Posted on 07/15/2003 2:07:08 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IXs Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Accurate? This guy clearly holds neoconservatives in contempt. He calls them "magisterialists." To assert that "neoconservatives" don't have the anchor of Scripture, or intrinsic or extrinsic tradition, is plain silly and arrogant.
He also teaches at a minor seminary, which is one of the anachronisms of the pre-Vatican II Church.
There is no good reason for "minor seminaries." Herding 13 year old boys into environments where they are denied contact with the opposite sex and given the impression that they can discern, at that age, a vocation to the priesthood, is ridiculous.
Have you seen some of the comments here? It was a bullseye description.
To assert that "neoconservatives" don't have the anchor of Scripture, or intrinsic or extrinsic tradition, is plain silly and arrogant.
It's correct. For neos, life began at Vatican II 35 years ago. That's a tradition of 35 years, not 2000 years. That's not Tradition by its very notion.
Deborah, you've been sucked in by the Ultra-Trads, and especially the SSPXers.
This "us" against "them" mentality that the Trads promote (with the Trads, of course, upholding Tradition, and the Novus Ordo admirers viewed as silly teenagers) does more to harm the Church than anything the "neoconservatives" promote.
I've been watching for quite a while now and the side which makes the most consistent, most reasonable arguments are the traditionalists. This article is just one more in the line I've found exploring this side.
The Church IS big enough for us to fight the doctrinal battles WITHIN the Body of Christ without either of the syblings forcing the other to leave the house. What the hell kind of a family is it that never fights over matters of life and death?
Dominicans and Franciscans disagreed on Grace yet both remained within the house of the Family of God. (So what if the Molinists were wrong?)
Basta.
Neo-Cons and Trads are Catholics.
I have yet to see either a Trad or a Neo profess heresy since I have been reading these threads.
The Pope COULD settle this in a heartbeat. He has the authority.
The above statement of yours proves his point better than anything he said in the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.