Neo-conservatives

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:42 PM'] It's a term used by Schismatics... some say Neo-Catholic

Those that tend to believe Vatican II was the greatest evil of the Catholic Church, they believe that it's a sin to take the Eucharist in hand, they tend to confuse discipline with faith and morals.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Nothing like some good old fashioned exaggeration.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 5 2004, 06:27 PM'] Nothing like some good old fashioned exaggeration. [/quote]
no it's not.

Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is.

Also note the "TEND"... there are a few divisions of those schismatics stuck in the past and missing the point.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:16 PM'] Lib Catholics are not real Catholics where as Conservative Catholics are totally 100% Catholic. [/quote]
How can you say someone is no longer Catholic? If they were baptised and confirmed they are real Catholics, just ones that are living in mortal sin. How can they not be real Catholics if they are still required to go to Mass?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:32 PM'] Bleh, taking the Eucharist by hand... Bleh. It's really an awful practice. I'm traditionilist in that being from an Easter Rite Catholic Church, we tend to be traditionilsts in what we do. However, I guess I'm a neo-conservative in that, I know what is acceptable now in light of V2. I accept it, but I do say, how sad I am that I didn't live in the time when discipline was also a part of faith and morals.

My 2 cents.

God bless,

Mikey. [/quote]
St. John Chrystostym gives some norms on receiving Holy Communion in the hand, so it can't be too bad.

Edited August 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[MichaelFilo]

As I said, wherever I can be within Church teachings and stick to the 'olden days', I will. It's definatly licit to take communion by hand, I just see no reason for it. If they didn't need their hands for so long, why change now? Of course that would mean I'd be defending Latin only masses, and certain other things using that reasoning. Still, I would if it didn't go against church teaching.

On a lighter side, being a neo-Conservatives isn't really a bad thing. It just means, new conservatives, as opposed to old ones, which need to be changed every few decades or so.

God bless,

Mikey

Edited August 6, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 07:07 PM'] Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is. [/quote]
I plan on reading it. Would you like to offer some substantive commentary on the contents, instead of just deriding it?

[Hananiah]

Perhaps a short list of points of contention is in order:

Traditionalist: John Paul II is a poor to bad Pope
Neo-conservative: John Paul II is the greatest since Peter!

Traditionalist: The Council of Florence means what it says (extra ecclesiam nulla salus); you are misinterpreting the ambigious statement in the catechism
Neo-conservative: the catechism means what it says; you are misinterpreting the clear statement of the council of Florence

Traditionalist: It is sinful to encourage someone to break the first commandment
Neo-conservative: Not when the Pope does it and it's part of the first stage of evangelization!

Traditionalist: The new mass is a watered-down, de-Catholicized concoction of bureaucrats, though it confects the Eucharist
Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree

Traditionalist: Unconsecrated hands should not touch the sacred species
Neo-conservative: Unconsecrated hands may touch the sacred species

Traditionalist: Numbers don't lie. The Catholic Church would be better off today if Vatican II had never happened.
Neo-conservative: It just hasn't been fully implemented yet!

Traditionalist: it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain partsof Scripture or to admit the sacred writer has erred
Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree

Traditionalist: Russia has not yet been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate heart in accord with her request at Fatima
Neo-conservative: John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984

[MichaelFilo]

Pope JPII Did not consencrate Russia. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say so ( or does the church say so, then I'm not in my right mind ).

I agree about the Eucharist and the hand thing, but what the church says, it says.

I don't get all of what you said, like breaking the first commandment and all that, can you clarify?

V2 should not be blamed for the decrease in Catholics, although I can say that it can be a paritally true arguement. The basic culture of death has taken over. This is not V2's problem. I'm not very experienced with this stuff, you'll have to wait till Jeff comes back, but the stuff above, that I mentioned, can you tell me what you mean?

God bless,

Mikey

[Hananiah]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:37 AM'] Pope JPII Did not consencrate Russia. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say so ( or does the church say so, then I'm not in my right mind ). [/quote]
Apparently the Pope believes he fulfilled Our Lady's request, because on March 25, 2004 he said this: "Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima."

