Poll: The Problems in the Church Today are Due Mainly to: (Please read OP for details)
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
66
0%
0 0%
13
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
3
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Crisis: Where Does the Blame Lie?
#41
(10-13-2012, 12:25 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 10:20 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 09:58 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 01:41 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: The poll asking where FEs went to Mass was initially favored by the traditionalists, and was soon overrun with neocaths.  As was the other poll mith posted...  the sede one?  Or something.

You are still referring to trads on FE who disagree with you neocaths.  No matter how many times Vox says that posters should use the definition from the FE site, you just won't listen.  For you  "trad = people who agree with CC". 

No jayne he's referring to neocats as neocats

He is talking about people who call themselves trads, fit the FE definition of trad, and post here regularly.   It is offensive and petty, as well as dishonest, to keep on calling these people neocaths. 

What is wrong with you people who keep doing this?  Don't you care that you are ignoring the forum owner?  Don't you care about all the bad feeling it stirs up?  You have tantrums when people use terminology that you disapprove of, but insist on saying whatever you like.  Because you are the "true trads" and rules and courtesy are for other people. :crazy:

He is not talking about anyone in particular.  How can he know whether or not the people who voted as such consider themselves traditional, or even if they meet Vox's definition of traditional?  He is saying that the position in question is a neocat position.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't-- but CC isn't attacking anyone personally.  Him using the term generally (which is how he's using it) doesn't violate the forum rules in any way, unless you think neocat is banned like the n word and the f word. 

Neocat has a specific definition, if I recall, introduced in The Great Facade and refers to those Catholics within the Church who think favorably and highly of the new theology, JPII and the new mass, etc.  That it is overused and misused and used as an insult doesn't change the fact that it is a position that many adhere to and is a position that trads ought to find distasteful, although the word itself does not pass any judgement on the person who is called it, as many modern Catholics follow the new theology in good faith, albeit with ignorance.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#42
(10-13-2012, 05:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

This past summer I did a short course on the Church in the 18th century.  I was much struck by how most of todays problems are rooted in the "Enlightenment".  Secularism, feminism, modernism - it was all there.  Vatican II was one battle in a war that has been waging for centuries.  
Reply
#43
(10-13-2012, 05:45 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

This past summer I did a short course on the Church in the 18th century.  I was much struck by how most of todays problems are rooted in the "Enlightenment".  Secularism, feminism, modernism - it was all there.  Vatican II was one battle in a war that has been waging for centuries.  

This is just dismissive of the magnitude and significance of VII.

Trying to highlight modernism before the council as a bigger problem during and after it is like saying that a particular battle that decided a war was not as impactful as the battle that came before it.  Faithful Catholics LOST the battle at VII. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#44
(10-13-2012, 05:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 12:25 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 10:20 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 09:58 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 01:41 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: The poll asking where FEs went to Mass was initially favored by the traditionalists, and was soon overrun with neocaths.  As was the other poll mith posted...  the sede one?  Or something.

You are still referring to trads on FE who disagree with you neocaths.  No matter how many times Vox says that posters should use the definition from the FE site, you just won't listen.  For you  "trad = people who agree with CC". 

No jayne he's referring to neocats as neocats

He is talking about people who call themselves trads, fit the FE definition of trad, and post here regularly.   It is offensive and petty, as well as dishonest, to keep on calling these people neocaths. 

What is wrong with you people who keep doing this?  Don't you care that you are ignoring the forum owner?  Don't you care about all the bad feeling it stirs up?  You have tantrums when people use terminology that you disapprove of, but insist on saying whatever you like.  Because you are the "true trads" and rules and courtesy are for other people. :crazy:

He is not talking about anyone in particular.  How can he know whether or not the people who voted as such consider themselves traditional, or even if they meet Vox's definition of traditional?  He is saying that the position in question is a neocat position.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't-- but CC isn't attacking anyone personally.  Him using the term generally (which is how he's using it) doesn't violate the forum rules in any way, unless you think neocat is banned like the n word and the f word. 

Neocat has a specific definition, if I recall, introduced in The Great Facade and refers to those Catholics within the Church who think favorably and highly of the new theology, JPII and the new mass, etc.  That it is overused and misused and used as an insult doesn't change the fact that it is a position that many adhere to and is a position that trads ought to find distasteful, although the word itself does not pass any judgement on the person who is called it, as many modern Catholics follow the new theology in good faith, albeit with ignorance.

It was clear from the comments that accompanied that poll that many people who consider themselves traditional Catholics will attend the NO under some circumstances.  This is the position he is calling neocath.
Reply
#45
(10-13-2012, 05:50 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 12:25 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 10:20 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 09:58 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 01:41 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: The poll asking where FEs went to Mass was initially favored by the traditionalists, and was soon overrun with neocaths.  As was the other poll mith posted...  the sede one?  Or something.

You are still referring to trads on FE who disagree with you neocaths.  No matter how many times Vox says that posters should use the definition from the FE site, you just won't listen.  For you  "trad = people who agree with CC". 

No jayne he's referring to neocats as neocats

He is talking about people who call themselves trads, fit the FE definition of trad, and post here regularly.   It is offensive and petty, as well as dishonest, to keep on calling these people neocaths. 

