Neo-conservatives

[amarkich]

I see, but how has this been done expressly regarding multiple Baptisms, and how do the multiple Baptisms not contradict Canon II on Baptism: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Thank you. God bless.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:27 PM'] I see, but how has this been done expressly regarding multiple Baptisms, and how do the multiple Baptisms not contradict Canon II on Baptism: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Thank you. God bless. [/quote]
What are you talking about? There is no such thing as multiple baptisms. The desire for baptism, is not a sacrament, but as the Tridentine Fathers teach, it has the effect of baptism. There is only one Sacrament of Baptism. As the Catechism states, ". . . [i]Baptism of blood[/i], like the [i]desire for Baptism[/i], brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 1258]

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[amarkich]

How can this be reconciled with Canon V then? Canon V: "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism; let him be anathema."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:42 PM'] How can this be reconciled with Canon V then? Canon V: "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism; let him be anathema." [/quote]
I don't know how many more times I can say this, but the desire for baptism is not a sacrament. It has the effect of the sacrament of baptism, without being a sacrament, and that is the teaching of the Fathers of Trent. It is vital to remember the following important doctrinal truth; the Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not, for He is free to bestow His grace through either the ordinary means instituted by Christ (i.e., the sacraments), or through extraordinary means of His own choosing. In other words, God cannot be limited.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[amarkich]

I did not say that Canon V was talking only about the Sacrament of Baptism; it could very well be speaking of 'baptism' as a concept (desire and blood included). The issue is that, no matter how one reads Canons II and V, it is impossible to reconcile them with "Baptisms" of blood and desire. We see in Canon II that water is necessary for Baptism (anything else is a metaphor and wresting the words of Our Lord). In response to this, one might say "Canon II is only referring to the Sacrament, not to the extraordinary means (desire and blood)." If this is to be accepted as true, all the Canons on Baptism must be speaking specifically of the Sacrament, i.e., the Canons do not make regulations concerning desire and blood, only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The problem here is that Canon V says that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If this is true (and the Canons are only speaking of sacramental Baptism), then sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. If the opposite is true, that "baptism" is actually speaking of the concept in general, not just the Sacrament, then the problem arises with Canon II which states that water is necessary for the concept of Baptism. They cannot have different meanings without distinction. Our Lord has already given us the directives for salvation and Baptism: "Unless a man is born again of [b]water[/b] and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Such an explicit command by God Himself cannot be lightly ignored and turned into some metaphor in which things other than water (desire, blood) can suffice for Baptism. I have typed out the entire Canons each time while citing them in a previous thread, but I must go to bed and do not have time to do that here. I will bring up the old thread and copy and paste the argument (which is articulated better) if you wish. God bless.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:57 PM'] I did not say that Canon V was talking only about the Sacrament of Baptism; it could very well be speaking of 'baptism' as a concept (desire and blood included). The issue is that, no matter how one reads Canons II and V, it is impossible to reconcile them with "Baptisms" of blood and desire. We see in Canon II that water is necessary for Baptism (anything else is a metaphor and wresting the words of Our Lord). In response to this, one might say "Canon II is only referring to the Sacrament, not to the extraordinary means (desire and blood)." If this is to be accepted as true, all the Canons on Baptism must be speaking specifically of the Sacrament, i.e., the Canons do not make regulations concerning desire and blood, only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The problem here is that Canon V says that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If this is true (and the Canons are only speaking of sacramental Baptism), then sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. If the opposite is true, that "baptism" is actually speaking of the concept in general, not just the Sacrament, then the problem arises with Canon II which states that water is necessary for the concept of Baptism. They cannot have different meanings without distinction. Our Lord has already given us the directives for salvation and Baptism: "Unless a man is born again of [b]water[/b] and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Such an explicit command by God Himself cannot be lightly ignored and turned into some metaphor in which things other than water (desire, blood) can suffice for Baptism. I have typed out the entire Canons each time while citing them in a previous thread, but I must go to bed and do not have time to do that here. I will bring up the old thread and copy and paste the argument (which is articulated better) if you wish. God bless. [/quote]
It is only impossible for those in dissent from the Church's Magisterium to reconcile the concepts of "baptism" of blood, and "baptism" of desire. I accept all the teachings of the Magisterium, including the teachings indicated in the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] on baptism, and the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston," which also speaks of the desire for baptism, either implicit or explicit.