Most, if not all traditionalists would disagree.

[quote]I don't get all of what you said, like breaking the first commandment and all that, can you clarify?[/quote]
Read what the Catechism has to say on the first commandment. When pagans pray to their idols, they break this commandment. Next, read any text of Catholic moral theology. It is sinful to encourage someone to break a commandment. Now draw the conclusion: it is sinful to encourage a pagan to pray to his idols. I will get edited if I name names.

[MichaelFilo]

JpII has done something of the sort? It's too bad I have no idea of anything like that. Would they edit it if you said.. anyways who knows.

The pope can't honestly think he met the requirements. (This is not an attack on the pope, or his authority or anything of the sort. A pope may err.). I am fairly sure he did not meet the requirements. Do you have a source for that little quote you got off of him?

Thank you and God bless,

Mikey

Edit added on:

he did do that. I guess he was in spiritual union with them all. However, Our Lady asked for Russia specifically. There have been o converts in Russia in any great numbers, and there actually have been anti-Catholic laws that have been passed in Russia since the time JPII claims he fulfilled Our Lady's request at Fatima. I love JpII as I do all popes who have tried their best to remain in good standing with the Church, but he is clearly wrong on this (On private revelation, again not something that he is infallibly correct on )

Edited August 6, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[Hananiah]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 6 2004, 02:08 AM'] JpII has done something of the sort? It's too bad I have no idea of anything like that. Would they edit it if you said.. anyways who knows. [/quote]
dUst just did See: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16310"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16310[/url]

[quote]The pope can't honestly think he met the requirements. (This is not an attack on the pope, or his authority or anything of the sort. A pope may err.). I am fairly sure he did not meet the requirements.  Do you have a source for that little quote you got off of him?[/quote]
I got it off an essay by my boss at Catholic Apologetics International, but a quick google search has provided corroboration. [url="http://www.cathnews.com/news/403/145.php"]http://www.cathnews.com/news/403/145.php[/url]

If you want to continue this discussion I would suggest using e-mail. My address is hananiah5@yahoo.com

[p0lar_bear]

MichaelFilo,

Not only does the Holy Father believe he has consecrated Russia, Sr. Luciana (the remaining visionary) agrees.

The Pope consecrated the world to Mary on March 25, 1984 in St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City. His 1984 consecration prayer is reprinted at the Blue Army’s website (www.bluearmy.com). (The Blue Army’s phone number is (908) 689-1701.) The consecration prayer was included as part of a statement that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued on Fatima in 2000, and which Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the CDF’s secretary, signed.

From the CDF statement, which can be read in whole at [url="http://www.bluearmy.com/Message%20of%20Fatima.htm:"]http://www.bluearmy.com/Message%20of%20Fatima.htm:[/url]

In order to respond more fully to the requests of “Our Lady,” the Holy Father desired to make more explicit during the Holy Year of the Redemption the Act of Entrustment of 7 May 1981, which had been repeated in Fatima on 13 May 1982. On 25 March 1984 in Saint Peter's Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the Bishops of the world, who had been “convoked” beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in terms which recalled the heartfelt words spoken in 1981:

O Mother of all men and women, and of all peoples, you who know all their sufferings and their hopes, you who have a mother's awareness of all the struggles between good and evil, between light and darkness, which afflict the modern world, accept the cry which we, moved by the Holy Spirit, address directly to your Heart. Embrace with the love of the Mother and Handmaid of the Lord, this human world of ours, which we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthly and eternal destiny of individuals and peoples.

In a special way we entrust and consecrate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated.

We have recourse to your protection, holy Mother of God! Despise not our petitions in our necessities.


