Neo-conservatives

[Aloysius]

inerrancy of scripture doesn't mean every passage should be taken literally. it should be taken in the intention that the Sacred Author wrote it in.

6 day creation is not literal. Cite me one Church Teaching that says it is. Saying it is not is not admitting error to scripture, it is saying that Scripture does not teach that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour days.

6000 year old earth is not even contained in scripture, but put onto scripture by biblical scholars who search through all the events it describes and all the ages it lists. to say that scripture might ommit irrelevent parts of history is not to admit error to scripture.

as to women:
men should be the spiritual head of their household. they should lead the family in prayer and give blessings to their wife and children. the woman should be submissive to the husband as he is the head of the household. the husband should act self-sacrificially to the wife. thus, men and women are equal in dignity due to them, but they are different in role. as to women and head coverings: i would actually like it if this discipline returned, and know that Fulton Sheen believed it to be a Divine Command. I don't know quite how to view this one: in some sense i would like to admit it as simply a discipline Paul was imposing upon the Church in Corinth to teach those women humility. on the other hand, i know that throughout the majority of Church History and even by Archbishop Sheen who I have tons of respect for, it as a Divine Command. However, in light of the fact that the Church has officially loosened this for now, i must accept that it must be only a discipline. St. Paul as an Apostle imposed a discipline upon the Church in Corinth to teach it modesty and humility. Seeing the lack of modesty and humility in today's Church, i believe it should be put back into place. Thus: i believe it is not to be considered something that is absolutely necessary, however it should be seen as a pius discipline which we should return to. but right now, the discipline is not in effect and thus women are not required to do it, and commit no sin or sacrilidge by not doing it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 7 2004, 10:05 PM'] 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. [/quote]
LoL, thanx. I don't mind so much, but it's fun to respond to.

[Iacobus]

I think that is way too much of a generalization and things like that lead to errors and mistakes. So I would advise against saying that (regardless of its validity).

[amarkich]

Aloysius, thank you for the response. I apologize that I will not be able to make a full reply at this point because I am very tired and have a full day planned for tomorrow. I hope to be able to reply to posts on Monday. I will be sure to reply to this thread as soon as possible. I will be glad to discuss Creationism as Genesis taught it in its entirety (time period, age of the earth, etc) and the inequality of men and women (the higher authority of men and the higher dignity of women--over laymen at least, this would not apply, of course, to clergy), but for now I will only discuss head coverings. Not only did Archbishop Sheen say that it was a Divine Command, Saint Paul does as well (at least a command of natural law, which is, in effect, Divine Law in its most basic form). The first thing that needs to be understood is that the Church has not "loosed" the command of women to cover their heads. This has simply been omitted (erroneously) from the new Code of Canon Law, but this has no bearing on the obligation imposed by Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and natural law.


The fact that Canon Law does not speak of the practice of women covering their heads (neither requiring it specifically nor loosing it specifically), does not mean that it is not required. This would mean that women before 1917 in some parts of the Church would not have to cover their heads in church (N.B., 1917 was the first and only other time that canon law was codefied for the universal Church; before this time there were only local canons; this would mean that in places in which there was no written canon requiring women to cover their heads that they would have no obligation to do this, but this cannot be true because the command predates any form of written canon law in general with Saint Paul and then, definitively, with the second Pope, Saint Linus). In any event, we see the command given by Sacred Tradition (it is commanded by the Bible and definitely commanded by the second Pope) and by Sacred Scripture (in I Corinthians XI). Likewise, natural law requires women to cover their heads. The proof for Sacred Tradition needs no further reference than Saint Linus's decree that women may not enter a church without their heads covered. The proof from Sacred Scripture is found in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians as follows:

"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels." c.f., I Corinthians xi.1-10.

Saint Paul makes the affirmation of natural law in verse 14, saying:

"You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering." c.f., I Corinthians xi.13-15.


Saint Paul illustrates the divine command that a woman cover her head and the intrinsic, natural law which commands this. The Priest at a nearby Parish (Novus Ordo) says absolutely that Saint Paul states that a woman covering her head is necessary for salvation. He is not the Pastor, so he has not been able to proclaim this from the pulpit, but he told it to those who stay after daily Mass to talk (when I still went to Novus Ordo). In any event, he offered to buy a veil for one of his parishoners if she would wear it. He succeeded, and she now wears it to every Mass, regardless of where it is. Saint Paul's words speak for themselves. The Word of God states absolutely that a woman disgraceth her head if she does not cover it when praying. We must say with Saint Thomas Aquinas "than Truth's own Word there is no truer token" and acknowledge that God's commands are manifested to us not only through the canonical observances and obligations but also through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and natural law. God bless.

