Trads, Orthodox, Conservstives, Neo-Cons
#11

(07-06-2015, 05:02 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 04:45 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Is canonization infallible? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

St Thomas Aquinas says it is

St Thomas Aquinas Quodlib. IX, a. 16 Wrote:Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints (quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus) we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

Then how can people call him an apostate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#12
I first heard the phrase "orthodox Catholic" from people who wanted to specify those who accept all (and only) the authentic teachings of the Church. They aren't necessarily traditionalists, although they could be. They tend to become more traditional as they realize more and more that the liturgy should be the center of Catholic life (which even Vatican II stated). They could also be labeled "conservative", because that's what "conservative Catholic" usually is meant to mean, but they tend to avoid that label because it is a political term and the Church doesn't fit into a political box.  I just use the term "faithful Catholic."  It's easier than having to explain so frequently that "orthodox" is not referring to Orthodoxy as a church.

Trad Catholics are similar. In addition to being orthodox (there are exceptions to this though- see this site's page on "toxic trads"- those types, in addition to being unpleasant to deal with, often have some theological or philosophical principle that they do not understand correctly), they have a preference for the liturgy and devotional practices that more tangibly resemble those of the early to mid 20th century- immediately before or a generation or two before the Second Vatican Council.

So called "neo-con" Catholics are harder to explain. It can take awhile to figure out that someone you thought was an orthodox-but-not-especially-traditional Catholic is a neo-con.  They are the ones who incessantly quote Hans Urs Von Balthasar and "John Paul the Great."  EWTN certainly fits into this category. Catholic Answers does as well, although the forums were a little more trad friendly at first (they're horrible now though).  FirstThings is full of them, as is CatholicCulture. Some of them are trad-friendly, but only if you think the Novus Ordo and Tridentine liturgies are equal in every way. It's also OK with them to think the Novus Ordo is better- but not the other way around.
Reply
#13
(07-06-2015, 05:31 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Then how can people call him an apostate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Short answer, they can't (at least not with a straight face).

Long answer, since he did not commit apostasy a fide (the total abandonment of Christianity), apostasy ab ordine (the abandonment of clerical dress and state by those who have received major orders), apostasy inobedientiæ (disobeying of a command given by a lawful authority), or apostasy a monachatus (the culpable departure of a religious from his monastery with the intention of not returning to it and of withdrawing himself from the obligations of the religious life) John Paul II was not an apostate.  Some people who should know better do, however, throw around the phrase.  Doing so, in my opinion, comes perilously close to calumny.
Reply
#14

(07-06-2015, 07:42 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 05:31 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Then how can people call him an apostate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Short answer, they can't (at least not with a straight face).

Long answer, since he did not commit apostasy a fide (the total abandonment of Christianity), apostasy ab ordine (the abandonment of clerical dress and state by those who have received major orders), apostasy inobedientiæ (disobeying of a command given by a lawful authority), or apostasy a monachatus (the culpable departure of a religious from his monastery with the intention of not returning to it and of withdrawing himself from the obligations of the religious life) John Paul II was not an apostate.  Some people who should know better do, however, throw around the phrase.  Doing so, in my opinion, comes perilously close to calumny.

Thank you for that clarification


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#15
My two cents on neo-Catholics is that they are very similar to neo-conservatives.  Neo-conservatism began as a movement of the anti-Stalinist Left that merged the tactics of the New Left with the societal platform of the New Right as a way to distinguish itself from the New Left while continuing to strive for many of the same goals.  Neo-Catholicism shares the tactics and basic worldview of evangelism while grafting itself onto the historical Church, creating a system of thought that results in many incompatible conclusions.
Reply
#16
(07-06-2015, 07:44 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Thank you for that clarification


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're welcome :)
Reply
#17
My two cents. John-Paul was a horrible Pope, probably ranking in the top five of the worst Popes we've ever had. However, he did NOT apostatise.  That he is in heaven I cannot question, since canonisations are infallible. On the other hand, I think that canonising him (and beatifying Paul VI, who also ranks in the top five), was a grave prudential error on the part of the Church.
Reply
#18
(07-06-2015, 03:33 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Okay so if JPII was such a poor Pope then how did he become a saint? I'm confused there seems to be some hatred of JP2 by Trads? (Honest question not trying to be a sh** starter but understand I was raised in a liberal catholic/not so catholic home, was reverted by Neo-Cats and now am drawn to Traditional Catholicism so I'm trying to figure this all out) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any "trad" who "hates" JPII is not a trad worthy of the label. We're not to hate anyone. I think JPII was a warm, charismatic man who may well have lived a personal life marked by holiness -- but he was an extremely weak Pope and did great damage to the Church by that weakness. The present Pope is an even worse Pope, IMO.

