Some neo-Catholics are the Catholic version of Protestant Fundamentalists.
#11
(04-28-2014, 11:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: This might be a good thread for me to sort some things regarding the position of neo-Catholics.

Firstly, I never read the documents of Vatican II, and I quite like some of the people that supposedly influenced it, the likes of Benedict XVI and von Balthasar, and frankly I don't see in their writings (the stuff I've read) anything in opposition to the TLM (quite the opposite, actually) or liberalizing the Church the way we see it today.
Is Vatican II really all that bad? And if it is, what does it says about the Church? Can one really reject a Council, and if one can, when one stops? Why not reject Nicea? Of course rejecting Nicea is probably an exaggeration, but wouldn't the authority of the Church be forever undermined?

Also, about Vox's remarks. I'm so very tired of reading everything Pope Francis says and does. It just makes me angry; I'm pretty convinced he is definitely not a bright man, and this is the most charitable thing I can come up with. The other option would be that he is actively subverting the Church using the subtle techniques well known to South American clergy. So I'm restricting my intake of news regarding the Pope (and some bishops).
Now, is the way I'm thinking and my gradual restriction on the stuff the Pope says a de facto sedevacantism?
If it is, what is the alternative then? Really, if that is the case, I don't see any solution besides turning neo-Catholic and worrying about the Pope's next tweet.

Unlike other Ecumenical Councils, Vatican Council II was opened by the Pope as a 'pastoral council', not a dogmatic one. So no dogmas were solemnly defined, nor heresies condemned, as was the case with the Nicean councils.

Although the council documents do not teach error, they are full of ambiguities in the text themselves. Even if they were more 'hygenic' it doesn't take away the fact that post-concilliar pontiffs are still infected with false ideas about religious liberty, the social Kingship of Christ, salvation of non-Catholics, the Sacred Liturgy etc.. They're the things that Trads are most bothered with, not the council so much. But I feel a very strong case can be made that the council did lead to these errors being near universally accepted.

Archbishop Lefebvre was a council father and the SSPX quotes an extract from the council in its constitution on the formation of priest.
Reply
#12
(04-28-2014, 11:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: This might be a good thread for me to sort some things regarding the position of neo-Catholics.

Firstly, I never read the documents of Vatican II, and I quite like some of the people that supposedly influenced it, the likes of Benedict XVI and von Balthasar, and frankly I don't see in their writings (the stuff I've read) anything in opposition to the TLM (quite the opposite, actually) or liberalizing the Church the way we see it today.
Is Vatican II really all that bad? And if it is, what does it says about the Church? Can one really reject a Council, and if one can, when one stops? Why not reject Nicea? Of course rejecting Nicea is probably an exaggeration, but wouldn't the authority of the Church be forever undermined?

I don't "reject Vatican II" and am not even sure what that means. I think that folks who accuse trads of doing that don't even know what they're talking about. "Rejecting" -- what? That it happened? That a true Pope convened it? That it produced 16 documents? That no part of any of the documents uses the language of infallibility? The talk of "rejecting" or "accepting" Vatican II is, to me, much too vague to be helpful, really.

Me, I'm not a sede, so I believe it was a true Council convened by a true Pope. I think the documents are badly/ambiguously written. I haven't read them in their original language (i.e., Latin -- I don't speak it), am not a theologian, and think it takes a bit of hubris for someone in my position to make pronouncements on the documents one way or another.

But "the spirit of Vatican II" is another thing altogether -- and it's an obvious malevolent spirit, to my eyes. It's torn the human element of the Church to shreds, reducing Her, in our eyes (my eyes anyway), to a shadow of Her former self. Most of the stuff that goes on has nothing at ALL to do with the documents of Vatican II, even though folks will keep telling you that it was "Vatican II" that changed this, allowed for that, etc. They're either misinformed or are lying through their teeth most of the time. Take Nostra Aetate, for ex., and how it is held up by the ADL types to say things it absolutely does NOT. It's incredible what's done and said in the name of Vatican II with no basis in fact whatsoever.

