FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Define "Neo-Con" - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Define "Neo-Con" (/showthread.php?tid=29601)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - James02 - 07-28-2009

epalinurus Wrote:I'd add to this that the neo-cons were not necessarily conservative on social issues like abortion, marriage, gun control, and social spending.  On that basis alone, the term "neo-con" applied to most FEs is inaccurate.

I missed that, good point. 

Also, I think we should keep the designation "neo-conservative" separate from the designation "neo-Catholic".  I doubt many neo-Catholics support abortion or fag "marriage".

By the way, if you meant "what is a Neo-Catholic", then a Neo-Cath is a Catholic that suffers from false obedience and the heresy that a Pope or Council is infallible in everything they say or do.  It was a term that was desperately needed.

Let me give you an example.  A liberal "Catholic" will support altar girls because they oppose the idea that men should have authority over women, and therefore see it as furthering their agenda.  A neo-Catholic supports altar girls because the Pope reversed himself and said it is allowed, therefore it has to be "right".  It is hard to call the second group "liberal", even though they support "liberal" things in the Church.  So we differentiate them from heretics by calling them Neo-Catholics.


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - DarkKnight - 07-28-2009

Maybe we can all get along and settle on "Bush put the con in Neo-Con?"


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Historian - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 04:07 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 03:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So is Steve a pseudo-trad in your book?
Edit (For clarity)

Could be...I know he had (has?) an irregular situation with family not wanting to go trad so that's a tough one...which is nice cause it shows not everyone falls neatly into a category.

Well, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest with the category you have made yourself.  You say that a pseudo-trad is one who goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  You also say Steve goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  So unless there is a distinctive qualifier that you have left out, it seems like you would think Steve is a pseudo-trad, and that is why you think people here should see him as a friend (i.e., ally) - because he falls in the same "non-full-trad" bucket as others, correct?






Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Scipio_a - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 05:26 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 04:07 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 03:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So is Steve a pseudo-trad in your book?
Edit (For clarity)

Could be...I know he had (has?) an irregular situation with family not wanting to go trad so that's a tough one...which is nice cause it shows not everyone falls neatly into a category.

Well, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest with the category you have made yourself.  You say that a pseudo-trad is one who goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  You also say Steve goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  So unless there is a distinctive qualifier that you have left out, it seems like you would think Steve is a pseudo-trad, and that is why you think people here should see him as a friend (i.e., ally) - because he falls in the same "non-full-trad" bucket as others, correct?

That is not the def I had given to the term, it is one of the things they do (heck, under my def they could attend the TLM only!).  He does NO and so I can say "could be"...but that's as far as I know with him so I can't pin it down...doesn't get any more intel honest than that...

In the past I have said that what I call a pseudo trad is one that just thinks the TLM is a choice among equal choices (or something to that effect)

And not "people" here (as in all) just several of his detractors...that was pretty clear in the first post.

Heck he might classify me as neo-trad due to my deep rooted authority issue (depends on what authority we're talking about).

So all in all he could be.  If he writes something that says that the TLM is a choice among equals then...well you know, it's black and white.  But it would have to be current since there has been a journey, so to speak, I would not take a quote from 2008 from him about the issue at face value since it may have changed.


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Historian - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 06:02 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 05:26 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 04:07 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 03:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So is Steve a pseudo-trad in your book?
Edit (For clarity)

Could be...I know he had (has?) an irregular situation with family not wanting to go trad so that's a tough one...which is nice cause it shows not everyone falls neatly into a category.

Well, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest with the category you have made yourself.  You say that a pseudo-trad is one who goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  You also say Steve goes to the Novus Ordo from time-to-time.  So unless there is a distinctive qualifier that you have left out, it seems like you would think Steve is a pseudo-trad, and that is why you think people here should see him as a friend (i.e., ally) - because he falls in the same "non-full-trad" bucket as others, correct?

That is not the def I had given to the term, it is one of the things they do (heck, under my def they could attend the TLM only!).  He does NO and so I can say "could be"...but that's as far as I know with him so I can't pin it down...doesn't get any more intel honest than that...

In the past I have said that what I call a pseudo trad is one that just thinks the TLM is a choice among equal choices (or something to that effect)

And not "people" here (as in all) just several of his detractors...that was pretty clear in the first post.

Heck he might classify me as neo-trad due to my deep rooted authority issue (depends on what authority we're talking about).

So all in all he could be.  If he writes something that says that the TLM is a choice among equals then...well you know, it's black and white.  But it would have to be current since there has been a journey, so to speak, I would not take a quote from 2008 from him about the issue at face value since it may have changed.

Look, it's a simple question, but I will be happy to make it clearer and also give my reason for asking.

You said:

Quote:I call pseudo trads because they are willing to NO from time to time or even regularly

You gave your criteria for calling someone a pseudo-trad.  You call them X because they do Y.

You also said:

Quote:Stevus NOs also,

Which is your statement that he does Y.

And you further said:

Quote:so they should see a friend, not an enemy.

That last statement is what I find interesting, and why I want to give you the chance to be clear so that I can understand what you are saying.