Only the Magisterium can interpret its own documents, and so your inability to reconcile canons II and V of the Council of Trent with the teaching of the Magisterium, is a problem for you, not for the Church.

God bless,
Todd

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

amarkich,
I think I see the misunderstanding here...

Would I be correct in saying that Baptism of Desire (which has the effect of the Sacrament without being one) is only valid if the person doesn't have access to Sacramental Baptism?
As in: If a Catechumen died, at the point of death he would be "Baptized by Desire". But if he doesn't die, he doesn't actually have Baptism of Desire, even if he desires to be baptized. He would have to go through to Sacramental Baptism to be actually baptized.
In other words, the Catechumen is not Baptized by Desire, until he dies without Sacramental Baptism.

I use "Catechumen" in place of anyone who desires to be a member of the Catholic Church.

Edited August 13, 2004 by thedude

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 13 2004, 05:38 AM'] amarkich,
I think I see the misunderstanding here...

Would I be correct in saying that Baptism of Desire (which has the effect of the Sacrament without being one) is only valid if the person doesn't have access to Sacramental Baptism?
As in: If a Catechumen died, at the point of death he would be "Baptized by Desire".  But if he doesn't die, he doesn't actually have Baptism of Desire, even if he desires to be baptized.  He would have to go through to Sacramental Baptism to be actually baptized.
In other words, the Catechumen is not Baptized by Desire, until he dies without Sacramental Baptism.

I use "Catechumen" in place of anyone who desires to be a member of the Catholic Church. [/quote]
The 1949 [u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u] clarifies the nature of the desire necessary:

[quote name='Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing']In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, "Singulari quadam", in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore", in Denzinger, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).  The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801). [[u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u], 8 Aug. 1949][/quote]

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/13 - Sts. Pontian and Hippolytus

BTW, let's not turn tradition into something that is unbreakable - only Tradition is unable to be broken. The Church can break with every tradition she desires, so long as she does not break with Tradition; i.e., according to tradition, men in the Roman Rite were forbidden orders if they did not have a forefinger and a thumb with which to hold the sacred host. Priests who lost these were forbidden to say Mass. In fact, St. Issac Jogues had to get a special indult to say Mass after the American Indians cut off his thumbs and forefingers (this was a favorite torture for the American Indians, since they knew that priests couldn't say Mass without them). This tradition was done away with in the 19th century (I believe).

Also, tradition in the Roman Rite dictates that a curtain be pulled around the altar during the Eucharistic anaphora - this was done up through the 6th century, but this tradition, too, was cast out.

[i]Nota bene[/i], though, that I'm not dictating hard-and-fast rules as to what are and are not matters of Tradition; I'm just giving two examples of matters of tradition.

[kateri05]

[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]
Amen!!

[picchick]

Ahhh, I am back.


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.

It is probably true that “Traditionalists” have a great appreciation for antiquity, however, a person can be “neo-conservative” and still have a sense of it. Many phatmassers are like this. Jeff, Maxk, and myself are among them. I love the old things of our Church. I think that they are beautiful and needs to be used in the Mass today. I hate when people change things that have been a tradition in our Church for years and years. For example, priests deciding not to wear vestments or when they decide not to wear collars. I believe also that nuns should wear habits. I love having all the symbols in our Church. The way the Church is set up for example. Everyone is facing the same way. I do not like it when everyone is in a theater sort of setting. We are there for Christ not for each other. That is only a slice of my love for tradition. I will agree, there are many people who are not like that. They abuse the beauty of the Catholic Church’s liturgies. However, this is not the case with much of “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.

Again, my family is not like this. My parents always “required” us to dress up out of the ordinary for Mass. Ladies wore skirts or a dress. If it was bad weather then we wore dress pants. The Men wore suits. The little boys wore a shirt and tie or a polo shirt. It was a time to dress up and not look like a slob. We were all going to see Jesus and we needed to look our best. I will go into the head coverings later.

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.

Would you call me a “neo-conservative?” I don’t like using the term “neo-conservative” or “traditionalist” but I think I fit under the “neo-conservative” group. I DO AGREE THAT THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. Since it was inspired by God then how can it have error? It can’t. However, I think that we need to read the scripture in the context in which is written. God created the heavens and the earth. We were created man and woman in the image and likeness of God. We were made in special, separate from the other animals. God put us above them all. The Bible has been unaltered in the whole time in has been read and but together. So six days is what the author wrote. However, how long was six days in that time? Maybe it was six days but Noah also lived to the ripe old age of 950 years old. How can a man live in that time to be 950 years old when in the 1700 a man was expected to live to be only 43 years old? On top of that, they did not have the medical technology or use of sanitary as we do now. (Leviticus was past Noah’s days.) They could of measured their time a different way back then.