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[qfnol31]

I wish women would cover their heads and people would wear nicer clothes to Mass (well, at least on Sunday, I know other days it can be more difficult).

Edited: And that meatless Fridays were pushed more.

Edited August 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[Donna]

A lot of info/divergent points discussed in this thread, yet it doesn't seem disjointed (maybe because I [i]am[/i]).

Amarkick (will you be offended if I nickname you?), thanks for spacing your paragraphs. It's most helpful.

Ahem, if my husband says I must attend the New Mass, I certainly do not have to submit. However, in light of domestic harmony, it might be well to refrain from making an issue out of it, but quietly go about doing what I must, praying and sacrificing for agreement.

Lastly, the only Blue Army I know of are Trads who took back that militant name. The once-Blue Army is (I think) called the World Apostolate of Fatima, but I could be wrong about that.

I am wondering a few things related, like why the World Apostolate or someone else didn't make it known til 5 years after the fact of the 1984 Papal Act, that this consecration was fulfilled. According to Sister Lucy's letter as cited in the CDF document [i]The Message of Fatima[/i], she wrote that letter to... what was it, some professor in the world asking for clarification? Who could've known it would be that easy to get matters settled, just write her a letter since no one can get access to her unless he have permission from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Also, why do people keep calling this act the consecration of [i]Russia[/i]? That name was never uttered.

[Donna]

Our Lady must have changed her mind about the requirements*?


[b]Text of July 13, 1917, Fatima, Portugal - the Third Apparition of Our Lady[/b]
(excerpt from [i]"Fatima in Lucia's Own Words[/i]", p.162)

[i]"You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go.
To save them, God wishes to establish in the world de-
votion to my Immaculate Heart. [b]If what I say to you is
done many souls will be saved and there will be peace.[/b]
The war is going to end; but if people do not cease of-
fending God, a worse one will break out during the ponti-
ficate of Pius XI.

"When you see a night illumined by an unknown light,
know that this is the great sign given to you by God that
He is about to punish the world for its crimes,[b] by means[/b]
[b]of[/b] war, famine and [b]persecutions of the Church and of the
Holy Father.[/b]

"[b]To prevent this[/b] [punishment of the world by the means of war,
famine and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father]
[b]I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia, and the Com-
munion of Reparation on the First Saturdays[/b]. If my requests are
heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not,
she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and
persecutions of the Church..."[/i]
_______________________________________________________________

[b]Text of the Request for the Consecration of Russia[/b]

(excert from "[i]Fatima in Lucia's Own Words[/i]", p. 235)

[b]June 13, 1929, Tuy, Spain[/b]
Our Lady then said to me:

[b]"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father,
in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the conse-
cration of Russia[/b] to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save
it by this means..."
_________________________________________________________________

* requirements
a) Consecration of Russia by Holy Father to the IHM
b) 'a' done "In union with all the bishops of the world"
c) "The Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays"

Edited August 8, 2004 by Donna

[picchick]

I have many comments to contribute but right now I am unable to. I will do it as soon as possible. Sorry.

[Aloysius]

uh oh, here come the black helicopters i better put on my tin foil hat.

that's all I have to say about your little conspiracy theories about Ratzinger and Sister Lucy. She was the one with the visions, she said it was fulfilled, Our Lady thus accepted "the world" as including russia.