(04-28-2014, 11:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Also, about Vox's remarks. I'm so very tired of reading everything Pope Francis says and does. It just makes me angry; I'm pretty convinced he is definitely not a bright man, and this is the most charitable thing I can come up with. The other option would be that he is actively subverting the Church using the subtle techniques well known to South American clergy. So I'm restricting my intake of news regarding the Pope (and some bishops).
Now, is the way I'm thinking and my gradual restriction on the stuff the Pope says a de facto sedevacantism?
If it is, what is the alternative then? Really, if that is the case, I don't see any solution besides turning neo-Catholic and worrying about the Pope's next tweet.

I'm tired of it, too, actually. I'm tired of the loose talk from his side, and, from the other side, the going on about it with one's own spin in the telling. The media and the folks who either worship or despise the Pope talk about a phone call to some woman as if a) what she says is true in the first place, and b) as if such a phone call has any authority whatsoever. The people who worship him hail every little tale like this, and the ones who despise him assign the same veracity and authority to such accounts. I mean, really, think about it:  some Venezuelan haus-frau gets a phone call, says what she says about it (and anyone who's ever discussed anything on the internet knows how people twist words), and people all over the world are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It's kind of crazy.

Reply
#13
(04-28-2014, 11:33 PM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: I don't know much about Jewish-Christian relations. I think you said something above about Jewish persons being saved by their ethnicity. Is that true, do some Catholics believe that Jewish persons can be save by their ethnicity?

Check this out, straight from the US Bishops' website. I mean this is flat-out heresy. They say, straight out, that Jews aren't called to Jesus, but to the Old Covenant:

From the USCCB Wrote:Q. What does the Church say about the Jewish Covenant and the place of the Jewish people in the economy of salvation?

A. Some have argued that "the New Covenant "abrogated" or "superseded" the Old Covenant, and that the Sinai Covenant was discarded by God and replaced with another made by Jesus. The Second Vatican Council, in Dei Verbum and Nostra Aetate, rejected these ideas. In a major address in 1980, Pope John Paul II linked the renewed understanding of Scripture with the Church's own understanding of her relationship with the Jewish people, stating that the dialogue, as "the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God (cf. Rom. 11.29), and that of the New Covenant is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible" (Pope John Paul II, Mainz, November 17, 1980, no. 3)."(cf. also God's Mercy Endures Forever, no. 6)

In short, the Church believes that the Jewish Covenant is still valid and that Jews are still called to fidelity to that Covenant. Further, the Church teaches that the Jewish people belong, in some mysterious way, to the community of the Church.We also believe that the Jewish Covenant finds its fullest expression (fulfillment) in the Covenant of Jesus."While the biblical prophecies of an age of universal shalom are 'fulfilled' (i.e., irreversibly inaugurated) in Christ's coming, that fulfillment is not yet completely worked out in each person's life or perfected in the world at large… It is the mission of the Church, as also that of the Jewish people, to proclaim and to work to prepare the world for the full flowering of God's Reign, which is, but is 'not yet' . Both the Christian 'Our Father' and the Jewish Kaddish exemplify this message. Thus, both Christianity and Judaism seal their worship with a common hope:'Thy kingdom come!'"(God's Mercy Endures Forever, no.11; cf. 1974 "Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (no. 4)")

I'd really like to know where in Nostra Aetate it says that about the New Covenant not fulfilling the Old and making the old obsolete.  And they're playing word games, too. That the Old Covenant wasn't "revoked by God" is true, but meaningless. The JEWS broke it:

Jeremias 31:31-34:
[31] Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: [32] Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

But they say that God didn't revoke it in order to bamboozle people into thinking, "Gosh, then, it must still be in effect -- for Jewish people, I guess." It's bullshit. It's a lie. Jews don't have sacred DNA, and the post-Temple Jewish religion is so very, very not the religion of the Old Testament. The OT religion was based on Torah and the priesthood; the post-Temple Jewish religion is based on the Talmud and rabbinic Pharisaism. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Quote: ... and with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.

Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition. Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.

For more about this, see:  http://www.fisheaters.com/jcintro.html

Reply
#14
(04-29-2014, 12:20 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(04-28-2014, 11:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: This might be a good thread for me to sort some things regarding the position of neo-Catholics.

