Nope. It takes a real Christian one second.
He who hears you hears me.
You sound like a Liberal Traditionalist. I deal with them a lot. You are no diferent that a Liberal - except your liberalism is on the right.
Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is?
*Certainly. A liberal is, in essence, one who decides for himself. He is his own authority and he will "obey" the Magisterium if what the Magisterium Teaches agrees with his own personal opinion. If the Magsterium teaches or takes decisions he opposes, he refuses to submit to the church. He is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. In a word, he is a protestant of the left.
A Libertrad (a liberal traditionalist) is the "right" or "conservative" counterpoint to a Liberal. He too, in essence, is one who decides for himself. He is his own authority for what Tradition is. When the Magisterium takes decisions about ecclesiastical traditions he does not approve of, he wars against the Magisterium - publicly and relentlessly. When it is pointed out it is the Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition, he will begin citing the personal oponions of this or that theologian, far-right polemicist, schismatic etc and he will attack the very Christian Church Jesus established insinuating, if not outright claiming, the Magisterium is untrustworthy, devious, deceptive, and intentionally destroying Tradition. His will must predominate. He will not submit to the Church. The Libertrad is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. He judges the Church corrupt, schismatic, in error etc. It must be his personal opinion of what constitues Tradition which prevails. In a word, he is a protestant of the right
10 posted on 05/01/2005 7:48:35 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Libertrads. Following the anathematized to perdition.)
Not refusing to submit to the Church on any dogmatically defined teachings. Would however like someone to explain to me how one is to reconcile past dogmatic statements with the pastoral teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae. Got a sneaking suspicion you have never read it. Also got a sneaking suspicion you haven't read one word of the Vatican II documents. Cuz' your argument, while admirable for its appeal to authority does not have much appeal to reason. Church has a long and noble history of reasoned discourse. Refer to Thomas Aquinas if you have any doubts on that subject. So my offer still stands, can you reconcile DH with Quanta Curia or other Papal encyclicals. I'll help you out here. The subject discussed in DH dealt with Religious Liberty and Church/State relations. Get back to me when you have actually taken a look at the document.