someone else will have to step in on the head covering issue, for I myself am biased to the wish that women still did cover their heads. i still kind of hold that it is a discipline St. Paul is imposing upon that Church. I do have one question: does a monk disgrace his head if he prayers with his hood up? it would seem to me that these things are a discipline used to teach the people higher truths.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 7 2004, 11:10 PM']
as to women:
men should be the spiritual head of their household. they should lead the family in prayer and give blessings to their wife and children. the woman should be submissive to the husband as he is the head of the household. the husband should act self-sacrificially to the wife. thus, men and women are equal in dignity due to them, but they are different in role. as to women and head coverings: i would actually like it if this discipline returned, and know that Fulton Sheen believed it to be a Divine Command. I don't know quite how to view this one: in some sense i would like to admit it as simply a discipline Paul was imposing upon the Church in Corinth to teach those women humility. on the other hand, i know that throughout the majority of Church History and even by Archbishop Sheen who I have tons of respect for, it as a Divine Command. However, in light of the fact that the Church has officially loosened this for now, i must accept that it must be only a discipline. St. Paul as an Apostle imposed a discipline upon the Church in Corinth to teach it modesty and humility. Seeing the lack of modesty and humility in today's Church, i believe it should be put back into place. Thus: i believe it is not to be considered something that is absolutely necessary, however it should be seen as a pius discipline which we should return to. but right now, the discipline is not in effect and thus women are not required to do it, and commit no sin or sacrilidge by not doing it. [/quote]
I really like where Paul talks about husbands and wives in Eph 5. At first it was a hard passage, what with feminism and everything being thrown at us in school and all, but then someone at school explained it. Like you say, husbands and wives are equal in their dignity, but I do believe the husband has the final say in decisions. After all, it says for wives to submit, and if the husband is truly living up to his part of loving his wife with a self-sacrificial, Christ-like love, what wife wouldn't want to submit?
As for the head coverings, I could be way off here (still studying), but I am a believer in putting Scripture in historical context as well. Any woman in Corinth who did not have her head covered at that time was almost guaranteed to be a prostitute, so I see it as a lesson in modesty. Obviously we should be dressed modestly in church and elsewhere, as it would be a disgrace to ourselves otherwise. Just my opinion. . .

[MichaelFilo]

Thank you shinobi, I did not know that about Cornith. You may very well be right.

While I am sure everyone agrees that it is better if women covered their heads in Church, I wouldn't go so far as what amarkich said,

[quote]Saint Paul illustrates the divine command that a woman cover her head and the intrinsic, natural law which commands this. The Priest at a nearby Parish (Novus Ordo) says absolutely that Saint Paul states that a woman covering her head is necessary for salvation[/quote]

This is especially not true in light of what Shinobi just posted.

God bless,

Mikey

[Archaeology cat]

I hope I'm telling you correctly in this. I'm going off of my studies, which could be limited. I know that, if you look at the Roman busts of women during this period, all "respectable" women had their heads covered and would have been considered "loose" if they hadn't. I'm not entirely convinced it would be better per se for women to cover their heads in church. I guess whatever causes less of a distraction from worshipping. But yeah, I tend to use my archaeology & history when reading the Scripture (of course placing Scripture first, since it's inerrant) to give me a better understanding of what was going on at that time so I can better apply it to my life now.

[amarkich]

MichaelFilo,
I am not incorrect "in light of what Shinobi said" because Shinobi offered his own opinions based on personal studies which he himself claims could very well be in error. It is important to understand the historical context of Scripture to some extent, but direct commands that harken back to human nature (as Saint Paul says) do not somehow base themselves on culture or subjective beliefs. These are direct commands from Scripture. Direct commands from Scripture (and Sacred Tradition, and the Church, and human nature) must be obeyed. My arguments have not been addressed. They still stand until they are addressed. Further, it is not important to worry about what is "less distracting" to individuals (humans) unless we have first fulfilled the commands of God and asked the question concerning which is "more honorable" to God.

[Socrates]

I dislike the application of political terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to the Church. They only muddy up and trivialize Church issues.
I'm familiar with the term "Neoconservative" used to refer to largely Jewish ex-Democrat Republicans who favor big government and hawkish foreign policy. This does not seem to have much relation to how this word is being used here. Presumably it is a word used by "Traditionalists" (e.g. schismatics) to refer to Catholics loyal to Rome.

I say "Traditionalists" should stop calling themselves that, and call themselves "Neo-Protestants." They really are not much different from the original Protestants such as Luther. Rejecting the current Church in Rome as corrupt, heretical, and apostate, they have no authority but their own to guide them. Whereas the original Protestants have "Sola Scriptura" using their own interpretations of of Scripture passages to justify their dissent, "Rad-Trad" Neo-Protestants use their own interpretation of Scripture and selected past Church documents, often pulled out of context, to justify dissent against current Church authority. In both cases, one rejects the authority and guidance of the Pope and Magisterium, and is left ultimately only with one's own opinion as one's guide.

