These "neo-Catholics" are a total fantasy in your brain. I've never met anybody who believes such rubbish. And yes, your use of the term demonstrates that you believe the Vatican II Council created a new religion. You share this belief with many modernist dissenters. You completely caricature and misrepresent what the Catholic Church stands for, what the Catholic Church teaches, what the Pope believes and teaches. You create fantasy straw men in order to impugn faithful and orthodox Catholics and equate them with liberal dissenters who are the true enemies of the faith. You have no desire to build up orthodoxy in the Church. You simply want to tear down the Catholic Church and the Pope and build up your schismatic sect. And as I have said to you countless times, your utterly subjective private judgment that it is necessary to disobey legitimate authority of an orthodox pope because you disagree with certain liturgical legislation that is not part of the deposit of faith (and especially when the Tridentine rite is allowed by the authority you thumb your nose at) simply makes a mockery of the entire concept of legitimate authority. It swallows up the entire concept. It makes mincemeat of the whole notion of authentic magisterium It is pure Protestant private judgment. Luther and Calvin would be proud of you!
"I've never met anybody who believes such rubbish."
You yourself, along with other neo-Catholics, accept Assisi I and II. I rest my case.
"You create fantasy straw men in order to impugn faithful and orthodox Catholics"
Assisi I and 2 aren't "fantasy straw men",
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A068rcAssisi_TreeFire.htm
nor is papal endorsement of hindus...
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A063rcGhandiTomb.htm
nor is the kissing of the koran...
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm
nor is the treatment of arch-laymen Rowan Williams as though he were a bishop...
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A033rcRowanWilliams.htm
Now who were you calling an orthodox Catholic?
You say: "And as I have said to you countless times, your utterly subjective private judgment that it is necessary to disobey legitimate authority of an orthodox pope because you disagree with certain liturgical legislation that is not part of the deposit of faith (and especially when the Tridentine rite is allowed by the authority you thumb your nose at) simply makes a mockery of the entire concept of legitimate authority."
But it is you who make a mockery of legitimate authority, by insisting that what is impermissible is somehow legitimate. That is false. It was not permitted to JPII to complete the destruction of the ancient Mass by denying a papal mandate for consecrations. Such a command would have starved the ancient liturgy of traditional priests--a liturgy inextricably bound up in the practice of the Catholic faith itself. The old Mass, after all, does not exist in isolation apart from the dogmatic truths which sustain it. There was no way on earth worship and belief could have been separated. So the loss of the ancient Mass PERFORCE would have meant the loss of the ancient faith itself.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood this. But even if he were wrong to have believed this, Canon Law had given him every right to resist if he believed that the faith itself was at stake should he have obeyed the Pontiff. In fact, the evidence was already in and had shown him beyond any shadow of doubt that the Novus Ordo, precisely because it suppressed Catholic dogmas, had precipitated a calamitous decline in the faith wherever it was instituted. So the Archbishop was correct: the postconciliar popes were playing with fire--and the souls of millions--yet seemed not to care how much injury was done to the Church in the name of ecumenical accord.
You make much of the authority of the Magisterium. But the Pope himself ignores the Magisterium routinely--especially the teachings of his predecessors against the heresies of indifferentism and syncretism, as well as their many clearly-defined warnings against modernism. Nor can papal novelites be a true part of that very Magisterium. Very little of the innovations of the present Holy See are therefore binding on Catholics. You ignore all this and assume whatever the Pope teaches is Magisterial. That is simply false.
Finally, the real Protestants are those in the Vatican and in seats of authority in the dioceses who would have us worship and think and believe as Protestants instead of as Catholics. It is not a matter of private judgment as you suppose. Traditionalists don't make up beliefs and practices to suit ourselves. Instead we follow a long-held Catholic Tradition, passed-down to us through all the popes and councils of the preconciliar Church, even from the time of the apostles. It is not we who follow Luther, therefore--it is rather the typical neo-Catholic like yourself who follows the Lutheran Novus Ordo and the Lutheran teachings emanating from modernist interpretations of Vatican II.
*UR wrote that on this thread.
. That being the case, why even attempt an exchange with one emracing such a scandalous and insane position?