Define "Neo-Con"
#31
(07-28-2009, 09:06 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: The new direction noted 5 posts above leads to a pretty neat discussion AND NEW LABELS :laughing:

This is going to end up like heavy metal sub-genres

Metal
Death Metal
Black Metal
Progressive Metal
Blackened Death Metal
Progressive Death Metal
Blackened Progressive Death Metal

Ad nauseam...
Reply
#32
If we must use labels, I think a "pseudo-trad" might be someone who loves only those parts of tradition that are attractive and easy to him. A "pseudo-trad" might be someone who puts "form over substance" instead of "substance over form" - or rather, someone who fails to realize that the right substance encourages the right form.

On a wider scale, you have Catholics in general who embrace only those parts of the Faith that are easy. We have labeled them "Cafeteria Catholics" because to say "pseudo-Catholics" seems an oversimplification. For the same reason, "pseudo-trad" seems an oversimplification. We can never know the complexities turning over inside the hearts and minds of Catholics, or the demands of their life-circumstances, regardless of the Mass they attend.

From what I remember of Stevus' posts he attended the Novus Ordo Mass because his wife did. He himself hated it. That would not make him a "pseudo-trad" in my book. That would just make him a husband who's trying his best to keep the peace in his marriage. Anyway that's how I interpreted it.

I actually used the phrase "Neo-trad" in a thread I created here about two years ago (although I'm sure someone used the term before I did). According to my definition, "Neo-trads" are traditional-loving Catholics born after Vatican II (that would include most Fish Eaters) as opposed to Catholics born before Vatican II. The term as I used it was meant to be neutral, not an insult or a compliment. 

Now, according to Stevus' blog, Neo-traditionalism and false-traditionalism are one in the same. He sees Fifties Catholicism as the "Golden Age" of the Church and anyone who challenges that idea is given a nasty label. That's a lot different from saying you have a Dominican spirituality and I have a Franciscan spirituality. In the latter, we are acknowledging our different paths to God and allowing each other to coexist without questioning each other's Catholicity. Not so with the mudslingers.   

- Lisa
Reply
#33
(07-28-2009, 09:12 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-28-2009, 09:06 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: The new direction noted 5 posts above leads to a pretty neat discussion AND NEW LABELS :laughing:

This is going to end up like heavy metal sub-genres

Metal
Death Metal
Black Metal
Progressive Metal
Blackened Death Metal
Progressive Death Metal
Blackened Progressive Death Metal

Ad nauseam...


No, no, no.  It's boo boo, doo doo goo goo poo poo


No, really, funny stuff coming (at least I think so).


And SCG is spot on.
Reply
#34
(07-28-2009, 09:14 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: If we must use labels, I think a "pseudo-trad" might be someone who loves only those parts of tradition that are attractive and easy to him. A "pseudo-trad" might be someone who puts "form over substance" instead of "substance over form" - or rather, someone who fails to realize that the right substance encourages the right form.

Well, I was trying to discern what Scipio meant by the term, though I think yours is more intuitive for sure.

Quote:On a wider scale, you have Catholics in general who embrace only those parts of the Faith that are easy. We have labeled them "Cafeteria Catholics" because to say "pseudo-Catholics" seems an oversimplification. For the same reason, "pseudo-trad" seems an oversimplification. We can never know the complexities turning over inside the hearts and minds of Catholics, or the demands of their life-circumstances, regardless of the Mass they attend.

Actually, Cafeteria Catholic makes more sense.  It is someone who picks and chooses what they will accept (as at a cafeteria) instead of accepting what is handed to them (as at a formal dinner).  This has to do with Dogma.

Since there is no Dogma defining a "traditional Catholic", it can make sense, but not necessarily.

Quote:From what I remember of Stevus' posts he attended the Novus Ordo Mass because his wife did. He himself hated it. That would not make him a "pseudo-trad" in my book. That would just make him a husband who's trying his best to keep the peace in his marriage. Anyway that's how I interpreted it.

Well, I thought he was going to Mass separate from his wife.  As I recall, he went to the SSPX and his wife went to the Novus Ordo and/or was in or considering Opus Dei or something like that.

Quote:Now, according to Stevus' blog, Neo-traditionalism and false-traditionalism are one in the same. He sees Fifties Catholicism as the "Golden Age" of the Church and anyone who challenges that idea is given a nasty label. That's a lot different from saying you have a Dominican spirituality and I have a Franciscan spirituality. In the latter, we are acknowledging our different paths to God and allowing each other to coexist without questioning each other's Catholicity. Not so with the mudslingers.   

I didn't say Stevus' label was useful, though it could probably made to be so.  For example, Neo-Catholic and Traditional Catholic can be useful and not for mudslinging.  One group supports the reform-of-the-reform and the other supports a return to pre-Vatican II liturgies, etc.  It's only when someone decides in their own minds to say Neo-Catholic = Modernist and Traditional Catholic = Schismatic that the labels become ugly and also outright lies.
Reply
#35
(07-28-2009, 09:15 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: No, really, funny stuff coming (at least I think so).


And SCG is spot on.

