Neo-conservatives

[picchick]

Ahhh, I am back.


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.

It is probably true that “Traditionalists” have a great appreciation for antiquity, however, a person can be “neo-conservative” and still have a sense of it. Many phatmassers are like this. Jeff, Maxk, and myself are among them. I love the old things of our Church. I think that they are beautiful and needs to be used in the Mass today. I hate when people change things that have been a tradition in our Church for years and years. For example, priests deciding not to wear vestments or when they decide not to wear collars. I believe also that nuns should wear habits. I love having all the symbols in our Church. The way the Church is set up for example. Everyone is facing the same way. I do not like it when everyone is in a theater sort of setting. We are there for Christ not for each other. That is only a slice of my love for tradition. I will agree, there are many people who are not like that. They abuse the beauty of the Catholic Church’s liturgies. However, this is not the case with much of “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.

Again, my family is not like this. My parents always “required” us to dress up out of the ordinary for Mass. Ladies wore skirts or a dress. If it was bad weather then we wore dress pants. The Men wore suits. The little boys wore a shirt and tie or a polo shirt. It was a time to dress up and not look like a slob. We were all going to see Jesus and we needed to look our best. I will go into the head coverings later.

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.

Would you call me a “neo-conservative?” I don’t like using the term “neo-conservative” or “traditionalist” but I think I fit under the “neo-conservative” group. I DO AGREE THAT THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. Since it was inspired by God then how can it have error? It can’t. However, I think that we need to read the scripture in the context in which is written. God created the heavens and the earth. We were created man and woman in the image and likeness of God. We were made in special, separate from the other animals. God put us above them all. The Bible has been unaltered in the whole time in has been read and but together. So six days is what the author wrote. However, how long was six days in that time? Maybe it was six days but Noah also lived to the ripe old age of 950 years old. How can a man live in that time to be 950 years old when in the 1700 a man was expected to live to be only 43 years old? On top of that, they did not have the medical technology or use of sanitary as we do now. (Leviticus was past Noah’s days.) They could of measured their time a different way back then.

O.k., on to head coverings and the role of women in society. I agree with the inequality of authority. Women are not at the same level as men. Men were made by God in a certain way to be able to defend and lead. Women were not. However, I think that that statement can be abused and is abused by many men in the world. America's History is one example of that. Women were not allowed to vote and their opinion was thought of as stupid and worthless. I don't think that the bible verse intended that to be so. Many men take it to be that which I think is horrible.
One thing that I had trouble with is the head covering issue. My point was and kind of still is that in Jesus’ time, women and men had to cover their heads in the temple. Both were to express humility and unworthiness to be in the presence of the Lord. I understand now of a symbol of modesty. However, Amarkich quotes the scripture from St. Paul where if men were to wear a head covering then it would desecrate their heads. Then what about the men in those Jewish times? Was he condemning them or modifying the law? If he was modifying the law then why is it so bad for women now to not wear head coverings?

Also, Amarkich mentioned that a priest said that it was necessary for salvation for a woman to wear a head covering. That is illogical. It would be one more thing for a woman to do to in order to get to heaven. Plus this would also go against the Catechism. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. “What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense?” “In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.” This includes mortal sin. You are not saved if you are in the state of mortal sin. So if wearing a head covering for women is a necessity for salvation, then everyone who is not wearing a head covering is committing a mortal sin?

I have no problem with other women wearing there heads covered. I personally do not. I have nothing against it; I just was not brought up to believe that head coverings were necessary. I think that it is beautiful and wonderful to see other women wearing it. I think that it helps everyone around that women to stay focused on the most importand thing on hand. But to say that it is a sin and totally wrong not to wear one is confusing.
P.S. For those men who do abuse the bible verse and put women in the worthless category: women play an important role in the Church and it didn’t start with the feminist movement. Just remember, without a woman you would not be here. Without women there would be no priests. And if Mary didn’t say her wonderful “yes” or “fiat” then there would be no salvation.

[url="http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/LifeExpectancy.htm"]http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/LifeExpectancy.htm[/url]

[Mary's Knight, La]

just my $.02 here but the fourth point is met by virtually any public statement of faith and morals. there would be no point in giving a teaching unless you expected those under your authority to be bound by it.

[Apotheoun]

This kind of debate is pointless. I am neither a "traditionalist" nor am I a "neo-conservative"; instead, I am a Catholic. This sectarian desire to identify oneself with different groups (often times based on political categories of thought) is contrary to the Catholic faith.

God bless,
Todd

[picchick]

That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.

In Christ,
Meg

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 13 2004, 05:01 PM'] That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.

In Christ,
Meg [/quote]
Agreed.

God bless,
Todd

[Socrates]

[quote]That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.[/quote]

Amen!

[Dave]

I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics.

[Azriel]

[quote name='Dave' date='Aug 13 2004, 08:44 PM'] I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics. [/quote]
Rock on bro.

[picchick]

I am glad that people are starting to agree.

Edited August 14, 2004 by picchick

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Dave' date='Aug 13 2004, 08:44 PM'] I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics. [/quote]
agreed. dissident traditionalists have allowed 'tradition' to somewhat supersede their faith. "those Catholics" have done the same with secular humanism. i think their faiths are similar to the meaning behind Jesus' discourse describing many of the Jewish authorities in the Gospel whose obscession with the law became their faith instead of God.

[Mr. Cube]

About the baptism of blood, and the baptism of desire. The way it was explained to me is that they are for people who die without baptism. People who want to be baptized, but never have the opportunity, like the repentant thief crucified next to Jesus, get the baptism of desire. People who are martyred, like the infants massacred by Herod, get the baptism of blood. Who knows if you never had the opportunity to get baptized? God knows. Thus if you want to get baptized, you should do everything you can to get baptized. That's what I was told anyway.

