Hananiah Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 07:07 PM'] Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is. [/quote] I plan on reading it. Would you like to offer some substantive commentary on the contents, instead of just deriding it?
Hananiah Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 Perhaps a short list of points of contention is in order: Traditionalist: John Paul II is a poor to bad Pope Neo-conservative: John Paul II is the greatest since Peter! Traditionalist: The Council of Florence means what it says (extra ecclesiam nulla salus); you are misinterpreting the ambigious statement in the catechism Neo-conservative: the catechism means what it says; you are misinterpreting the clear statement of the council of Florence Traditionalist: It is sinful to encourage someone to break the first commandment Neo-conservative: Not when the Pope does it and it's part of the first stage of evangelization! Traditionalist: The new mass is a watered-down, de-Catholicized concoction of bureaucrats, though it confects the Eucharist Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree Traditionalist: Unconsecrated hands should not touch the sacred species Neo-conservative: Unconsecrated hands may touch the sacred species Traditionalist: Numbers don't lie. The Catholic Church would be better off today if Vatican II had never happened. Neo-conservative: It just hasn't been fully implemented yet! Traditionalist: it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain partsof Scripture or to admit the sacred writer has erred Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree Traditionalist: Russia has not yet been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate heart in accord with her request at Fatima Neo-conservative: John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984
MichaelFilo Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 Pope JPII Did not consencrate Russia. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say so ( or does the church say so, then I'm not in my right mind ). I agree about the Eucharist and the hand thing, but what the church says, it says. I don't get all of what you said, like breaking the first commandment and all that, can you clarify? V2 should not be blamed for the decrease in Catholics, although I can say that it can be a paritally true arguement. The basic culture of death has taken over. This is not V2's problem. I'm not very experienced with this stuff, you'll have to wait till Jeff comes back, but the stuff above, that I mentioned, can you tell me what you mean? God bless, Mikey
Hananiah Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:37 AM'] Pope JPII Did not consencrate Russia. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say so ( or does the church say so, then I'm not in my right mind ). [/quote] Apparently the Pope believes he fulfilled Our Lady's request, because on March 25, 2004 he said this: "Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima." Most, if not all traditionalists would disagree. [quote]I don't get all of what you said, like breaking the first commandment and all that, can you clarify?[/quote] Read what the Catechism has to say on the first commandment. When pagans pray to their idols, they break this commandment. Next, read any text of Catholic moral theology. It is sinful to encourage someone to break a commandment. Now draw the conclusion: it is sinful to encourage a pagan to pray to his idols. I will get edited if I name names.
MichaelFilo Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 (edited) JpII has done something of the sort? It's too bad I have no idea of anything like that. Would they edit it if you said.. anyways who knows. The pope can't honestly think he met the requirements. (This is not an attack on the pope, or his authority or anything of the sort. A pope may err.). I am fairly sure he did not meet the requirements. Do you have a source for that little quote you got off of him? Thank you and God bless, Mikey Edit added on: he did do that. I guess he was in spiritual union with them all. However, Our Lady asked for Russia specifically. There have been o converts in Russia in any great numbers, and there actually have been anti-Catholic laws that have been passed in Russia since the time JPII claims he fulfilled Our Lady's request at Fatima. I love JpII as I do all popes who have tried their best to remain in good standing with the Church, but he is clearly wrong on this (On private revelation, again not something that he is infallibly correct on ) Edited August 6, 2004 by MichaelFilo
Hananiah Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 6 2004, 02:08 AM'] JpII has done something of the sort? It's too bad I have no idea of anything like that. Would they edit it if you said.. anyways who knows. [/quote] dUst just did See: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16310"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16310[/url] [quote]The pope can't honestly think he met the requirements. (This is not an attack on the pope, or his authority or anything of the sort. A pope may err.). I am fairly sure he did not meet the requirements. Do you have a source for that little quote you got off of him?[/quote] I got it off an essay by my boss at Catholic Apologetics International, but a quick google search has provided corroboration. [url="http://www.cathnews.com/news/403/145.php"]http://www.cathnews.com/news/403/145.php[/url] If you want to continue this discussion I would suggest using e-mail. My address is hananiah5@yahoo.com