Firstly, I never read the documents of Vatican II, and I quite like some of the people that supposedly influenced it, the likes of Benedict XVI and von Balthasar, and frankly I don't see in their writings (the stuff I've read) anything in opposition to the TLM (quite the opposite, actually) or liberalizing the Church the way we see it today.
Is Vatican II really all that bad? And if it is, what does it says about the Church? Can one really reject a Council, and if one can, when one stops? Why not reject Nicea? Of course rejecting Nicea is probably an exaggeration, but wouldn't the authority of the Church be forever undermined?

I don't "reject Vatican II" and am not even sure what that means. I think that folks who accuse trads of doing that don't even know what they're talking about. "Rejecting" -- what? That it happened? That a true Pope convened it? That it produced 16 documents? That no part of any of the documents uses the language of infallibility? The talk of "rejecting" or "accepting" Vatican II is, to me, much too vague to be helpful, really.

Me, I'm not a sede, so I believe it was a true Council convened by a true Pope. I think the documents are badly/ambiguously written. I haven't read them in their original language (i.e., Latin -- I don't speak it), am not a theologian, and think it takes a bit of hubris for someone in my position to make pronouncements on the documents one way or another.

But "the spirit of Vatican II" is another thing altogether -- and it's an obvious malevolent spirit, to my eyes. It's torn the human element of the Church to shreds, reducing Her, in our eyes (my eyes anyway), to a shadow of Her former self. Most of the stuff that goes on has nothing at ALL to do with the documents of Vatican II, even though folks will keep telling you that it was "Vatican II" that changed this, allowed for that, etc. They're either misinformed or are lying through their teeth most of the time. Take Nostra Aetate, for ex., and how it is held up by the ADL types to say things it absolutely does NOT. It's incredible what's done and said in the name of Vatican II with no basis in fact whatsoever.

(04-28-2014, 11:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Also, about Vox's remarks. I'm so very tired of reading everything Pope Francis says and does. It just makes me angry; I'm pretty convinced he is definitely not a bright man, and this is the most charitable thing I can come up with. The other option would be that he is actively subverting the Church using the subtle techniques well known to South American clergy. So I'm restricting my intake of news regarding the Pope (and some bishops).
Now, is the way I'm thinking and my gradual restriction on the stuff the Pope says a de facto sedevacantism?
If it is, what is the alternative then? Really, if that is the case, I don't see any solution besides turning neo-Catholic and worrying about the Pope's next tweet.

I'm tired of it, too, actually. I'm tired of the loose talk from his side, and, from the other side, the going on about it with one's own spin in the telling. The media and the folks who either worship or despise the Pope talk about a phone call to some woman as if a) what she says is true in the first place, and b) as if such a phone call has any authority whatsoever. The people who worship him hail every little tale like this, and the ones who despise him assign the same veracity and authority to such accounts. I mean, really, think about it:  some Venezuelan haus-frau gets a phone call, says what she says about it (and anyone who's ever discussed anything on the internet knows how people twist words), and people all over the world are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It's kind of crazy.

I disagree with you both here. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, Jesuits aren't dumb. Also, one of the first things pope Francis said as Pope was shake things up and he has done just that. Granted much of the nonsense going on is caused by the media but Pope Francis' antics are not helping the cause.

How many people are waiting to se what happens in the synod this fall? None matter which way the synod on the family ends up A LOT of people will leave the church.

What are the four marks of the church? One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Are we still one? No. Bishops oppose bishops and cardinals oppose cardinals. Where have we heard this before?
Reply
#15
I agree wholeheartedly on the idolatry of the pope. I think that people view the man as some sort of a demigod rather than view the position for what it really is. I think that this kind of people would have a tough time reading about St. Paul rebuking St. Peter to his face.