What is wrong with you people who keep doing this?  Don't you care that you are ignoring the forum owner?  Don't you care about all the bad feeling it stirs up?  You have tantrums when people use terminology that you disapprove of, but insist on saying whatever you like.  Because you are the "true trads" and rules and courtesy are for other people. :crazy:

He is not talking about anyone in particular.  How can he know whether or not the people who voted as such consider themselves traditional, or even if they meet Vox's definition of traditional?  He is saying that the position in question is a neocat position.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't-- but CC isn't attacking anyone personally.  Him using the term generally (which is how he's using it) doesn't violate the forum rules in any way, unless you think neocat is banned like the n word and the f word. 

Neocat has a specific definition, if I recall, introduced in The Great Facade and refers to those Catholics within the Church who think favorably and highly of the new theology, JPII and the new mass, etc.  That it is overused and misused and used as an insult doesn't change the fact that it is a position that many adhere to and is a position that trads ought to find distasteful, although the word itself does not pass any judgement on the person who is called it, as many modern Catholics follow the new theology in good faith, albeit with ignorance.

It was clear from the comments that accompanied that poll that many people who consider themselves traditional Catholics will attend the NO under some circumstances.  This is the position he is calling neocath.

Maybe you should keep your comments in this thread to things that have happened in this thread.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#46
(10-13-2012, 05:49 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:45 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

This past summer I did a short course on the Church in the 18th century.  I was much struck by how most of todays problems are rooted in the "Enlightenment".  Secularism, feminism, modernism - it was all there.  Vatican II was one battle in a war that has been waging for centuries.  

This is just dismissive of the magnitude and significance of VII.

Trying to highlight modernism before the council as a bigger problem during and after it is like saying that a particular battle that decided a war was not as impactful as the battle that came before it.  Faithful Catholics LOST the battle at VII. 

That is my point.  I do not think that Vatican II was a significant as you think it was.  We did not lose much ground at the council itself but in the subsequent interpretation and implementation of it.  
Reply
#47
(10-13-2012, 05:33 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Doesn't the term "neocatholic" imply that someone isn't a real Catholic, though? If someone is a "neocatholic," he isn't an actual Catholic. He is obedient to neo-Rome, not Eternal Rome.

I don't make that distinction. It's an SSPX thing.

Rome is Rome.
Reply
#48
(10-13-2012, 05:49 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:45 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

This past summer I did a short course on the Church in the 18th century.  I was much struck by how most of todays problems are rooted in the "Enlightenment".  Secularism, feminism, modernism - it was all there.  Vatican II was one battle in a war that has been waging for centuries.  

This is just dismissive of the magnitude and significance of VII.

Trying to highlight modernism before the council as a bigger problem during and after it is like saying that a particular battle that decided a war was not as impactful as the battle that came before it.  Faithful Catholics LOST the battle at VII. 

I sometimes tend to think the Vatican II is like a marker or a sign, very visible (an ecumenical Council, what can be more visible) of the problem. But that doesn't mean it's the cause, which is what you asked.

Quick example: fever, chills, sweats are not the real source of the problem in a disease like malaria.  It's the protozoan.

Perhaps V2 and the NO, as problematic as they may be, are like the symptoms. Of magnitude and significane. But perhaps the earlier modernist trends, the influence of the Enlightenment ... perhaps that's the protozoan.

Fr. Cekada might agree. I won't speak for him, but I'll tell you that from his book I was shocked to learn the extent of continuity between pre-V2 modernism and liturgical change (e.g. Pius XII / Bugnini changes) and the V2 and post-V2 problems.  Certainly Fr. Cekada and those who think like him don't see V2 as the cause, because they go back before that and refuse to use the 1955 changes to the liturgy.
Reply
#49
(10-13-2012, 05:54 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:49 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:45 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:  But c'mon, does anyone here really think some tract written by Fr Louisy or Baron whatshisface is MOSTLY responsible for the current state of the Church?  

This past summer I did a short course on the Church in the 18th century.  I was much struck by how most of todays problems are rooted in the "Enlightenment".  Secularism, feminism, modernism - it was all there.  Vatican II was one battle in a war that has been waging for centuries.  

This is just dismissive of the magnitude and significance of VII.

Trying to highlight modernism before the council as a bigger problem during and after it is like saying that a particular battle that decided a war was not as impactful as the battle that came before it.  Faithful Catholics LOST the battle at VII. 

That is my point.  I do not think that Vatican II was a significant as you think it was.  We did not lose much ground at the council itself but in the subsequent interpretation and implementation of it.  

OK Jayne.  I've got nothing else to say then.  But I'd appreciate your feedback in this thread if you get around to it http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...939.0.html
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#50
When I first read the poll, I hesitated a little to take option one, because in themselves, the V2 documents are ambiguous.  Without people actively interpreting them in a manner opposed to Catholic tradition, they might never have been a problem-- which explains why the Council Fathers voted for them.  At the same time, from the history of Vatican II, we know that those who made the documents ambiguous did so with this exact goal in view:  "we have made the documents ambiguous, and we know how we shall interpret them later" (this is a paraphrase, and I don't recall of who exactly).

Part of what won me over to option one was stipulating that the NO was the main cause of the crisis.  If we had had the NO in its purest form, this might not have been the case.  Nonetheless, the reality seems to be that the NO always has been, and was always intended as, a vehicle of revolution, and it has done its job very well.  It seems to be the single greatest source of [de-]catechesis for the post-Catholic multitudes, and even for those who remain Catholic, I don't think it's doing them more good than harm, as a whole.  There could be particular instances, but in general, that's how I think matters stand.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)