad was saying some insulting things too. I intended to moderate it, but in my hurry I binned it by mistake!

    Toad, sorry for that mistake of mine, but please watch your language if you re-write it.

    For everyone:
    Most blogs have a moderation system. Ours is notoriously lax, and others have accused us of being far too lenient. Heated debate is welcome, but there are limits.

  67. Tribunus says:

    From the Toad who admits he hasn’t even read what I wrote….

  68. Tom Fisher says:

    Tribunus, I’m starting to wonder if you’re actually as lovely as you seem

  69. Tom Fisher says:

    Kathleen, that’s good to hear. Can you restore (with whatever moderation)? It is disconcerting when comments vanish🙂 — And I know you guys are working hard to keep us civil!

  70. Tribunus says:

    Kathleen, there’s another one from Tom that seems to have “just slipped through”.

    What Toad and Jabba have posted is far more offensive than my two posts – by miles.

    Their abuse went through un-moderated.

    Objective?

    Or special rules for friends?

    I’ll leave you to your friends, Kathleen. It was nice knowing you and I wish you well.

  71. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 10:47

    That’s a nasty thing to say Toad. I greatly appreciate the wealth of information Tribunus has given us here on a subject that is most interesting (being, as it is, part of the history of Christendom) although it may not interest you.
    It is only the pointless to-ing and fro-ing of aggressive arguing that has caused the trouble. Overlook that, and there is a lot to learn in the pages of discussion over these last few days.

  72. Tom Fisher says:

    Kathleen, there’s another one from Tom that seems to have “just slipped through”.

    Oh come on Tribunus. And I would actually be very interested to know what you think about the fall (or not) of the Western empire on the other thread.

  73. kathleen says:

    Referring to Toad’s vanished comment, Tom asks:
    “Can you restore (with whatever moderation)?”

    Sorry Tom, I can’t; it’s lost now, though that was a genuine mistake. No big deal though – it was only old Toad overstepping himself with his puffed up new found importance… ever since I foolishly named him CP&S’s ‘resident court jester’.🙂

    Thanks for your appreciation too – very kind of you.

  74. johnhenrycn says:

    The only solution to the fracas of these past 7 days is for all parties to refrain from addressing their adversary(ies) on any of the subjects and threads that caused it. For example, if I wish to reply to a comment by Tribunus, it won’t be on a thread where we’ve already tussled. That way, we start with a clean slate.

  75. JabbaPapa says:

    But it has been one long stream of abuse ever since I did

    Well, stop being so insistently abusive then !!!

  76. JabbaPapa says:

    And, having taken a peek at Jabba’s Blog, I can see that he is a chap who thinks quite highly of his own

    Here we go again with the ad hominem in its very essence …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s