As a little bit of an aside, I wonder if you can even call CAF neo-Catholic. You would think that neo-Catholics would hold stringently to the beliefs of the Church emphasized currently. Yet go on there and try to start a thread on homosexuality and watch how you get bombarded with open homosexuals contesting you until the thread eventually gets deleted, a convenient coverup. Apparently the position on homosexuality is too embarrassing to bring up on a public forum. Yup, bringing up the evil associated with licentiousness is just not charitable.
Reply
#16
(04-29-2014, 11:02 AM)phattonez Wrote: I agree wholeheartedly on the idolatry of the pope. I think that people view the man as some sort of a demigod rather than view the position for what it really is. I think that this kind of people would have a tough time reading about St. Paul rebuking St. Peter to his face.

Unfortunately, this business of treating the Pope as "some sort of demigod", or maybe oracle, has been going on for a very long time--long before the 1960s. 
Reply
#17
What is a neo Catholic though? Lots of folks identify as “Catholics” when they are Catholic in name only. And self-identified traditionalists run the gamut from sedevacantists to those who prefer the Latin Mass. I’d be more specific, as in the Catholics at EWTN, who act as if the Church started with Pope John Paul II and Mother Angelica, because this was the Church they “came home to” either as a convert or a revert. They have made golden calves of Vatican II, Theology of the Body, World Youth Day, Divine Mercy Sunday (and I say this as one who LOVES DM!) etc. Many are, in fact, converts from fundamentalist Protestant sects. So it’s no wonder they remind you of them. It’s like they are trying to prove how Catholic they are, being excessive in their praise of the Pope, excessive regarding devotions, making such things evidence of your loyalty to the Church instead of being OPTIONAL. They can quote the Code of Canon Law and the CCC as well as they could quote Scripture, chapter and verse. I know they are narrow minded and legalistic through experience, from dealing with them on the telephone and email.

Of course, there are comparisons that I could make about traditionalists. Like you make everything that happened BEFORE Vatican II the one and only way to be Catholic. And, as stated, seeing the Pope as a kind of demigod has been going on a long time. And there’s definitely no love loss from either group for the other. But I guess that’s for another thread.
Reply
#18
Well, StrictCatholicGirl , you beat me to it with your question, "What is a neo Catholic"?  "Neo" means "new".  Catholic, is, well....Catholic :).  When is someone a new Catholic and when are they not?  I was baptized/chrismated/communed 13 years ago.  Does that make me one of those odious ( :eyeroll: ) "neo-Catholics"?  Or is it that I just do not put the word "traditional" before Catholic when I refer to myself?  C'mon, folks......!

The number of gross generalizations in the OP was pretty astounding, really.  One could, without too much effort and with a little tweaking here and there, turn most of that post around and make the same claims about so-called "trads", or whatever.

Don't get me wrong (well, I guess you can if you want  :grin: ), I'm not saying there isn't plenty wrong in the Church.  But, when was there not plenty wrong in the Church, since about 100A.D. or thereabouts?  Sometimes, yes, just sometimes, it can be really useful and maybe even spiritually beneficial to accentuate the positive and stop bitching and moaning about all the negative (or that which is perceived to be negative).

Just my paltry 2-cents' worth... :) :)
Reply
#19
(04-29-2014, 05:18 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: (snip)

I'm tired of it, too, actually. I'm tired of the loose talk from his side, and, from the other side, the going on about it with one's own spin in the telling. The media and the folks who either worship or despise the Pope talk about a phone call to some woman as if a) what she says is true in the first place, and b) as if such a phone call has any authority whatsoever. The people who worship him hail every little tale like this, and the ones who despise him assign the same veracity and authority to such accounts. I mean, really, think about it:  some Venezuelan haus-frau gets a phone call, says what she says about it (and anyone who's ever discussed anything on the internet knows how people twist words), and people all over the world are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It's kind of crazy.

I disagree with you both here. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, Jesuits aren't dumb. Also, one of the first things pope Francis said as Pope was shake things up and he has done just that. Granted much of the nonsense going on is caused by the media but Pope Francis' antics are not helping the cause.

How many people are waiting to se what happens in the synod this fall? None matter which way the synod on the family ends up A LOT of people will leave the church.

