<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Daily Breakfast 557 &#8211; Chicken Soup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/</link>
	<description>Leading the Way in Catholic New Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:06:33 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eamonn</title>
		<link>http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/comment-page-1/#comment-22124</link>
		<dc:creator>Eamonn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqpn.com/?p=5614#comment-22124</guid>
		<description>With all due respect to the gentleman in Jacksonville who commented about your comment on knowing where we&#039;ve come from.  He turned it around into a comment on the Novus Ordo.  The mention of clowns etc.

I realize full well that there were (and are) abuses of the &quot;new&quot; Mass, and that there probably continue to be.  However, (as I know you know), abuse was not the intent of the Fathers of Vatican II. 

I don&#039;t knwo why we can&#039;t just get along and realize that is a rich heritage in our &quot;old&quot; Mass, but that it changed because it needed to.  I certainly agree that those who are more spiritually comfortable with the old liturgy should be able to celebrate it.  At the same time, I feel like those of us who are more comfortable with the new liturgy should certainly not be lumped in with those abuses.

I get upset with people like Father &quot;Z&quot; and others who would have us turn back the clock since they seem to know what is best for all of us.  Their legalistic outlook bothers me.

So many of those who want to dump the new Mass were never around when the old Mass was the ONLY Mass.  I was and I am glad we have the new liturgy.

I say, don&#039;t abuse it, but also recognize that the Spirit guided the Council fathers.

Thanks for listening.

Eamonn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all due respect to the gentleman in Jacksonville who commented about your comment on knowing where we&#8217;ve come from.  He turned it around into a comment on the Novus Ordo.  The mention of clowns etc.</p>
<p>I realize full well that there were (and are) abuses of the &#8220;new&#8221; Mass, and that there probably continue to be.  However, (as I know you know), abuse was not the intent of the Fathers of Vatican II. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t knwo why we can&#8217;t just get along and realize that is a rich heritage in our &#8220;old&#8221; Mass, but that it changed because it needed to.  I certainly agree that those who are more spiritually comfortable with the old liturgy should be able to celebrate it.  At the same time, I feel like those of us who are more comfortable with the new liturgy should certainly not be lumped in with those abuses.</p>
<p>I get upset with people like Father &#8220;Z&#8221; and others who would have us turn back the clock since they seem to know what is best for all of us.  Their legalistic outlook bothers me.</p>
<p>So many of those who want to dump the new Mass were never around when the old Mass was the ONLY Mass.  I was and I am glad we have the new liturgy.</p>
<p>I say, don&#8217;t abuse it, but also recognize that the Spirit guided the Council fathers.</p>
<p>Thanks for listening.</p>
<p>Eamonn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Holliston</title>
		<link>http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/comment-page-1/#comment-22065</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Holliston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqpn.com/?p=5614#comment-22065</guid>
		<description>About the whole 555 thing (Wikipedia has almost everything, including one for Roderick Vonhögen, but no SQPN entry yet!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)

It&#039;s pretty interesting, actually. 

(I&#039;m submitting this a second time, to me at least, as it&#039;s been 15 minutes and I haven&#039;t seen it show up. If this is a double post, I apologize.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About the whole 555 thing (Wikipedia has almost everything, including one for Roderick Vonhögen, but no SQPN entry yet!):</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)</a></p>
<p>It&#8217;s pretty interesting, actually. </p>
<p>(I&#8217;m submitting this a second time, to me at least, as it&#8217;s been 15 minutes and I haven&#8217;t seen it show up. If this is a double post, I apologize.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Holliston</title>
		<link>http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/comment-page-1/#comment-22064</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Holliston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqpn.com/?p=5614#comment-22064</guid>
		<description>About the whole 555 thing (Wikipedia has almost everything, including one for Roderick Vonhögen, but no SQPN entry yet!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)

It&#039;s pretty interesting, actually.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About the whole 555 thing (Wikipedia has almost everything, including one for Roderick Vonhögen, but no SQPN entry yet!):</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)</a></p>
<p>It&#8217;s pretty interesting, actually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krishna J Khemraj</title>
		<link>http://sqpn.com/2008/10/09/daily-breakfast-557-chicken-soup/comment-page-1/#comment-22031</link>
		<dc:creator>Krishna J Khemraj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqpn.com/?p=5614#comment-22031</guid>
		<description>This is the type of flash we should put together for the Caholic Church. &quot;There isn&#039;t a phone that has everything, but there is a Church. . . &quot;

http://www.pomegranatephone.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the type of flash we should put together for the Caholic Church. &#8220;There isn&#8217;t a phone that has everything, but there is a Church. . . &#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pomegranatephone.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pomegranatephone.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
