[Canticle_of_Deborah]

He calls them "magisterialists

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.

[sinkspur]

For neos, life began at Vatican II 35 years ago.

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.

[american colleen]

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.

Same problems over Vatican 1 - even Neumann had reservations about the "big" Vat 1 event - but he accepted papal infallibility regardless of his own personal reservations.

Myself, I follow the catechism of the Catholic Church. I've read the documents of Vatican II and what I find is a consolidation of all that had gone before.

[TradicalRC]

Ditto.

[ninenot]

For neos, life began at Vatican II 35 years ago

While it is unfair to make categorical statements, Fr.R's thesis holds water for the general case.

But this is hardly restricted to the religion forum. It is visible at the Supreme Court of the USA, and in the daily press (which displays a ghastly unfamiliarity with history.)