picchick Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 In a previous thread, Amarkich, you mentioned that most of the phatmassers are neo-conservatives. To say that most of phatmass is is quite a generalization. What makes most of phatmassers neo-conservatives?
Aloysius Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 what's a neo-conservative anyway? i'm conservative...
Dave Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 (edited) Unfortunately, I believe it means those conservative Catholics who are completely loyal to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, which, according to traditionalists like amarkich, are apparently not conservative enough. So it stands to reason that true conservatives, in their eyes, are those who are, for lack of a better phrase, trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. I'm sorry to use such a derogatory expression, but I don't know of a more tactful way to put it. Edited August 5, 2004 by Dave
ironmonk Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='picchick' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:24 PM'] In a previous thread, Amarkich, you mentioned that most of the phatmassers are neo-conservatives. To say that most of phatmass is is quite a generalization. What makes most of phatmassers neo-conservatives? [/quote] It's a term used by Schismatics... some say Neo-Catholic Those that tend to believe Vatican II was the greatest evil of the Catholic Church, they believe that it's a sin to take the Eucharist in hand, they tend to confuse discipline with faith and morals. God Bless, ironmonk
MichaelFilo Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 Bleh, taking the Eucharist by hand... Bleh. It's really an awful practice. I'm traditionilist in that being from an Easter Rite Catholic Church, we tend to be traditionilsts in what we do. However, I guess I'm a neo-conservative in that, I know what is acceptable now in light of V2. I accept it, but I do say, how sad I am that I didn't live in the time when discipline was also a part of faith and morals. My 2 cents. God bless, Mikey.
picchick Posted August 5, 2004 Author Posted August 5, 2004 I have a general idea as to what amarkich is referring to when he mentions neo-conservative. I am a Roman Catholic. I follow the Pope's teachings from the beginning of the Chruch to today. I do not think that there should be conservative Catholics or liberal Catholics. If you are Catholic and truly Catholic then you will be "in line" with all of the teachings of the Church without exceptions. That is my argument.
MichaelFilo Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 Liberal Catholics are what we call reformists. We had some back during Luther's time. They all acheive the same ends, disunity, changing of Church teachings, a higher regard to their wants as opposed to what Jesus wants. It's all been done, it's all been said. Same carp new peeves. God bless, Mikey
IcePrincessKRS Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:32 PM'] Bleh, taking the Eucharist by hand... Bleh. It's really an awful practice. I'm traditionilist in that being from an Easter Rite Catholic Church, we tend to be traditionilsts in what we do. However, I guess I'm a neo-conservative in that, I know what is acceptable now in light of V2. I accept it, but I do say, how sad I am that I didn't live in the time when discipline was also a part of faith and morals. My 2 cents. God bless, Mikey. [/quote] I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue as well but its not a sin to receive in your hand. Ironmonk's point was that some of these people think its a sin not that one way or the other is preferable to him personally.
picchick Posted August 5, 2004 Author Posted August 5, 2004 (edited) [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:32 PM'] Bleh, taking the Eucharist by hand... Bleh. It's really an awful practice. I'm traditionilist in that being from an Easter Rite Catholic Church, we tend to be traditionilsts in what we do. However, I guess I'm a neo-conservative in that, I know what is acceptable now in light of V2. I accept it, but I do say, how sad I am that I didn't live in the time when discipline was also a part of faith and morals. My 2 cents. God bless, Mikey. [/quote] I recieve on the tongue for a few reasons 1. I am the clumsiest person living. I would not want to drop Jesus so the best thing is to have the priest or Extra ordinary minister to put Him directly on my tongue. 2. Little particles of Jesus could fall onto my hands and then go on anything I touch. Don't want that to happen. However it is not a sin to recieve in the hand in the proper way. Edited August 5, 2004 by picchick
ironmonk Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='picchick' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:47 PM'] I have a general idea as to what amarkich is referring to when he mentions neo-conservative. I am a Roman Catholic. I follow the Pope's teachings from the beginning of the Chruch to today. I do not think that there should be conservative Catholics or liberal Catholics. If you are Catholic and truly Catholic then you will be "in line" with all of the teachings of the Church without exceptions. That is my argument. [/quote] Conservative Catholics are those in line with the Catholic Church Magisterium. Conservative vs. liberal in the Church is not like political con vs. lib. Lib Catholics are not real Catholics where as Conservative Catholics are totally 100% Catholic. Liberals twist the meaning of the Church teachings. Please look for the article that I quote that talked about how liberalism fails the Church. God Bless, ironmonk
AnomilE Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 I think the term neo-conservative refers to those who claim allegiance to the current trent of conservativism, and not what it is traditionally. I might agree witht he fact that most Catholics today are neo-conservative in that they will willingly tote a party line quicker than a hard teaching of the faith.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 We at Phatmass are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church [u]as it is[/u], not some version as we wish it would be.. We also do not attempt to be more Catholic than the Pope. Mission statement: To defend, spread, and live the faith given to us by Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. We welcome religions of all faiths and diversity, and encourage ecumenical dialogue in a spirit of charity. We recognize that we are all children of God striving for holiness, which is fundamentally founded upon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. This is fostered by an adherence to orthodoxy, which is the result of a life of love and prayer. We feel it is of primary importance to educate Catholics on the necessity of the Most Holy Eucharist, our Blessed Mother Mary, the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass, Reconciliation, and obedience to our Holy Father -- all of which will help us in our journey to grow closer to Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We recognize that we are in a constant battle of good vs evil, and ask for the intercession of all the saints in heaven for a removal of pride and an increase in humility -- the ultimate goal being sainthood.