[Switching briefly from the papal consecration prayer to related commentary, the CDF document continues:] The Pope then continued more forcefully and with more specific references, as though commenting on the Message of Fatima in its sorrowful fulfillment:

Behold, as we stand before you, Mother of Christ, before your Immaculate Heart, we desire, together with the whole Church, to unite ourselves with the consecration which, for love of us, your Son made of himself to the Father:

“For their sake,” he said, “I consecrate myself that they also may be consecrated in the truth” (Jn 17:19). We wish to unite ourselves with his divine Heart, has the power to obtain pardon and to secure reparation (emphasis in papal consecration prayer original).

After quoting the rest of the papal consecration prayer, the CDF document added:

Sister Lucia [the still-surviving Fatima seer] personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.

In summary, Pope John Paul II has consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the Fatima visionary Sister Lucia affirmed that the act of consecration was as Our Lady of Fatima prescribed.

[amarkich]

My brother was suspended until August 25... for some reason the IP address is completely blocked. I cannot access the forum except by another computer (right now I'm in an office at my church). I won't be able to post any responses to any threads (including the crossdressing one, unfortunately) until that time (Aug. 25).

[picchick]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 5 2004, 11:21 PM'] How can you say someone is no longer Catholic? If they were baptised and confirmed they are real Catholics, just ones that are living in mortal sin. How can they not be real Catholics if they are still required to go to Mass? [/quote]
I do not fully agree with the statement that you quoted. However, if someone knowingly disagrees with a teaching of the Church then that that person has broken himself away from the Chruch. Since he is broken away from the Church, he is no longer Catholic. He kinda has made another denomination for himself. At least this is what I was taught. Can someone correct me on this if I am wrong?

[Guest JeffCR07]

A quick late night/ early morning reflection on something previously said in this post, brought to you from the wonderful city of St. Louis! (which, I might add, has an amazing basilica downtown - the largest collection of mosaics [i]in the world[/i]! Definately one of the most gorgeous churches I've ever been in!)


[quote]Traditionalist: John Paul II is a poor to bad Pope
Neo-conservative: John Paul II is the greatest since Peter!

Traditionalist: The Council of Florence means what it says (extra ecclesiam nulla salus); you are misinterpreting the ambigious statement in the catechism
Neo-conservative: the catechism means what it says; you are misinterpreting the clear statement of the council of Florence

Traditionalist: It is sinful to encourage someone to break the first commandment
Neo-conservative: Not when the Pope does it and it's part of the first stage of evangelization!

Traditionalist: The new mass is a watered-down, de-Catholicized concoction of bureaucrats, though it confects the Eucharist
Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree

Traditionalist: Unconsecrated hands should not touch the sacred species
Neo-conservative: Unconsecrated hands may touch the sacred species

Traditionalist: Numbers don't lie. The Catholic Church would be better off today if Vatican II had never happened.
Neo-conservative: It just hasn't been fully implemented yet!

Traditionalist: it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain partsof Scripture or to admit the sacred writer has erred
Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree

Traditionalist: Russia has not yet been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate heart in accord with her request at Fatima
Neo-conservative: John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984[/quote]

I would like to add one more to this list:

Traditionalist: Is living in a state of sin (very possibly mortal sin)
Neo-conservative: Is in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and the living Magisterium


why do I say this? Well, if the "Traditionalists" really do hold the views that Hananiah claims that they do, then they are in direct violation of the following:

[quote]"Religious submission of mind and of will must be
shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff
even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments
made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and
will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the
repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of
speaking" (LG: 25).[/quote]

and if that didn't spell it out clearly enough:

[quote]"Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act" (New Code of Canon Law;Canon 752). [/quote]

Now, as Hananiah has clearly pointed out, the "Traditionalists" are all about the clear meaning of catholic teachings (witness his second statement quoted above). That having been said, they are clearly in direct opposition to both the teachings of [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] as well as being in direct violation of Canon Law. Moreover, they only increase the gravity of their sin by publicly espousing their beliefs and creating scandal in the Church. If I had to pick between whether or not they are in a state of venial or mortal sin, I would argue that, by virtue of the public opposition (like posting their beliefs on an online forum where literally [i]anyone[/i] can see them), they are in a state of mortal sin.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

- PS, can't wait to get home, I miss you all!