Neo-conservatives

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Aug 5 2004, 11:57 AM'] I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue as well but its not a sin to receive in your hand. Ironmonk's point was that some of these people think its a sin not that one way or the other is preferable to him personally. [/quote]
As a Ruthenian (Byzantine) Catholic the whole communion in the hand thing is a non-issue, because we receive both species at the same time from the priest administered on a golden spoon.

But when I was Latin Rite Catholic, and even now when I on occasion attend Mass at a Latin Rite Church, I receive communion on the tongue under the species of bread alone.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

As far as the main point of this thread is concerned (i.e., the use of the term "neo-conservative" in order to describe people faithful to the Magisterium), I never use political terms in connection with membership in the Church. The whole idea of applying names like, "neo-conservative," or "neo-Catholic," or "traditionalist," etc., to members of the Catholic Church is sectarian and completely foreign to true Catholic sensibilities.

God bless,
Todd

[picchick]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 7 2004, 12:47 AM']





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]
I don't think that that and Hananiah's are a very good statements.

1. It is very judgemental.

2. Not all "Traditionalists" are not in full Communion with the Pope. I think that it is still possible to go to a "Latin" (for lack of better term) Mass and be traditional in different aspects of life, (women wearing dresses, recieving on the tongue, thinking that only boys should serve, etc) and still be in line with the pope. Same thing with "neo-conservatives".

[cmotherofpirl]

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


[color=green]QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines)
Pope Pius IX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Encyclical Promulgated on 10 August 1863

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. [u]Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.[/u]

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]

4. Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.

5. Mt 15.17.

6. Lk 10.16.

7. Mk 16.16.

8. Jn 3.18.

9. Lk 11.23.

10. Ti 3.11.

11. 2 Pt 2.1.

[/color]

Edited August 7, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[kateri05]

in regards to this comment:

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


i would just like to add that the Church, for all time, has taught that divine inerrancy of scriptures is absolute: there are no errors and it is all inspired. The Magisterium has always taught this, with clarifications in the past 2 centuries after people were debating it (see Dei Verbum (sp?) and some other papal writings).

Regardless of any sectarian divisions you would like to put on people within the Church, anyone who is in full communion with the Magisterium would agree in the divine errancy of Scripture, simply because that is what She teaches.

I just finished listening to a whole lecture on this by Dr. Scott Hahn and was horrified to know that I had been taught contrary during my 12 years of Catholic school (where do they GET those religion teachers?! :angry: ). Faithful Catholics should all be aware of this so that they might spread the word to others who might not know. I'm not sure who you are labeling as "neo-conservative" within the current Magisterium, but they ALL believe in the Divine Inerrancy of Scripture because it is NOTHING new and was actually settled in the 1800s... too bad no one listens to them anymore!!

[amarkich]

I essentially agree with Hananiah's analysis. As he said, those are just a few of the issues. More could be said for the liturgical indifference of the neo-conservatives, but, as he said, those are a few examples; most of the categories of which he speaks could have more in-depth analysis, but it is unnecessary to go into evey little detail. I would also say that Traditionalists have a general sense of antiquity and an appreciation for it whereas this is generally not seen with most neo-conservatives.


While this is not a specific point, it is still a generalization based on several things, e.g., dressing more formally and more nicely for Mass (suits for men, modest dresses with head coverings for women compared to a collared shirt for men and a moderately dressy outfit for women, possibly a skirt or dress but usually not); a greater wealth of knowledge concerning traditional concepts (family histories, traditional customs, classic manners and etiquette) whereas this is usually not a major part of a neo-conservative setting; more traditional styles of dress and speech with an aura of antiquity and politeness in general (N.B., this last observation touches mostly on the culture of the two separate groups (for lack of a better word) more than the beliefs, for, as I said, there are many different beliefs and practices as far as specifics are concerned.


I would at least mention the fact that honest, orthodox Traditionalists (N.B., this excludes false "Traditionalists" like Sedevacantists) will assert the validity of a properly said Novus Ordo but would not support its use and would be glad to see an abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Neo-conservatives have a general attitude of "moving forward" (this is one of many catch phrases to describe the attitude which has been posed to me by the neo-conservatives themselves) which does not include an abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae. As far as I know, most neo-conservatives admit the fact that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated (which the present hierarchy also admits) and that the Traditional Mass can be said by any Priest of the Latin Rite, at least as a private Mass (and possibly of any rite; I am not sure about this point, however).


