Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Sneaky, snaky, modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The day the Church “allows” condoms and the like is the day I go to an SSPX chapel. Such a decision would be blatantly contrary to what the Church has teached since its inception.
 
Last edited:
Melodeonist said:
The day the Church “allows” condoms and the like is the day I go to an SSPX chapel. Such a decision would be blatantly contrary to what the Church has teached since its inception.
Click to expand...
Since modern condoms are only 100 years old (roughly) and condoms of any sort pre-dating the 16th century have very limited evidence of really existing, it seems that what you’re saying concerning the Church and condoms cannot possibly be true.

Moreover, the Church has already spoken somewhat favorably on the use of condoms in Africa, given their population and STD problems.

I hope you reconsider your stance on SSPX.
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Put away your goal-post stretcher. I’m not trying to say that all “bads” are equally bad, thus your refutation.
Click to expand...
What is your stance on marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...
Generally, marriage is defined by the Church as between one man, one woman for life. But I also recognize that if government wants to award marital benefits, then it gets to define what it calls a marriage and it is not obligated, in any way, to follow the Catholic definition.

Abortion as a birth control method is immoral. But I don’t conflate abortion with the pill and in the rare cases of rape and incest, I’m more than satisfied to leave the choice up to the unfortunate pregnant woman; fully acknowledging that the inbred/rape baby in her belly will probably both cure cancer and write the next Great American Novel.
 
Along with this article from Fr. Longenecker i suggest reading this series as well:

dwightlongenecker.com

Fr Harvey Nicolaitan SJ on Tough Cases – 6 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Guest blogger Fr Harvey Nicolaitan SJ, is a master of modern media. With a degree in Communications, he is a well known author and guest on reality TV shows, Fr Nicolaitan is the author of My Little Rainbow Bridge- a children’s story about being kind to trolls. He has been invited to speak at...
dwightlongenecker.com dwightlongenecker.com

Make sure to click the links and read all six articles. It is a “Screwtape Letters” take on “Rules for Radicals” and quite on point for what we are unfortunatley seeing within the Church today.
 
Hear that? It’s the ground cracking underneath their appeal to authority argument.
 
DustThouArt said:
that there were ghost writers for parts of this document.
Click to expand...
I have heard this before. My reply is, “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts.” This is Pope Francis, after all. I find it impossible to believe him being some tool of ghost whispering in his shoulder. He signed this, owning it. This sort of “ghost-writing” argument has never changed the nature of one papal decree or document.
SuperLuigi said:
Hear that? It’s the ground cracking underneath their appeal to authority argument.
Click to expand...
Pope’s actually do have authority.
 
Last edited:
It is not a fallacy. If I were to appeal to the authority of the pope on a matter of football, that would be the fallacy. I find the complaint ironic since this thread started with a priest’s (whose authority is less) commentary on modernism.
 
Last edited:
I wrote a piece some time ago over at Imaginative Conservative about the diabolical technique of talking opponents to death and how the evil one uses “dialogue” to wear down the opposition.
Click to expand...
Those who want to overthrow the Faith do so with lots of words which don’t add clarity but only confuse. They avoid short, direct, clear statements.
 
…and that, in a nutshell, is why so many stick to the Traditional ways.
 
Not to mention the fact that the proscription on eating shellfish was an OT law which was in place to lead people to salvation. Keep the law, go to heaven. Break even one of the laws, you can not enter heaven. The NT makes it clear that Jesus came to FULFILL the law of the OT in our place. It is why he is The Mediator. His coming, death and resurrection nullified the need for the laws of the OT. Their purpose has been fulfilled; salvation is open to us if we chose it. Therefore, to say that the church will approve the use of artificial devices to prevent pregnancy because we now eat shellfish is not a legitimate analogy.
 
Truth doesn’t contradict itself, I think you mean coitus interruptus in general and not just condom usage like the other guy said
 
The Jews understanding of Heaven might not have been so clear cut.
And you could repent and change your ways.
 
Read the Talmud.
No, just paralleling; “Read the Bible.”
Point is, though, there is little we can claim to know about the Essene or other sects, authoritatively.
The Talmud made it clear that Jesus, the door, is a one-way traverse. Repenting and changing your ways was not always accepted as an option for some transgressions. A likely cause for so many sects, in part.
 
JimG said:
“Let me tell you what happened in the Church of England over women’s ordination. The change came about by stealth and persistence.”

Sneaky Snaky Modernism | Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Click to expand...
The main point of the article seems to be an attack on various “progressive” positions within Catholicism, on which I have no opinion.

Aside from that, I was strongly impressed by Fr Longecker’s description of how the ordination of woman, eventually to the episcopacy, was forced through the church of England by endless agitation and “dialogue”, when if fact the proponents only ever had one intention - to get everything they wanted, by any means. As a former Anglican, who saw this all first hand through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, I agree entirely.

Of course it was all done in a polite and “prayerful” Church of England type style. They were not arguing they were “discerning the way forward” 🤣

I wrote a piece some time ago over at Imaginative Conservative about the diabolical technique of talking opponents to death and how the evil one uses “dialogue” to wear down the opposition.

I have observed the same thing, ie. that “talking opponents to death” is a diabolical technique, but is also a very effective one, and is usually combined with forming an impregnable clique who keep saying the same things over and over, and with shaming of opponents. “Truth” becomes a matter of a vote, after the vote has been rigged.

I’ve seen this now in several major societal controversies, from both left and right, although the left are on a big winning streak at the moment.

For me, the only answer is to stop arguing when you see the pattern, and use authority (if you have some), or get out of their way.

From his referenced article on the Benedict Option

Likewise the conservative Christian option today is to step back from the endless dialogue and debate and to focus on being consistent and being Imaginative Conservatives…[We] will be committed to a way of obedience, stability and conversion of life, and our method will use the timeless tools of work, study and prayer.

Related to this is James Dobson’s admission in 2009 that conservative Christians have lost every battle.
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
Related to this is James Dobson’s admission in 2009 that conservative Christians have lost every battle.
Click to expand...
I find this true and sad. What i find even more frustrating is the lack of a come back strategy. Religious people always seem to be on the defensive or criticising. I wonder why we don’t make our own ‘Hollywood’ movies instead of complaining about nihilism in all the popular movies. I’m not talking about passion of the Christ type ones but the more subtle brain washing types that athiests are so good at where relatable characters telling interesting stories just happen to promote Christian values. Or why Catholics seem to be the last to adopt any technology the promotes our message (e.g. YouTube). I think the problem is that we’re so busy arguing with each other over religious questions that we get conquered and divided by those with no religion.
 
The Old Testament says you can repent, and there are prayers for forgiveness of sins. There were also sin offerings, etc.

The Essenes were a specific group of Jews with a fairly strict mode of understanding the Law.

Of course Jesus is the Way. No one gets to the Father except through Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top