But you're still going to answer my question, right?  Because the theological subforum, where this is posted, has special rules:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...400.0.html

Quote:2) Arguments must be done in good faith.  That is, those advancing a position should believe in the position they are advancing, and they should be advancing it for the good of souls and the Church.  Further, as a show of good faith, people are expected to either 1) answer to reasonable requests of evidence, etc., or 2) explain why the requests are unreasonable and/or cannot be done at this time (e.g., a broken leg and no ride to the library).  In addition, arguments contrary to their position are expected to be answered in a reasonable time and not ignored.

If you posit something, and someone questions you, you need to answer questions on it and argue it or concede the point / withdraw the statement.
Reply
#36
Of course...why would I miss out on that fun?


But it will be a new thread...and probably not in theological debate since it's not really a theological matter anyway...I don't see labels as theological
Reply
#37
(07-28-2009, 09:50 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: Of course...why would I miss out on that fun?


But it will be a new thread...and probably not in theological debate since it's not really a theological matter anyway...I don't see labels as theological

You need to please answer in this thread, at least the answer to my questions though the humorous label stuff can certainly be done elsewhere.  The reason it should be answered here is because it was posited in this subforum and the discussion around it is bound by the rules for this subforum.  The topic of this thread is about labels, starting with Neo-Con, so it is appropriate to answer here.

I'm being pedantic because the whole point of the rule is to foster discussion instead of people throwing random statements in and (even inadvertently) representing them as facts or common sense, attacking positions without offering any of their own, etc.  That kind of stuff is for politics and pig roast, not theology.  This is "theological debate", not "theological pontification".  If one makes a statement, they are expected to explain it and back it up if called on it.

The other option is to concede the point (i.e., state you were wrong) or withdraw your statement (i.e., drop the discussion - nolo contendere).  I've dropped discussions before when I didn't have time or the interest in them; it's no big deal.

But if you answer, you do need to answer on the same playing field we started on and with the same rules.  It's only fair.
Reply
#38
Well in that case I direct you to my answers before which are about your question #1.   That is my only answer.

questions 2 and 3 are speculation by their very nature as an "if so" question.  So no place to go really.

So in summation
1 - could be
2 - my definition of my term leaves open the possibility of vast differences among members
3 - "Politics makes strange bedfellows" as they say


It's as boring as that in this subforum.


I would be interested to your answer to question three if it's different that mine but there's not much of an argument to be had since there are no books to whip out.  Everyone here has their own def of any of these terms...McMasters even calls himself a traditional catholic.


Besides to illustrate how people can be allies or just agree just take a look a SCG.   She is full on NO and admits it, some people have even questioned her Catholicity here.  I've heard her complain about it and I've seen it!   On the other hand, for all my bravado about the NO Mass and the TLM we have never taken each other to task and have agreed on a good deal!


Kind of like I agree with a lot of Didi, and a lot with INPEFESS, so two other types of trads should be able to find a good deal of common ground from time to time.

Another example is my favorite place here -- the prayer request board --  (which by way of shameless promotion I'd like anyone who has not been there to check it out).

You'll see everyone there, from NO to people who dabble in the thesis praying for each others requests...a very heartening thing.


I think most of what people like or dislike here is personality based and not based on theology.


So unfortunately a somewhat amusing topic will not be populated and we don't get to see the prorogation of new genres of metal.
(additionally I noticed several posts back that you wrote "If Scipio calls me a pseudo trad...".   I assume that was for the sake of argument since you have never seen the TLM as a choice among equals.)

I'm assuming also that you agree with this from the site (I do):

url:  http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

Quote:Some refuse to attend Novus Ordo Masses (except for funerals and weddings of family and friends), thinking it invalid or believing it "morally impossible" to do so because they see it -- not because of what it is, inherently, but because of what it isn't, what it lacks -- as too dangerous to the Faith to support, even if valid. If they have no access to the traditional Mass, some of these traditional Catholics become "home-aloners" making do like our forbears during various persecutions. Other traditionalists may attend Novus Ordo Masses out of their understanding of the requirements of obedience if the traditional Mass is unavailable in their area, while doing all in their power to find a traditional Mass.

Despite these varying opinions on the requirements of obedience, what all traditional Catholics who fit the label have in common -- whether they are sedevacantist, whether they worship inside or outside of diocesan structures -- are:


    * the dogmas of the Faith understood in a manner consistent with the way Catholics had always understood them -- i.e., they reject the errors outlined above
      
    * a desire to preserve and restore all of the ancient liturgical rites, and to do so not because these are "preferred," but because they are objectively superior to the new rites and should once again become normative

and once again my def of p.t. is someone who attends the TLM only because they prefer it as a choice among equals.


Not that it matters anyway since I've labeled a neo trad, schismatic, ultra trad, sedevacantist and liberal!  Always a good laugh when that happens.

---------------------------------------------

I can't figure a way to tie this to neo con y'all so make something up ;D

Opps.   Neo Caths and cos pray in the Prayer request board too!!!

All tied up!
Reply
#39
(07-29-2009, 01:27 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Well in that case I direct you to my answers before which are about your question #1.   That is my only answer.

It was a yes or no question, and I didn't see "yes" or "no" from you with or without qualifiers.  I saw "maybe" and no explanation of how this reconciles with your statement.

I am really, really serious about the rules in the theological subforum.  This isn't the place to mess around.

Adding:

I'm locking this thread, and I'm considering banning theological topics and closing this subforum altogether.  If people cannot follow simple rules of argumentation and logic when discussing extremely serious topics then they probably shouldn't be discussed here.

This forum is locked until I decide what to do about it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)