By the way, does anyone know if there is such a thing as a private Novus Ordo Mass? I know a Priest who was forbidden by his Pastor to say the Novus Ordo correctly (Latin, ad orientem, etc), and he was even doing a "private" Mass (but there were about thirty people attending)! I know that in the Traditional Mass a private Mass was a Mass which does not replace a public Mass for the Parish and which is limited to only one altar boy. Does a Novus Ordo Mass simply remove the secondary obligation (only one altar boy) and maintain the first part of the definition of a private Mass (that it be done by a Priest individually, apart from a public Parish Mass)? If anyone knows, I would appreciate any answers to those which are known. Thank you. God bless.

I also have one more thing to say:

[quote]Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is.[/quote]

Please refrain from making ridiculous comments like this one. To make a comment with absolutely no support reveals several things about a person. Must we recall the words of the deist, Abraham Lincoln? I hope not. In any event, have you even read the book? If you have, you have not even cited an error in the book. Even if you were to cite an "error", you would be obliged to explain why such a comment is erroneous. By demeaning a scholarly work without any support, especially to do so with such superficial syntax and diction, is quite fatuous (be aware of the Latin word from which this is derived). I have not read the book in full, but from what I have read I have seen nothing but objective, scholarly work on behalf of the renowned authors. If you wish to comment on the book, please do so, but understand that people will not take comments like the one above as truth, especially when they are completely unsubstantiated. God bless.

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 7 2004, 09:24 PM'] By the way, does anyone know if there is such a thing as a private Novus Ordo Mass? [/quote]
Yes, there is actually.

Hmm, where do I fit into all of this? I seem to believe much of both...

[amarkich]

Kateri, all Traditionalists agree with you (and the Magisterium) concerning the inerrancy of Scripture, but modern "Catholic" Biblical scholarship disagrees completely with us on this issue. I would not even be as generous as Hananiah was by saying "some agee, some disagree", for I do not know a single neo-conservative who agrees (well, maybe one, but he is converting to Traditionalism currently). Almost no neo-conservatives assert a six day Creation or a "young earth" belief. They almost exclusively ascribe to the Modernism of current "Catholic" scholarship and assert that Creation did (or could have) been effected by even such extreme things as macro-evolution. Many (even if they do not believe in macro-evolution) do not believe in a young earth, either. This is at least one issue where there is a rift between the Church's teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture and most neo-conservatives.


Another important issue on which the neo-conservatives disagree with Scripture is concerning most (or all) of the verses which relate to the inequality of men and women at least as far as authority is concerned, e.g., women must cover their heads (I Cor. XI), women must submit to husbands in all matters and must be submissive (I Cor. xiv.34,35; I Tim. ii.11-15; Col. iii.18; Eph. v.22-33; I St. Peter iii.1-5). This is a very hot topic among most neo-conservatives with all kinds of different beliefs being deduced from these passages ranging from the Traditionalist view even to the Liberal view (that women are completely "equal" and that there is no distinction in authority in the family, in society, and, regarding some issues, in the Church). These are the two biggest examples in which neo-conservatives do not adhere to the inerrancy of Scripture (even if they pay this doctrine lip service).

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[qfnol31]

Amarkich, may I make a humble request? Would you mind breaking up your posts between thoughts? Thanx very much. I had a hard time finding the question in there.

[amarkich]

I am sorry. I have a habit of not doing that, but I had been doing a good job of remembering recently. I will do my best to edit it to your liking. God bless.

[Aloysius]

inerrancy of scripture doesn't mean every passage should be taken literally. it should be taken in the intention that the Sacred Author wrote it in.

6 day creation is not literal. Cite me one Church Teaching that says it is. Saying it is not is not admitting error to scripture, it is saying that Scripture does not teach that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour days.