As to your OP and its questions:

Neo-Conservative (aka "neo-con") and "Conservative Catholic" (they mean the same thing): a Catholic who embraces the "spirit of Vatican II" without knowing it. They, like most "conservatives," conserve what IS, even if what is being conserved is the result of a veritable revolution. In practice, they cheer Vatican II while rightfully lamenting "the spirit of Vatican II," but tend to not understand the difference between what the documents actually say and what "the spirit of Vatican II" revolutionaries present the documents as saying. They tend to speak of Church teachings in terms of that Council and what came after it.

In the U.S., they also lean heavily toward neo-conservatism in politics (i.e., voting Republican). They tend to be Zionist, to have no understanding whatsoever of the differences between the religion of the Old Testament and post-Temple Judaism (i.e., modern Judaism).

Their main Catholic media are Catholic Answers and EWTN.


Traditional Catholics: Trads believe what is on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

As you can see from that page, trads are broken down into 2 main groups: 1) those who accept the proclaimed Pope (FishEaters's stance, the FSSP, ICK, other accepted priestly fraternities who worship at regular parishes, etc., and the SSPX who worship "outside the structures"), and 2) those who are sedevacantist.

From having run this site for almost two decades now, I can tell you also that there's a huge division between trads who understand what's on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/conversionoftheheart.html  -- and those who don't. Those who don't are the trads I call "toxic trads" (see http://www.fisheaters.com/abouttheforum.html#radtrad ). Toxic trads can be found in both of the two main groups described above, but, in my experience, the further one gets from worshiping inside the structures, from a "normal situation," the more toxic things TEND to get.

The main media of the trads are -- wait, no, I'm not going to give the toxics any air time, so will say that pretty much the only internet medium for trads is FishEaters and scattered blogs here and there. There are also "Latin Mass Magazine" (which links to FE), "Culture Wars Magazine," etc. which also have a web presence.


Orthodox Catholics: As others have said, if it's a Big "O,"  then it's a breakaway group. If it's a small "O," then -- well, "orthodox" means "right practice," so any Catholic could claim the moniker for himself. But not all of them will be accurate :P
Reply
#19

(07-06-2015, 09:37 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 03:33 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Okay so if JPII was such a poor Pope then how did he become a saint? I'm confused there seems to be some hatred of JP2 by Trads? (Honest question not trying to be a sh** starter but understand I was raised in a liberal catholic/not so catholic home, was reverted by Neo-Cats and now am drawn to Traditional Catholicism so I'm trying to figure this all out) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any "trad" who "hates" JPII is not a trad worthy of the label. We're not to hate anyone. I think JPII was a warm, charismatic man who may well have lived a personal life marked by holiness -- but he was an extremely weak Pope and did great damage to the Church by that weakness. The present Pope is an even worse Pope, IMO.

As to your OP and its questions:

Neo-Conservative (aka "neo-con") and "Conservative Catholic" (they mean the same thing): a Catholic who embraces the "spirit of Vatican II" without knowing it. They, like most "conservatives," conserve what IS, even if what is being conserved is the result of a veritable revolution. In practice, they cheer Vatican II while rightfully lamenting "the spirit of Vatican II," but tend to not understand the difference between what the documents actually say and what "the spirit of Vatican II" revolutionaries present the documents as saying. They tend to speak of Church teachings in terms of that Council and what came after it.

In the U.S., they also lean heavily toward neo-conservatism in politics (i.e., voting Republican). They tend to be Zionist, to have no understanding whatsoever of the differences between the religion of the Old Testament and post-Temple Judaism (i.e., modern Judaism).

Their main Catholic media are Catholic Answers and EWTN.


Traditional Catholics: Trads believe what is on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

As you can see from that page, trads are broken down into 2 main groups: 1) those who accept the proclaimed Pope (FishEaters's stance, the FSSP, ICK, other accepted priestly fraternities who worship at regular parishes, etc., and the SSPX who worship "outside the structures"), and 2) those who are sedevacantist.

From having run this site for almost two decades now, I can tell you also that there's a huge division between trads who understand what's on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/conversionoftheheart.html  -- and those who don't. Those who don't are the trads I call "toxic trads" (see http://www.fisheaters.com/abouttheforum.html#radtrad ). Toxic trads can be found in both of the two main groups described above, but, in my experience, the further one gets from worshiping inside the structures, from a "normal situation," the more toxic things TEND to get.

The main media of the trads are -- wait, no, I'm not going to give the toxics any air time, so will say that pretty much the only internet medium for trads is FishEaters and scattered blogs here and there. There are also "Latin Mass Magazine" (which links to FE), "Culture Wars Magazine," etc. which also have a web presence.


Orthodox Catholics: As others have said, if it's a Big "O,"  then it's a breakaway group. If it's a small "O," then -- well, "orthodox" means "right practice," so any Catholic could claim the moniker for himself. But not all of them will be accurate :P

That all makes very good sense. Basically Good man, poor leader. I guess there are plenty of good men not cut out to lead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#20
(07-06-2015, 09:37 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I think JPII was a warm, charismatic man who may well have lived a personal life marked by holiness -- but he was an extremely weak Pope and did great damage to the Church by that weakness. The present Pope is an even worse Pope, IMO.
Exactement!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)