What are the four marks of the church? One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Are we still one? No. Bishops oppose bishops and cardinals oppose cardinals. Where have we heard this before?
[/quote]

Oh Captain, my Captain, I totally agree with you that Pope Francis's "antics" aren't helping the cause at all. Note what I bolded above from my post. My wish is that he'd never talk in public again without a prepared script that's been vetted by serious, CATHOLIC theologians -- sheesh!  If I were the Pope, I'd even try to anticipate what the media and idiots would do with what I'm saying and pre-empt them, in this sort of way: "And so, X, Y, Z! To be clear, by saying X, Y, and Z, I am NOT saying A, B, C. Neither am I saying D. Anyone who interprets my words as meaning precisely X, Y, and Z are simply incorrect."

But still, what the media do with what he says is way beyond ridiculous. It really is. They take something like that "Who am I to judge?" interview, isolate the sound-byte "Who am I to judge?" -- which referred to homosexuals who are trying to live up to the will of God, and ---- well, I'll put the quote -- translated into English, always another layer to problems like this -- below:

Quote:From http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/francis...zil-part-2 :



Ilze Scamparini:

I would like to ask permission to ask a somewhat delicate question: another image has also gone around the world, which is that of Monsignor Ricca and news about your privacy. I would like to know, Holiness, what do you intend to do about this question. How to address this question and how Your Holiness intends to address the whole question of the gay lobby?

Pope Francis:

In regard to Monsignor Ricca, I’ve done what Canon Law orders to do, which is the investigatio previa. And from this investigatio there is nothing of which they accuse him, we haven’t found anything of that. This is the answer. But I would like to add something else on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, they go to look for the “sins of youth,” for instance, and this is published. Not the crimes, alas. Crimes are something else: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, the sins. But if a person, lay or priest or Sister, has committed a sin and then has converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is important for our life. When we go to confession and truly say: “I have sinned in this,” the Lord forgets and we don’t have the right not to forget, because we run the risk  that the Lord won’t forget our [sins]. That’s a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. I think so many times of Saint Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin he was made Pope. We must give it much thought. But, returning to your more concrete question: in this case, I’ve done the investigatio previa and we found nothing. This is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Goodness knows! So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gay” . They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish  the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good.  That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.” The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem. And I thank you.

He obviously intimates he believes acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. He distinguishes between being gay and being a part of a lobby, which is the obviously sane thing to do. And then he says that if a person "is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will" (which would include trying to refrain from sin), then "who is he to judge?" There's really nothing at all wrong with what he said. Nothing. But it's being held up by the media as some changing of "the Church's stance" -- ex., my emphasis:

Quote:From http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/e...-no706782/ :

Pope says marriage between man, woman is image of God
Catholic Church opposed to gay marriage


(ANSA) - Vatican City, April 2 - Pope Francis told around 45,000 faithful in St Peter’s Square that marriage between a man and a woman was a image of God’s love during his general audience on Wednesday. “When a man and a woman celebrate the sacrament of marriage, God is reflected in them,” the Argentine pontiff said. “He imposes His features in them and the indelible character of His love. “The image of God is the married couple - not just the man, not just the women, but both...
and this is very beautiful”.

Francis has made openings to gay people since being elected the head of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics last year, saying on one occassion “who am I?” to judge homosexuals who seek God. But the fact he stressed the importance of marriage between a man and woman pn Wednesday is likely to be interpreted as a reiteration of the Church’s opposition to the legalisation of gay marriage in some parts of the world

-- and it's being abused by the neo-Catholics and liberals to mean pretty much the opposite of what he said. Ex.:

Quote:From http://clclt.com/charlotte/pride-returns...id=3179980 :


Pride returns to friendlier city, faith community
Catholics open dialogue with LGBT community
by Victor E. Lopez (QNotes Contributor, Special to Creative Loafing ) and Ana McKenzie


David Hains kept his answers short in our first interview for this story. According to the spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, the church's position on gay marriage was set in stone -- it would never acknowledge a union between two men or two women. Conversation over. End of discussion.

But soon after we spoke, Pope Francis opened up to reporters in an interview that shocked the world.

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" the leader of more than 1 billion Catholics asked. "We shouldn't marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society."

