A quote in 'Sports Illustrated' magazine expresses a truth that we as people of faith sometimes neglect: "What counts most in creating a successful team is not how compatible its players are, but how they deal with incompatibility." When we don't get along with others, we are tempted to ignore them and shove them aside.
God calls us to take a different approach. "All of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this." (1 Peter 3: 8-9)
Oswald Chambers reminds us in 'My Utmost for His Highest': "In the spiritual life, beware of walking according to natural affinities. Everyone has natural affinities; some people we like and others we do not like. We must never let those likes and dislikes rule in our Christian life. If we 'walk in the light', as God is in the light, God will give us communion with people for whom we have no natural affinity."
It is natural to have likes and dislikes. But when we seek to honor the Lord in our relationships, compassion, love, humility, and kindness are the God-ordered, supernatural steps in dealing with incompatibility. The way to preserve the peace of the church is to promote the unity of it.
Now you are alleging that Dave, a good man, just because he humbles himself to the level of an "idiot" which he is not, you let instead stand?
The way I read your comment, when you say "no worries", you are letting his own willingness to humble himself to the lowest of levels, stand as if in fact it is so. Dave is humbling himself; he is not an idiot!
What does a good man do that makes him an idiot? Quite the contrary, the good man acts wisely; not at all a trait of an idiot.
See, Bernard, this is why you reveal to me of how you think of yourself as if on an intellectually higher level than others. You are not. We should not fill ourselves with bigotry, personal pride and gloating; instead, we should lift up a brother in Christ.
Bernard, you would do yourself a service to look up Holy Rosary parish in Portland, Oregon and follow the Novus Ordo Masses said there. I challenge you to pick it apart. Tell me what you find that is not Catholic with it. It sounds to me that Dave may also be able to suggest a parish or two for you too. But then, there are also the Masses aired on EWTN, what about those?
What you will find is a real reverence for the real presence front and center in the tabernacle, confessions before masses, a mass without altar girls, no hand shaking and hand holding, a communion rail that is used and communion on the tongue given, in addition to many other less subtle nuances dear to a Catholic's heart. I can also recommend to you other parishes if need be.
I will say this to start, thank you for the clarification for today. However, this is not how your comments read from just a few days ago. So I don't know which view you might manifest tomorrow. It is a very disconcerting when you keep going back and forth like this.
Bernard, I may not be the best person to say this, but Catholics who long for the TLM need to be extremely careful to be consistent and not disobedient, because (as Jerry pointed out) it does not take much for just one (or just a few) to spoil the opportunity for all around them. It also turns away so many who otherwise may have been disposed to learn more from a constructive, patient and conforming approach. I say this, not so conformity is rendered blindly, but rather that it be measured with Christ's every word and in conformity to the discipline due the Church as the legitimate teaching authority.
The use of rice wine, it being not of proper form, is done with the full knowledge by a trained priest who knows that it is not ok. Thus, if done, I would think it clear that it is done deliberately. But it is important to still verify. Thus, the better way to deal with it is this: approach the priest and confirm his knowledge and understanding of his action, document it, ask him to stop doing it and why, if the priest refuses or discounts it, then express your concern to the local ordinary or his representative (and copy the priest) in which you state that if you are not informed of any remedial action, you will take the matter to the next level. The process sometimes is more complicated, but you get the general idea, right?
The absolutely wrong way to deal with this is to bypass standard/correct procedures and just start throwing mud by way of media. It is a purely divergent way of dealing with serious matters. So, how can one expect that the matter will be dealt with properly if the grievance is not going to be presented properly. Complaining with hearsay gets one nowhere. One will have compounded the problem/abuse by creating others on top of it. And the spiral just continues. At some point, we have to say enough of that, in both forms. Refusing to even try doing it the right way is just not acceptable. Throwing the hands up in the air just because it may have been tried and the desired result was not obtained is no excuse. Each new circumstance must be dealt with justly.
So here is the real question for you Bernard: do you really know of a present situation where this is happening right now. If so, try the approach I suggested. If you are not aware of one, why are you bringing this example up? As a hypothetical, or by way of third-hand, or seventh hand, or something that happened in the 1970's?