And the modesty veils-- I wish women would wear them to Mass.

[Donna]

Hey, Al. (Are you really a champion of drunkenness? Somehow it doesn't fit).

Sigga (Hey, long time), that overly focusing can be a pitfall. I think of this in Jesus' letter (to the Ephesians), where they were so zealous of combatting evil they "left thy first charity" (Apoc. 2).

But to address a common theme of the thread, the main thing about Tradition, is that it is the patrimony of Holy Church and thus is no one's possession to do with what they will other than

1) Guarding
2) Faithfuly transmitting
3) Upholding it in deed as well as in word

If any dis-own or refuse to care for the treasures God has given His Church, He will give His treasures to someone else. I would guess keeping the Faith of our fathers is a talent which each one of us will be asked to account for. Did we bury it, invest it, beget fruit from it?

St. Paul said we Gentiles best take care, for God spared not His natural son (Israel) in cutting him off. We are the grafted branch which can be as easily cut out. God only cut out like this when His priests and people showed by their obstinate pursual of the world rather than Him, what they really loved, and Whom they really wanted to ditch.

I realize the tension between conservative and trad is difficult. Sometimes we vent against each other's emphasis, and against each other. But IMO, it is dangerous for each to remain long in a superficial understanding of the issues at hand.

We're all sunk unless we receive the truth with love...unless we receive the love of the truth that we might be saved. Else, God shall send the operation of error, to believe a lie (2 Thess).

It has been said before: the layity alone has not the wherewithal to unleash the kind of civil war going on among [i]practicing[/i] Catholics. By [i]practicing[/i] I mean conservative and trad, and it'd be a much longer post if I didn't designate by those terms [i]conservative[/i] and [i]trad[/i]. They are often needed now, a bad fruit of confusion, and the devil is laughing.

I do not engage in conspiracy theory. I am a very simple housewife who is [i]sometimes[/i] able to look to the fruit and reason back to the beginning from there.
___________________________________________________________________

Now someone wrote herein that either one is in the Mystical Body or one is not (in speaking of Catholics).

Can someone explain in light of this, whether that would include all non-Trad groups deemed outside the Church, yet somehow in imperfect communion with her (like the Orthodox)?

Thx.

[picchick]

Donna,
"Now someone wrote herein that either one is in the Mystical Body or one is not (in speaking of Catholics).

Can someone explain in light of this, whether that would include all non-Trad groups deemed outside the Church, yet somehow in imperfect communion with her (like the Orthodox)?"

If you believe the truths taught and given to us by the Church. If you are baptized and profess the believes of the Church then you are in the Mystical Body.

If anyone says, "Well I believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but I don't believe that she is free of sin", then that man is WRONG. Even if he believes everything else that the Church teaches he is not in the Mystical Body.

I am not sure what you mean by non-Trads. Are you talking about Greek Orthodox or the Eastern Rites?

Eastern Rites are in union with the Chruch. They are the "right lung"(I think right. Either that or left. Well, one of the lungs.) as the Pope called it. They are in full communion with the Church.

The Greek Chruch or Orthodox went into schism in the 800's. The Empire at this time was upbraided by Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperor not liking this sent him into exile and replaced him with a layman named Photius. Photius was crafty and stopped at nothing for personal gain. Igantius appealed to Rome at the same time that the Emperor was asking approval for his actions. The Pope, Pope Nicholas at the time, called a meeting together to figure things out. Afterwards, he declared that Ignatius was rightful Patriarch and that Photius should be stripped of all priestly honor given to him.

The Emperor was murdered three years later and his assassian took the throne. He again brought Photius to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. He tried to persuade the new Emperor that the Bishop of Constantinople should be head of the Church. He did all he could to get people against the Pope. He mentioned a whole bunch of charges against the Church. The Emperor soon lost favor with him and deposed of him. The Pope excommunicated him and reiterated his believe that Ignatius was the true Patriarch. Ignatius died and Photius became the Patriarch. Pope Nicholas died soon after. In 1043, another patriarch repeated the same charges of Photius. Pope Leo IX sent three delegates to check out the situation. There was a language barrier and the delegates were unable to refute the charges. They excommunicated the Patriarch. The Greek Church and the Roman Church broke apart and there has been no renunion yet.

Hope this helps
Meg

[amarkich]

I do not have the time to reply to all those posts, but I just want to point out that even dissident "Traditionalists" (which I am not one; in this I am speaking of Sedevacantists, etc) are much better than liberal cafeteria Catholics because the dissident "Traditionalists" are following something that was actually approved, taught, practiced, and believed by the Church whereas the liberals are trying to change the Church into something that She is not now, never has been, and never will be. God bless.

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 14 2004, 02:00 PM'] I do not have the time to reply to all those posts, but I just want to point out that even dissident "Traditionalists" (which I am not one; in this I am speaking of Sedevacantists, etc) are much better than liberal cafeteria Catholics because the dissident "Traditionalists" are following something that was actually approved, taught, practiced, and believed by the Church whereas the liberals are trying to change the Church into something that She is not now, never has been, and never will be. God bless. [/quote]
Number one, you don't have to be a sedevacantist or even a member of a schismatic group like the Society of St. Pius X to be a dissident traditionalist. If you support the heresy of Feeneyism or if you constantly find stuff to criticize the pope about rather than supporting him, then you're a dissident traditionalist.

Number two, dissident traditionalists are also trying to change the Church into something it wasn't and never will be. For example, the Church has NEVER taught Father Leonard Feeney's version of "extra ecclesia nulla salus." Also, it's not church doctrine or dogma that the Tridentine Mass is the only acceptable Mass there is (that belongs in the realm of discipline), yet dissident traditionalists like to act like it is.