Trads

[azaelia]

[b]Neo-Conservatism[/b] An intellectual and [i]political[/i] movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s.

[b]Conservatism[/b] A [i]political[/i] philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

[b]Liberalism[/b] A [i]political[/i] theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

lets not debate the issues. i am well aware of your arguments and also what you believe. so i showed you what i believe.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the real difference between a neo-conservatice catholic and a conservative catholic. Is that the conservative did not appreciate the changes of vatican II (Ie. Ecumenicism, the new mass, etc.) but still accepted them so not to "break" with the church. but a neo conservative follows everything the Pope says or does.

[azaelia]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 07:58 PM']what if your a catholic who goes to an indult mass and [b]dosen't accept Vatican II as a legitimite council[/b]? does that make you schismatic?
[right][snapback]688250[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pretty much.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

wasn't the SSPX only excommunicated because of the 1988 consecrations NOT because of it not accepting certain changes made to the church in the council?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

My past spiritual director called me an "super-conservative-ultra-radical"... what would I vote under?

I attend the Novus Ordo Mass, LOVE Vatican II (just think it's HIGHLY misinterpreted by many priests--or rather, many priests merely use the Council as an excuse for their poor celebrations of the Liturgy), and "discuss"/"argue" liturgical documents with most of the priests I know. :

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Neo-conservative

[azaelia]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 08:08 PM']wasn't the SSPX only excommunicated because of the 1988 consecrations NOT because of it not accepting certain changes made to the church in the council?
[right][snapback]688271[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I won't pretend I know the answer to that. But I ask, what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Just because it wasn't the reason they were excommunicated doesn't mean that by not accepting the council they didn't break with the Church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i have a question for you what does the price of eggs have to do with the SSPX?

[azaelia]

It's an expression.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

what does it mean?

that isn't really a good argument. to break with the church you must be excommunicated.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 08:11 PM']Neo-conservative
[right][snapback]688275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't like "neo"... I always read that as "pansy-ish"-- like, "almost, but not quite".

I would call myself a conservative. But I accept Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council, even if I disagree with the way in which most have interpreted it. I think our Holy Father will be very intentional about straightening out priests and the Liturgy.

I don't attend a Tridentine indult Mass because the majority of parishoners I've met that attend one, act as though the Novus Ordo Mass is a sin and everyone that attends the Novus Ordo is a hand-raising, "tongues" blabbering, charismatic... which is not the case.

(reading other parts of the thread)
A rejection of an Ecumenical Council is a rejection of the Church-- a rejection of the authority of the Church, and a rejection of confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. I read ALLLLLL the documents of Vatican II and didn't find fault with much of what was said, nor do I think the radical changes we see often implemented in the Novus Ordo were called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium, etc.-- and for that matter, most priests don't even know that. I've only met two priests that have actually read most of the documents from V2. Fault that that may be, very priests intentionally hijack the Liturgy with their own ideas and interpretations.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

not if the ecumenical council is not infalliabile

[azaelia]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 08:18 PM']what does it mean?

that isn't really a good argument. to break with the church you must be excommunicated.
[right][snapback]688284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It means "What does that have to do with what we're talking about? How is it relevant?"

And you can break with the Church unofficially. Do you think that every single Catholic who ever broke with Rome was excommunicated individually?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

no but i don't think that the SSPX's excommunication was valid

[azaelia]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 08:26 PM']no but i don't think that the SSPX's excommunication was valid
[right][snapback]688297[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well that's your personal position, not the Church's.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the Vatican itself admits (as it must) that traditional Catholics
and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic," as when the
traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received
into "full communion" with the Novus Ordo on January 18, 2002,
the Vatican did not pretend to absolve them from any censure for
"schism," which would have been necessary, had the Vatican legally
been able to hold them "schismatic"

[Fidei Defensor]

I think this is going to need to be moved to the debate table.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 17 2005, 08:23 PM']not if the ecumenical council is not infalliabile
[right][snapback]688292[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Decisions are binding on the faithful.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

so you are saying non-infalliabile decisions are binding to the faithful?
thats only if they do not contradidict previous catholic Dogma.