Edited August 12, 2004 by Socrates

[Azriel]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 12 2004, 02:27 PM'] I dislike the application of political terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to the Church. They only muddy up and trivialize Church issues.
I'm familiar with the term "Neoconservative" used to refer to largely Jewish ex-Democrat Republicans who favor big government and hawkish foreign policy. This does not seem to have much relation to how this word is being used here. Presumably it is a word used by "Traditionalists" (e.g. schismatics) to refer to Catholics loyal to Rome.

I say "Traditionalists" should stop calling themselves that, and call themselves "Neo-Protestants." They really are not much different from the original Protestants such as Luther. Rejecting the current Church in Rome as corrupt, heretical, and apostate, they have no authority but their own to guide them. Whereas the original Protestants have "Sola Scriptura" using their own interpretations of of Scripture passages to justify their dissent, "Rad-Trad" Neo-Protestants use their own interpretation of Scripture and selected past Church documents, often pulled out of context, to justify dissent against current Church authority. In both cases, one rejects the authority and guidance of the Pope and Magisterium, and is left ultimately only with one's own opinion as one's guide. [/quote]
:knockout:

[amarkich]

People who call "conservative" a political word do so out of ignorance (lack of knowledge about a subject). The word conservative takes a political denotation on its fourth definition: "4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement." The word conservative first means a person who is traditional: "1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." The next two definitions deal with similar characteristics: "2. Traditional or restrained in style: [i]a conservative dark suit[/i]. 3. Moderate; cautious: [i]a conservative estimate[/i]." These things have nothing to do with politics. Neo-conservatives only slightly match the primary definition of the word. A person who favors traditional [i]views[/i] and [i]values[/i] is a conservative. I believe we have seen absolutely that the best definition of a neo-conservative is a person who bases most of his societal views on the practices of society (this is not to be confused with [i]moral[/i] views). Neo-conservatives will usually assert that adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, and all the immoral acts condemned by the Church and Scripture are, in fact, unacceptable, but they balk at any statement contrary to current societal practice, e.g., women can wear pants, women can work and deserve equal pay as men, the woman's place is not in the home, women do not have to cover their heads in church, men and women are essentially equal in all respects--women have no greater dignity than men and men have no greater duty or "privilege" of working rather than staying home, as a traditional wife does--etc, etc, etc. This is the essence of a neo-conservative--one who embraces Modernism under the pretext of societal norms but does not fully accept it in religion (only concerning women covering their heads and representing offices of the Church, e.g., Lector). The term quasi-Modernist should be synonymous with neo-conservative.

[cmotherofpirl]

The people you call quasi-modernists happen to be in the Catholic Church, and those people Socrates refers to as Neo-Protestants are not.

Big difference.

[amarkich]

Well, it depends. There may be Sedevacantists (false Traditionalists, to whom I assume he is referring by saying "Traditionalist") who are baptized, confirmed, go to Mass, etc, etc, etc. This does not mean that they are faithful Catholics. The same can be said of the neo-conservatives; if they are heretics, the fact that they attend Mass does not make them faithful Catholics. As Saint Augustine says:

"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the [b]sacraments[/b], one can [b]sing alleluia[/b], one can [b]answer amen[/b], one can have [b]faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost[/b], and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

In any event, it is simply a matter of understanding who is actually committing heresy. Most Catholics today are at least material heretics (even if by ignorance) on several of the Church's teachings, especially contraception; if they deny a single teaching of the Church, they are at least material heretics denying the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 06:49 PM'] In any event, it is simply a matter of understanding who is actually committing heresy. Most Catholics today are at least material heretics (even if by ignorance) on several of the Church's teachings, especially contraception; if they deny a single teaching of the Church, they are at least material heretics denying the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. [/quote]
The same can be said of those ultra-traditionalist Catholics who, even though they pledge allegiance to the pope, buy into heretical teachings such as Feeneyism or that NFP is just as sinful as contraception (I'm not talking about the misuse of NFP -- just using NFP itself).

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen to that, most particularly is the teaching on submitting the will and intellect to the teachings of the Church. Other things that come to my mind are the arguments over latin/vernacular