p0lar_bear Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 MichaelFilo, Not only does the Holy Father believe he has consecrated Russia, Sr. Luciana (the remaining visionary) agrees. The Pope consecrated the world to Mary on March 25, 1984 in St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City. His 1984 consecration prayer is reprinted at the Blue Army’s website (www.bluearmy.com). (The Blue Army’s phone number is (908) 689-1701.) The consecration prayer was included as part of a statement that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued on Fatima in 2000, and which Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the CDF’s secretary, signed. From the CDF statement, which can be read in whole at [url="http://www.bluearmy.com/Message%20of%20Fatima.htm:"]http://www.bluearmy.com/Message%20of%20Fatima.htm:[/url] In order to respond more fully to the requests of “Our Lady,” the Holy Father desired to make more explicit during the Holy Year of the Redemption the Act of Entrustment of 7 May 1981, which had been repeated in Fatima on 13 May 1982. On 25 March 1984 in Saint Peter's Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the Bishops of the world, who had been “convoked” beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in terms which recalled the heartfelt words spoken in 1981: O Mother of all men and women, and of all peoples, you who know all their sufferings and their hopes, you who have a mother's awareness of all the struggles between good and evil, between light and darkness, which afflict the modern world, accept the cry which we, moved by the Holy Spirit, address directly to your Heart. Embrace with the love of the Mother and Handmaid of the Lord, this human world of ours, which we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthly and eternal destiny of individuals and peoples. In a special way we entrust and consecrate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated. We have recourse to your protection, holy Mother of God! Despise not our petitions in our necessities. [Switching briefly from the papal consecration prayer to related commentary, the CDF document continues:] The Pope then continued more forcefully and with more specific references, as though commenting on the Message of Fatima in its sorrowful fulfillment: Behold, as we stand before you, Mother of Christ, before your Immaculate Heart, we desire, together with the whole Church, to unite ourselves with the consecration which, for love of us, your Son made of himself to the Father: “For their sake,” he said, “I consecrate myself that they also may be consecrated in the truth” (Jn 17:19). We wish to unite ourselves with his divine Heart, has the power to obtain pardon and to secure reparation (emphasis in papal consecration prayer original). After quoting the rest of the papal consecration prayer, the CDF document added: Sister Lucia [the still-surviving Fatima seer] personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis. In summary, Pope John Paul II has consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the Fatima visionary Sister Lucia affirmed that the act of consecration was as Our Lady of Fatima prescribed.
amarkich Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 My brother was suspended until August 25... for some reason the IP address is completely blocked. I cannot access the forum except by another computer (right now I'm in an office at my church). I won't be able to post any responses to any threads (including the crossdressing one, unfortunately) until that time (Aug. 25).
picchick Posted August 7, 2004 Author Posted August 7, 2004 [quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 5 2004, 11:21 PM'] 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? [/quote] I do not fully agree with the statement that you quoted. However, if someone knowingly disagrees with a teaching of the Church then that that person has broken himself away from the Chruch. Since he is broken away from the Church, he is no longer Catholic. He kinda has made another denomination for himself. At least this is what I was taught. Can someone correct me on this if I am wrong?
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 7, 2004 Posted August 7, 2004 A quick late night/ early morning reflection on something previously said in this post, brought to you from the wonderful city of St. Louis! (which, I might add, has an amazing basilica downtown - the largest collection of mosaics [i]in the world[/i]! Definately one of the most gorgeous churches I've ever been in!) [quote]Traditionalist: John Paul II is a poor to bad Pope Neo-conservative: John Paul II is the greatest since Peter! Traditionalist: The Council of Florence means what it says (extra ecclesiam nulla salus); you are misinterpreting the ambigious statement in the catechism Neo-conservative: the catechism means what it says; you are misinterpreting the clear statement of the council of Florence Traditionalist: It is sinful to encourage someone to break the first commandment Neo-conservative: Not when the Pope does it and it's part of the first stage of evangelization! Traditionalist: The new mass is a watered-down, de-Catholicized concoction of bureaucrats, though it confects the Eucharist Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree Traditionalist: Unconsecrated hands should not touch the sacred species Neo-conservative: Unconsecrated hands may touch the sacred species Traditionalist: Numbers don't lie. The Catholic Church would be better off today if Vatican II had never happened. Neo-conservative: It just hasn't been fully implemented yet! Traditionalist: it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain partsof Scripture or to admit the sacred writer has erred Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree Traditionalist: Russia has not yet been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate heart in accord with her request at Fatima Neo-conservative: John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984[/quote] I would like to add one more to this list: Traditionalist: Is living in a state of sin (very possibly mortal sin) Neo-conservative: Is in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and the living Magisterium why do I say this? Well, if the "Traditionalists" really do hold the views that Hananiah claims that they do, then they are in direct violation of the following: [quote]"Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking" (LG: 25).[/quote] and if that didn't spell it out clearly enough: [quote]"Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act" (New Code of Canon Law;Canon 752). [/quote] Now, as Hananiah has clearly pointed out, the "Traditionalists" are all about the clear meaning of catholic teachings (witness his second statement quoted above). That having been said, they are clearly in direct opposition to both the teachings of [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] as well as being in direct violation of Canon Law. Moreover, they only increase the gravity of their sin by publicly espousing their beliefs and creating scandal in the Church. If I had to pick between whether or not they are in a state of venial or mortal sin, I would argue that, by virtue of the public opposition (like posting their beliefs on an online forum where literally [i]anyone[/i] can see them), they are in a state of mortal sin. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff - PS, can't wait to get home, I miss you all!