6000 year old earth is not even contained in scripture, but put onto scripture by biblical scholars who search through all the events it describes and all the ages it lists. to say that scripture might ommit irrelevent parts of history is not to admit error to scripture.

as to women:
men should be the spiritual head of their household. they should lead the family in prayer and give blessings to their wife and children. the woman should be submissive to the husband as he is the head of the household. the husband should act self-sacrificially to the wife. thus, men and women are equal in dignity due to them, but they are different in role. as to women and head coverings: i would actually like it if this discipline returned, and know that Fulton Sheen believed it to be a Divine Command. I don't know quite how to view this one: in some sense i would like to admit it as simply a discipline Paul was imposing upon the Church in Corinth to teach those women humility. on the other hand, i know that throughout the majority of Church History and even by Archbishop Sheen who I have tons of respect for, it as a Divine Command. However, in light of the fact that the Church has officially loosened this for now, i must accept that it must be only a discipline. St. Paul as an Apostle imposed a discipline upon the Church in Corinth to teach it modesty and humility. Seeing the lack of modesty and humility in today's Church, i believe it should be put back into place. Thus: i believe it is not to be considered something that is absolutely necessary, however it should be seen as a pius discipline which we should return to. but right now, the discipline is not in effect and thus women are not required to do it, and commit no sin or sacrilidge by not doing it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 7 2004, 10:05 PM'] I am sorry. I have a habit of not doing that, but I had been doing a good job of remembering recently. I will do my best to edit it to your liking. God bless. [/quote]
LoL, thanx. I don't mind so much, but it's fun to respond to.

[Iacobus]

I think that is way too much of a generalization and things like that lead to errors and mistakes. So I would advise against saying that (regardless of its validity).

[amarkich]

Aloysius, thank you for the response. I apologize that I will not be able to make a full reply at this point because I am very tired and have a full day planned for tomorrow. I hope to be able to reply to posts on Monday. I will be sure to reply to this thread as soon as possible. I will be glad to discuss Creationism as Genesis taught it in its entirety (time period, age of the earth, etc) and the inequality of men and women (the higher authority of men and the higher dignity of women--over laymen at least, this would not apply, of course, to clergy), but for now I will only discuss head coverings. Not only did Archbishop Sheen say that it was a Divine Command, Saint Paul does as well (at least a command of natural law, which is, in effect, Divine Law in its most basic form). The first thing that needs to be understood is that the Church has not "loosed" the command of women to cover their heads. This has simply been omitted (erroneously) from the new Code of Canon Law, but this has no bearing on the obligation imposed by Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and natural law.


The fact that Canon Law does not speak of the practice of women covering their heads (neither requiring it specifically nor loosing it specifically), does not mean that it is not required. This would mean that women before 1917 in some parts of the Church would not have to cover their heads in church (N.B., 1917 was the first and only other time that canon law was codefied for the universal Church; before this time there were only local canons; this would mean that in places in which there was no written canon requiring women to cover their heads that they would have no obligation to do this, but this cannot be true because the command predates any form of written canon law in general with Saint Paul and then, definitively, with the second Pope, Saint Linus). In any event, we see the command given by Sacred Tradition (it is commanded by the Bible and definitely commanded by the second Pope) and by Sacred Scripture (in I Corinthians XI). Likewise, natural law requires women to cover their heads. The proof for Sacred Tradition needs no further reference than Saint Linus's decree that women may not enter a church without their heads covered. The proof from Sacred Scripture is found in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians as follows:

"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels." c.f., I Corinthians xi.1-10.

Saint Paul makes the affirmation of natural law in verse 14, saying:

"You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering." c.f., I Corinthians xi.13-15.


Saint Paul illustrates the divine command that a woman cover her head and the intrinsic, natural law which commands this. The Priest at a nearby Parish (Novus Ordo) says absolutely that Saint Paul states that a woman covering her head is necessary for salvation. He is not the Pastor, so he has not been able to proclaim this from the pulpit, but he told it to those who stay after daily Mass to talk (when I still went to Novus Ordo). In any event, he offered to buy a veil for one of his parishoners if she would wear it. He succeeded, and she now wears it to every Mass, regardless of where it is. Saint Paul's words speak for themselves. The Word of God states absolutely that a woman disgraceth her head if she does not cover it when praying. We must say with Saint Thomas Aquinas "than Truth's own Word there is no truer token" and acknowledge that God's commands are manifested to us not only through the canonical observances and obligations but also through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and natural law. God bless.

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[qfnol31]

I wish women would cover their heads and people would wear nicer clothes to Mass (well, at least on Sunday, I know other days it can be more difficult).

Edited: And that meatless Fridays were pushed more.

Edited August 8, 2004 by qfnol31