Why Are neo-Catholics so Evil?
#11
(06-06-2011, 12:13 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(06-06-2011, 09:27 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(06-06-2011, 09:11 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Because they want to impose imagined and arbitrary moral categories on Catholics, and cherry pick the things they believe in based on whether or not they seem weird in the context of the society to which they belong, irrespective of whether or not that society is sick itself. 

Simply put, they are liberals. Marinated in liberalism which is evil.

You lost me there. I thought neo-Catholics and Liberal Catholics were two different things. Like, Michael Voris is a neo-catholic but hardly a liberal. or do you think Voris is a crypto-trad?

As far as I know, Voris doesn't claim to be a trad.  He's pro-Tradition but also pro-Vatican II. He is suffering under the illusion that Vatican II is salvageable and some good can directly come from it.   So at least you can say about him is that he's confused in the true meaning of the word, he's trying to fuse contradictory ideas as if they have the same final end.  Untl he clears that up he's going to be in error about the reality of Vatican II and when or if he tries to impose some sort of acceptance of Vatican II which undermines tradition, he's going to be promoting liberalism.  If he doesn't do that, and tries to insist on the true rights and authority of the Church and the moral obligations of the faithful then he's a Catholic who is fighting one front and not fighting on another front.  I would tend to call him Catholic with a blind spot or a fear of taking his issues to their logical source. That's  just a lack of fortitude, not a hostility to tradition.  If he makes promoting Vatican II a cause, we'll know he's a liberal.
Reply
#12
Part of the neo-Catholic problem is the idea that just because something may not be absolutely necessary, it can be thrown away without consequence.  The full-blown modernist rails against tradition, the neo-Catholic is willing to go along with the liberal modernist as long as the modernist can make the case that what he wants gone is not an essential element of the faith.  One is an aggressive liberal, the other a passive liberal. 
Reply
#13
This is disgusting.

Reply
#14
(06-06-2011, 12:52 PM)Rosarium Wrote: This is disgusting.

Rosarium, this isn't a thread about Steve Jobs' keynote address this afternoon
Reply
#15
(06-06-2011, 12:36 PM)Gerard Wrote: As far as I know, Voris doesn't claim to be a trad.  He's pro-Tradition but also pro-Vatican II. He is suffering under the illusion that Vatican II is salvageable and some good can directly come from it.   So at least you can say about him is that he's confused in the true meaning of the word, he's trying to fuse contradictory ideas as if they have the same final end.  Untl he clears that up he's going to be in error about the reality of Vatican II and when or if he tries to impose some sort of acceptance of Vatican II which undermines tradition, he's going to be promoting liberalism.  If he doesn't do that, and tries to insist on the true rights and authority of the Church and the moral obligations of the faithful then he's a Catholic who is fighting one front and not fighting on another front.  I would tend to call him Catholic with a blind spot or a fear of taking his issues to their logical source. That's  just a lack of fortitude, not a hostility to tradition.  If he makes promoting Vatican II a cause, we'll know he's a liberal.

But don't you think people like Voris are trying to move the post Vatican II Church back towards tradition, to try and pry it loose from the hands of the once seemingly invincible modernists.
Reply
#16
NeoCatholicism is as an evil and detracts from God's Holy Church.  NeoCatholics, on the other hand, are mostly misguided and believe as they do because their authority have lead them astray.
Reply
#17
I have read a number of articles, definitions, etc. on "neo-Catholics" and I am still a little confused.  Basically, is a neo-Catholic someone who claims tradition but attends the diocesan churches?  Are neo-Catholics those who follow FSSP, ICK, etc.?  Or am I still confused?
Reply
#18
(06-06-2011, 01:44 PM)Gakmo Wrote: I have read a number of articles, definitions, etc. on "neo-Catholics" and I am still a little confused.  Basically, is a neo-Catholic someone who claims tradition but attends the diocesan churches?  Are neo-Catholics those who follow FSSP, ICK, etc.?  Or am I still confused?

Neo Catholics aren't Trads.
Reply
#19
(06-06-2011, 01:44 PM)Gakmo Wrote: I have read a number of articles, definitions, etc. on "neo-Catholics" and I am still a little confused.  Basically, is a neo-Catholic someone who claims tradition but attends the diocesan churches?  Are neo-Catholics those who follow FSSP, ICK, etc.?  Or am I still confused?

They are those who largely hold a conservative view of Catholicism as far as morality goes.  They reject the most liberal groups in the Church, but also fail to see that the Council, the Novus Ordo Missae, etc. are liberal as well, and that the Church has departed from tradition and orthodoxy.  They have a very emotional attachment to the post-Conciliar popes, often calling John Paul "the Great" and speaking of him as if he were the most conservative Catholic the world has seen.
Reply
#20
I thought the term neo-Catholic referred to those who believe in the more liberal system of new practices and attitudes that came out of the so called spirit of Vatican II.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)