O.k., on to head coverings and the role of women in society. I agree with the inequality of authority. Women are not at the same level as men. Men were made by God in a certain way to be able to defend and lead. Women were not. However, I think that that statement can be abused and is abused by many men in the world. America's History is one example of that. Women were not allowed to vote and their opinion was thought of as stupid and worthless. I don't think that the bible verse intended that to be so. Many men take it to be that which I think is horrible.
One thing that I had trouble with is the head covering issue. My point was and kind of still is that in Jesus’ time, women and men had to cover their heads in the temple. Both were to express humility and unworthiness to be in the presence of the Lord. I understand now of a symbol of modesty. However, Amarkich quotes the scripture from St. Paul where if men were to wear a head covering then it would desecrate their heads. Then what about the men in those Jewish times? Was he condemning them or modifying the law? If he was modifying the law then why is it so bad for women now to not wear head coverings?

Also, Amarkich mentioned that a priest said that it was necessary for salvation for a woman to wear a head covering. That is illogical. It would be one more thing for a woman to do to in order to get to heaven. Plus this would also go against the Catechism. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. “What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense?” “In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.” This includes mortal sin. You are not saved if you are in the state of mortal sin. So if wearing a head covering for women is a necessity for salvation, then everyone who is not wearing a head covering is committing a mortal sin?

I have no problem with other women wearing there heads covered. I personally do not. I have nothing against it; I just was not brought up to believe that head coverings were necessary. I think that it is beautiful and wonderful to see other women wearing it. I think that it helps everyone around that women to stay focused on the most importand thing on hand. But to say that it is a sin and totally wrong not to wear one is confusing.
P.S. For those men who do abuse the bible verse and put women in the worthless category: women play an important role in the Church and it didn’t start with the feminist movement. Just remember, without a woman you would not be here. Without women there would be no priests. And if Mary didn’t say her wonderful “yes” or “fiat” then there would be no salvation.

[url="http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/LifeExpectancy.htm"]http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/LifeExpectancy.htm[/url]

[Mary's Knight, La]

just my $.02 here but the fourth point is met by virtually any public statement of faith and morals. there would be no point in giving a teaching unless you expected those under your authority to be bound by it.

[Apotheoun]

This kind of debate is pointless. I am neither a "traditionalist" nor am I a "neo-conservative"; instead, I am a Catholic. This sectarian desire to identify oneself with different groups (often times based on political categories of thought) is contrary to the Catholic faith.

God bless,
Todd

[picchick]

That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.

In Christ,
Meg

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 13 2004, 05:01 PM'] That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.

In Christ,
Meg [/quote]
Agreed.

God bless,
Todd

[Socrates]

[quote]That is what I am trying to argue! There is no "neo-conservative" or "traditionalist". You either are in the Mystical Body of Christ or you are not. You either take the three legged stool (Magestrium, Scripture and Tradition with a "T") of faith and follow the teachings of the Pope or you don't. You don't use the teachings for your own convience but because by those teachings you can train your conscience to know right from wrong. By those teachings you can be set FREE!! Anything apart from those teachings are not Catholic.[/quote]

Amen!

[Dave]

I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics.

[Azriel]

[quote name='Dave' date='Aug 13 2004, 08:44 PM'] I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics. [/quote]
Rock on bro.

[picchick]

I am glad that people are starting to agree.

Edited August 14, 2004 by picchick

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Dave' date='Aug 13 2004, 08:44 PM'] I think I'm gonna be a little blunt here -- dissident traditionalists are really no different from those "Catholics" who want the Church to change its positions on contraception, women priests, etc. Whether the former group admits it or not, they too are cafeteria Catholics. [/quote]
agreed. dissident traditionalists have allowed 'tradition' to somewhat supersede their faith. "those Catholics" have done the same with secular humanism. i think their faiths are similar to the meaning behind Jesus' discourse describing many of the Jewish authorities in the Gospel whose obscession with the law became their faith instead of God.