After Francis' comments, Hains and I meet again. This time, he isn't as guarded.

"He didn't deviate from church teaching," Hains says of Francis. "He opened the door for more meaningful dialogue."

The Catholic Church probably won't start marrying gay couples anytime soon, but Francis' olive branch shows the evolution of a church whose leadership just 25 years ago issued a letter to bishops calling homosexuality an "intrinsic moral evil" and "an objective disorder."

The people doing this stuff, who "misunderstand" him, are either really very stupid, or flat-out nefarious.

Reply
#20
(04-29-2014, 02:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: What is a neo Catholic though? Lots of folks identify as “Catholics” when they are Catholic in name only. And self-identified traditionalists run the gamut from sedevacantists to those who prefer the Latin Mass. I’d be more specific, as in the Catholics at EWTN, who act as if the Church started with Pope John Paul II and Mother Angelica, because this was the Church they “came home to” either as a convert or a revert. They have made golden calves of Vatican II, Theology of the Body, World Youth Day, Divine Mercy Sunday (and I say this as one who LOVES DM!) etc. Many are, in fact, converts from fundamentalist Protestant sects. So it’s no wonder they remind you of them. It’s like they are trying to prove how Catholic they are, being excessive in their praise of the Pope, excessive regarding devotions, making such things evidence of your loyalty to the Church instead of being OPTIONAL. They can quote the Code of Canon Law and the CCC as well as they could quote Scripture, chapter and verse. I know they are narrow minded and legalistic through experience, from dealing with them on the telephone and email.

Of course, there are comparisons that I could make about traditionalists. Like you make everything that happened BEFORE Vatican II the one and only way to be Catholic. And, as stated, seeing the Pope as a kind of demigod has been going on a long time. And there’s definitely no love loss from either group for the other. But I guess that’s for another thread.

The definition for "Traditional Catholicism" used at this site (and I think any decent definition) precludes someone who just "prefers" the TLM. It has to involve Church doctrine and defending against the changes in how doctrine is presented and taught since the Council (how FE defines "traditional Catholicism" is here:  http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html )

We definitely have to insist on a definition like that or else the "movement" will just end up being populated by folks who are OK with artificial birth control, gay "marriage," gender feminism, etc. -- but who happen to have a finer aesthetic sense than other neo-conservatives.

My take on "Novus Ordoers," for lack of a better term, is that most are simply not educated (and, like people in most any other group, most just aren't that bright). I don't for one minute think that a well-intentioned, good-willed "NOer" who tries his best to follow Church teaching a s he (mis)understands it, and who loves our Lord, can't be holy -- holier "even" than a number of trads I know (that toxic type). We have to reach out to them and TEACH them -- but we have to do so with prudence, patience, and charity - which is hard to do when you're being called "schismatic" or "semi-Pelagian" or "Pharisaical about the liturgy" or whatever other insults many are prone to throw at us.  But we're the ones to whom much has been given, so the burden's on us to rise above all that and try to be a good example of Christian virtue (all the stuff written about on the Conversion of the Heart page).

And, ya know, when most people are confronted with something that changes their worldview, their assumptions, anger can come about because upsetting one's mental apple cart is not comfortable. People don't like being uncomfortable, to have to do some mental work to sort things out. Folks like feeling as if they've got things settled in their minds and have ready answers, so when someone comes along and challenges that, they can get all kinds of defensive (I see that sort of defensiveness as common among a lot of neo-conservatives and also the toxic trad type). To my mind, that's where the patience part comes in, and also empathy for what they'd have to go through mentally and emotionally to let go of the idea that "all's right in the world, la di da, la di da, la di da" (where "world" means "Church" or one's own mind).

There's also the problem of ego. Most folks don't like being told they're wrong, and that, in itself, can get people defensive and turn them off from what you're trying to teach them.  So not anticipating that probability and coming off like a big know-it-all, as someone who wasn't once in the same situation they were in (if true, and as is likely), not allowing them to "save face" (and better, not actively helping them do that) are big mistakes we trads can make in dealing with the "neo-cons."

--- how'd I get onto this? LOL I will shut up.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)