picchick Posted August 5, 2004 Author Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:51 PM'] Liberal Catholics are what we call reformists. We had some back during Luther's time. They all acheive the same ends, disunity, changing of Church teachings, a higher regard to their wants as opposed to what Jesus wants. It's all been done, it's all been said. Same carp new peeves. God bless, Mikey [/quote] Then they aren't true Catholics. By changing the teachings of the Church you are not following the true teachings and therefore put yourself. You are either Catholic and are loyal to all the teachings of the Church or your not.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:19 PM'] I think the term neo-conservative refers to those who claim allegiance to the current trent of conservativism, and not what it is traditionally. I might agree witht he fact that most Catholics today are neo-conservative in that they will willingly tote a party line quicker than a hard teaching of the faith. [/quote] It doesn't have to do with secular politics. Neo-conservative is a name for orthodox "Novus Ordo" Catholics.
MichaelFilo Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='picchick' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:38 PM'] Then they aren't true Catholics. By changing the teachings of the Church you are not following the true teachings and therefore put yourself. You are either Catholic and are loyal to all the teachings of the Church or your not. [/quote] Exactly.
popestpiusx Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:42 PM'] It's a term used by Schismatics... some say Neo-Catholic Those that tend to believe Vatican II was the greatest evil of the Catholic Church, they believe that it's a sin to take the Eucharist in hand, they tend to confuse discipline with faith and morals. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] Nothing like some good old fashioned exaggeration.
ironmonk Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 5 2004, 06:27 PM'] Nothing like some good old fashioned exaggeration. [/quote] no it's not. Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is. Also note the "TEND"... there are a few divisions of those schismatics stuck in the past and missing the point. God Bless, ironmonk
M.SIGGA Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 02:16 PM'] Lib Catholics are not real Catholics where as Conservative Catholics are totally 100% Catholic. [/quote] How can you say someone is no longer Catholic? If they were baptised and confirmed they are real Catholics, just ones that are living in mortal sin. How can they not be real Catholics if they are still required to go to Mass?
qfnol31 Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 (edited) [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:32 PM'] Bleh, taking the Eucharist by hand... Bleh. It's really an awful practice. I'm traditionilist in that being from an Easter Rite Catholic Church, we tend to be traditionilsts in what we do. However, I guess I'm a neo-conservative in that, I know what is acceptable now in light of V2. I accept it, but I do say, how sad I am that I didn't live in the time when discipline was also a part of faith and morals. My 2 cents. God bless, Mikey. [/quote] St. John Chrystostym gives some norms on receiving Holy Communion in the hand, so it can't be too bad. Edited August 6, 2004 by qfnol31
MichaelFilo Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 (edited) As I said, wherever I can be within Church teachings and stick to the 'olden days', I will. It's definatly licit to take communion by hand, I just see no reason for it. If they didn't need their hands for so long, why change now? Of course that would mean I'd be defending Latin only masses, and certain other things using that reasoning. Still, I would if it didn't go against church teaching. On a lighter side, being a neo-Conservatives isn't really a bad thing. It just means, new conservatives, as opposed to old ones, which need to be changed every few decades or so. God bless, Mikey Edited August 6, 2004 by MichaelFilo
Recommended Posts