Conservative Catholics (aka "neo-Catholics")
You whine about being called schismatic, and ask us to stop this, but you seem dead set on name calling your self. If you are going to do it, you have no cause to complain when we do as well.
Good point, which I don't disagree with. But let me clarify that I was not calling anyone names. I was discussing a section of Fr. Somerville's letter where HE was pointing out the futility of the "conservative" position. There was no reference on my part to any FreeRepublic poster. The fact that I used the term "neo-catholic" within quotes, within a parentheses, and preceded by the phrase "aka" all indicate that this was merely a reference to a general usage.
I hope that I have never engaged in name-calling of any kind on this forum. If I have, then I will apologize when it is pointed out.
There was a thread a few weeks ago discussing the issue of "labels." I said that I was perfectly happy to be called a "traditionalist." I don't consider that any sort of insult. "Labels" can be useful in the sense that they distinguish various positions.
I look on the term "neo-Catholic" in the same light. It describes a certain position, one which was being criticized by Fr. Somerville, but which others (like Stephen Hand) might be perfectly happy to identify themselves with. But please note that I did not identify any member of FreeRepublic by that term. Each person is free to identify themselves however they deem it most appropriate.
To make a political comparison, BlackElk takes great exception to the term "neo-conservative." If he doesn't want to be identified that way, then fine, I wouldn't want to insult him by labeling him that way. But virtually the entire staff of certain publications such as The Weekly Standard call themselves "neo-conservatives." They don't consider it perjorative. That's the way they describe themselves.
Terms like "schismatic" and "heretic" do not fall into this category, however. They are juridical terms with very specific, and very perjorative, connotations. They are used merely as accusations hurled at someone in order to delegitimize the person's arguments.
As I said in my earlier reply to BlackElk, the point was whether you could deal with Fr. Somerville's criticisms without resorting to attacks upon him for so-called "heresy" and "schism." So far I see lots of personal assaults, but I don't see any reasoned defense of the Novus Ordo Mass against his testimony regarding the perfidy of the ICEL.Most of us around here are rather critical of ICEL, so I don’t expect you will see much disagreement with his criticisms of the translations. They aren’t very good. That is far different from the attempt you so often seem to make, in trying to pretend some of those on the traditionalist right aren’t schismatic.
I look on the term "neo-Catholic" in the same light. It describes a certain position, one which was being criticized by Fr. Somerville, but which others (like Stephen Hand) might be perfectly happy to identify themselves with.Well, only in the same sense that anti-choice describes a certain position, aka the pro-life position.
They are juridical terms with very specific, and very perjorative, connotations. They are used merely as accusations hurled at someone in order to delegitimize the person's arguments.Well, the theological position of a heretic is nearly automatically delegitimized isn’t it? Do you take theology lessons from heretics? I think the label is useful for just that purpose. If a man is a schismatic, that should be considered when considering his theological arguments. IMHO, it is foolish to try to consider theology or philosophy in a vacuum. Knowing who the author is, his agenda, who his target audience is, etc., goes a long way to understanding his argument. Knowing a man is a schismatic or a heretic does likewise.
For example, you’ll note a nice poster on this thread, drstevej, has made a couple comments (since I mentioned him I bumped him). Were you to peruse his theology, you would no doubt note that he is not Catholic. Do you not think it useful to know he is a heretic in evaluating his comments? I do, it doesn’t mean his comments aren’t worthwhile or accurate, but it does flesh them out. So does calling ultima a heretic, at times, aid others in understanding him.
patent +AMDG