I’m debating a radical traditionalist on the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass (he claims it’s invalid – at least most vernacular versions). We’re exchanging articles. However, this guy says that he will treat this like a court case and decide which articles are to be admitted as evidence. And he says he’ll decide that based on the author’s credentials. For example, it stands to reason that a priest who’s an expert on the liturgy and Church history or a canon lawyer would, in his mind, be a more reliable source than a lay Catholic apologist. I provided an excellent article for him, but since it was written by a layperson (from whom I haven’t been able to round up much info) he claims that while he’ll read it he won’t admit it as evidence until he’s gotten some more info on the author. Yet the article is from an excellent apologetics site: matt1618.freeyellow.com
I’m beginning to think his treating this like a court case is dumb. Anyone agree? What should I say to him if y’all agree?
While I’m at it, can anyone here give me any info on Matt1618 – e.g. credentials?