Apotheoun Posted August 7, 2004 Posted August 7, 2004 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Aug 5 2004, 11:57 AM'] 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. [/quote] As a Ruthenian (Byzantine) Catholic the whole communion in the hand thing is a non-issue, because we receive both species at the same time from the priest administered on a golden spoon. But when I was Latin Rite Catholic, and even now when I on occasion attend Mass at a Latin Rite Church, I receive communion on the tongue under the species of bread alone. God bless, Todd
Apotheoun Posted August 7, 2004 Posted August 7, 2004 As far as the main point of this thread is concerned (i.e., the use of the term "neo-conservative" in order to describe people faithful to the Magisterium), I never use political terms in connection with membership in the Church. The whole idea of applying names like, "neo-conservative," or "neo-Catholic," or "traditionalist," etc., to members of the Catholic Church is sectarian and completely foreign to true Catholic sensibilities. God bless, Todd
picchick Posted August 7, 2004 Author Posted August 7, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 7 2004, 12:47 AM'] Traditionalist: Is living in a state of sin (very possibly mortal sin) Neo-conservative: Is in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and the living Magisterium why do I say this? Well, if the "Traditionalists" really do hold the views that Hananiah claims that they do, then they are in direct violation of the following [/quote] I don't think that that and Hananiah's are a very good statements. 1. It is very judgemental. 2. Not all "Traditionalists" are not in full Communion with the Pope. I think that it is still possible to go to a "Latin" (for lack of better term) Mass and be traditional in different aspects of life, (women wearing dresses, recieving on the tongue, thinking that only boys should serve, etc) and still be in line with the pope. Same thing with "neo-conservatives".
cmotherofpirl Posted August 7, 2004 Posted August 7, 2004 (edited) Traditionalist: The Council of Florence means what it says (extra ecclesiam nulla salus); you are misinterpreting the ambigious statement in the catechism Neo-conservative: the catechism means what it says; you are misinterpreting the clear statement of the council of Florence [color=green]QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines) Pope Pius IX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Encyclical Promulgated on 10 August 1863 7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. [u]Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.[/u] 8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11] 4. Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo. 5. Mt 15.17. 6. Lk 10.16. 7. Mk 16.16. 8. Jn 3.18. 9. Lk 11.23. 10. Ti 3.11. 11. 2 Pt 2.1. [/color] Edited August 7, 2004 by cmotherofpirl
kateri05 Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 in regards to this comment: Traditionalist: it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain partsof Scripture or to admit the sacred writer has erred Neo-conservative: Some agree, some disagree i would just like to add that the Church, for all time, has taught that divine inerrancy of scriptures is absolute: there are no errors and it is all inspired. The Magisterium has always taught this, with clarifications in the past 2 centuries after people were debating it (see Dei Verbum (sp?) and some other papal writings). Regardless of any sectarian divisions you would like to put on people within the Church, anyone who is in full communion with the Magisterium would agree in the divine errancy of Scripture, simply because that is what She teaches. I just finished listening to a whole lecture on this by Dr. Scott Hahn and was horrified to know that I had been taught contrary during my 12 years of Catholic school (where do they GET those religion teachers?! :angry: ). Faithful Catholics should all be aware of this so that they might spread the word to others who might not know. I'm not sure who you are labeling as "neo-conservative" within the current Magisterium, but they ALL believe in the Divine Inerrancy of Scripture because it is NOTHING new and was actually settled in the 1800s... too bad no one listens to them anymore!!