You seem to think that the people that he calls Neo-Trads should look upon him as an ally because in reality he and the others on here who also go to the NO are pseudo-trads.  You further seem to think the only difference between Steve and them is they don't want to wear veils (I accept that as a vague metaphor pointing to Steve's "Neo-Trad" criteria, obviously).

I don't understand your view of this, and that is why I am asking.

So to reiterate and ask a few more questions:

1) Is Steve a pseudo-trad given your own criteria?

2) If so, is the only difference between Steve and other pseudo-trads the criteria he gives (which you seem to accept with the metaphor of the veiling) as "Neo-Trad"?

3) And if so, why do you think the commonality in Pseudo-Traddom outweighs the differences of Neo-Traddom such that the two groups should be allies?  Because it seems to me that the differences are such that the Neo-Trads and non-Neo-Trad Trads (by Steve's criteria) are irreconcilable.

Edit for disambiguation




Re: Define "Neo-Con" - JacafamalaRedux - 07-28-2009

You know none of this means anything, really. I mean the labels. I'm sure there's lots of "neo cons" who are much more holy than me. Holy matters.


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Historian - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 07:54 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: You know none of this means anything, really. I mean the labels. I'm sure there's lots of "neo cons" who are much more holy than me. Holy matters.

There are probably pagans holier than me by virtue of the fact they keep the Natural Law better, but that's exactly why it matters.  Understanding the right thing to do and doing it is important.  Labels, if used properly, allows us to classify the differences in the way things are done, some of which may be important differences.

If I call someone a pagan, then it is implied they worship false gods.  If I say a pagan is holier than I, it can be construed it is because they follow the Natural Law better since they are (unless they apostatized) not baptised and cannot avail themselves of the Sacraments.

So, if Scipio calls me a pseudo-trad, then (from my understanding) he believes I am going to an NO once in a while.  If Steve calls me a Neo-Trad, he thinks I'm - well, whatever he thinks it is which has never been entirely clear to me because he never bothered to define what a Trad is, only what a Trad isn't (in his mind).  If I call Scott Hahn a Neo-Catholic, then I'm saying I believe he's pursuing the Reform-of-the-Reform.

While holiness is certainly what matters overall, "labels", if properly and accurately (within reason) used, allow us to discuss the differences and paths to holiness.

Otherwise, we could stop saying "Franciscan Spirituality" and "Dominican Spirituality" because the spiritual paths don't matter only holiness does.  And, we can certainly do that, but it means we're missing out on a few things in the way of understanding.



Re: Define "Neo-Con" - JacafamalaRedux - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 08:35 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 07:54 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: You know none of this means anything, really. I mean the labels. I'm sure there's lots of "neo cons" who are much more holy than me. Holy matters.

There are probably pagans holier than me by virtue of the fact they keep the Natural Law better, but that's exactly why it matters.  Understanding the right thing to do and doing it is important.  Labels, if used properly, allows us to classify the differences in the way things are done, some of which may be important differences.

If I call someone a pagan, then it is implied they worship false gods.  If I say a pagan is holier than I, it can be construed it is because they follow the Natural Law better since they are (unless they apostatized) not baptised and cannot avail themselves of the Sacraments.

So, if Scipio calls me a pseudo-trad, then (from my understanding) he believes I am going to an NO once in a while.  If Steve calls me a Neo-Trad, he thinks I'm - well, whatever he thinks it is which has never been entirely clear to me because he never bothered to define what a Trad is, only what a Trad isn't (in his mind).  If I call Scott Hahn a Neo-Catholic, then I'm saying I believe he's pursuing the Reform-of-the-Reform.

While holiness is certainly what matters overall, "labels", if properly and accurately (within reason) used, allow us to discuss the differences and paths to holiness.

Otherwise, we could stop saying "Franciscan Spirituality" and "Dominican Spirituality" because the spiritual paths don't matter only holiness does.  And, we can certainly do that, but it means we're missing out on a few things in the way of understanding.
Well, yes, yes, yes. I agree. But I just can't stomach the mean spiritedness of it all sometimes. Like somebody's not up to snuff, somebody can't be in the trad club because of this or that. So silly.


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Historian - 07-28-2009

(07-28-2009, 08:48 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Well, yes, yes, yes. I agree. But I just can't stomach the mean spiritedness of it all sometimes. Like somebody's not up to snuff, somebody can't be in the trad club because of this or that. So silly.

Well, sure it is.  That's partly why the FE definition that Vox wrote is limited in scope - a lot of what people say is "required" for Trads are behavioral things that should be dealt with by priests in the pulpit and in the Confessional - such as proper attire for Mass, owning a TV, etc.

The more disturbing thing is that oftentimes these labels don't restrict themselves to saying you're a bad "Trad" or whatnot, but they imply (or outright state in the case of Steve's description of a "Neo-Trad") that you're heretical or schismatic in some way which is a pretty damning charge and more than mean-spirited.

So, I agree there's a huge negative aspect to labels as well.


Re: Define "Neo-Con" - Scipio_a - 07-28-2009

The new direction noted 5 posts above leads to a pretty neat discussion AND NEW LABELS :laughing:

I can't wait to post to it but it will probably be tomorrow as I really want to do this justice.  I also will start it in a new thread with a link in this one


Keepin' it real.