amarkich Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 (edited) I essentially agree with Hananiah's analysis. As he said, those are just a few of the issues. More could be said for the liturgical indifference of the neo-conservatives, but, as he said, those are a few examples; most of the categories of which he speaks could have more in-depth analysis, but it is unnecessary to go into evey little detail. I would also say that Traditionalists have a general sense of antiquity and an appreciation for it whereas this is generally not seen with most neo-conservatives. While this is not a specific point, it is still a generalization based on several things, e.g., dressing more formally and more nicely for Mass (suits for men, modest dresses with head coverings for women compared to a collared shirt for men and a moderately dressy outfit for women, possibly a skirt or dress but usually not); a greater wealth of knowledge concerning traditional concepts (family histories, traditional customs, classic manners and etiquette) whereas this is usually not a major part of a neo-conservative setting; more traditional styles of dress and speech with an aura of antiquity and politeness in general (N.B., this last observation touches mostly on the culture of the two separate groups (for lack of a better word) more than the beliefs, for, as I said, there are many different beliefs and practices as far as specifics are concerned. I would at least mention the fact that honest, orthodox Traditionalists (N.B., this excludes false "Traditionalists" like Sedevacantists) will assert the validity of a properly said Novus Ordo but would not support its use and would be glad to see an abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Neo-conservatives have a general attitude of "moving forward" (this is one of many catch phrases to describe the attitude which has been posed to me by the neo-conservatives themselves) which does not include an abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae. As far as I know, most neo-conservatives admit the fact that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated (which the present hierarchy also admits) and that the Traditional Mass can be said by any Priest of the Latin Rite, at least as a private Mass (and possibly of any rite; I am not sure about this point, however). By the way, does anyone know if there is such a thing as a private Novus Ordo Mass? I know a Priest who was forbidden by his Pastor to say the Novus Ordo correctly (Latin, ad orientem, etc), and he was even doing a "private" Mass (but there were about thirty people attending)! I know that in the Traditional Mass a private Mass was a Mass which does not replace a public Mass for the Parish and which is limited to only one altar boy. Does a Novus Ordo Mass simply remove the secondary obligation (only one altar boy) and maintain the first part of the definition of a private Mass (that it be done by a Priest individually, apart from a public Parish Mass)? If anyone knows, I would appreciate any answers to those which are known. Thank you. God bless. I also have one more thing to say: [quote]Read the book "The Great Facade" - What a joke that garbage is.[/quote] Please refrain from making ridiculous comments like this one. To make a comment with absolutely no support reveals several things about a person. Must we recall the words of the deist, Abraham Lincoln? I hope not. In any event, have you even read the book? If you have, you have not even cited an error in the book. Even if you were to cite an "error", you would be obliged to explain why such a comment is erroneous. By demeaning a scholarly work without any support, especially to do so with such superficial syntax and diction, is quite fatuous (be aware of the Latin word from which this is derived). I have not read the book in full, but from what I have read I have seen nothing but objective, scholarly work on behalf of the renowned authors. If you wish to comment on the book, please do so, but understand that people will not take comments like the one above as truth, especially when they are completely unsubstantiated. God bless. Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich
qfnol31 Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 7 2004, 09:24 PM'] By the way, does anyone know if there is such a thing as a private Novus Ordo Mass? [/quote] Yes, there is actually. Hmm, where do I fit into all of this? I seem to believe much of both...
amarkich Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 (edited) Kateri, all Traditionalists agree with you (and the Magisterium) concerning the inerrancy of Scripture, but modern "Catholic" Biblical scholarship disagrees completely with us on this issue. I would not even be as generous as Hananiah was by saying "some agee, some disagree", for I do not know a single neo-conservative who agrees (well, maybe one, but he is converting to Traditionalism currently). Almost no neo-conservatives assert a six day Creation or a "young earth" belief. They almost exclusively ascribe to the Modernism of current "Catholic" scholarship and assert that Creation did (or could have) been effected by even such extreme things as macro-evolution. Many (even if they do not believe in macro-evolution) do not believe in a young earth, either. This is at least one issue where there is a rift between the Church's teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture and most neo-conservatives. Another important issue on which the neo-conservatives disagree with Scripture is concerning most (or all) of the verses which relate to the inequality of men and women at least as far as authority is concerned, e.g., women must cover their heads (I Cor. XI), women must submit to husbands in all matters and must be submissive (I Cor. xiv.34,35; I Tim. ii.11-15; Col. iii.18; Eph. v.22-33; I St. Peter iii.1-5). This is a very hot topic among most neo-conservatives with all kinds of different beliefs being deduced from these passages ranging from the Traditionalist view even to the Liberal view (that women are completely "equal" and that there is no distinction in authority in the family, in society, and, regarding some issues, in the Church). These are the two biggest examples in which neo-conservatives do not adhere to the inerrancy of Scripture (even if they pay this doctrine lip service). Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich
qfnol31 Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 Amarkich, may I make a humble request? Would you mind breaking up your posts between thoughts? Thanx very much. I had a hard time finding the question in there.
amarkich Posted August 8, 2004 Posted August 8, 2004 I am sorry. I have a habit of not doing that, but I had been doing a good job of remembering recently. I will do my best to edit it to your liking. God bless.
Recommended Posts