P
ProVobis
Guest
I would think so as there were greater fears of overpopulation back then.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
That is entirely without substance. A man named Paul Ehrlich wrote a ridiculous book titled The Population Bomb. Needless to say, we should all be dead by now. Again, the year is 1968. Coincidence? Not at all.
Best,
Ed
O
otjm
Guest
You may not like it.
You may not agree with it.
But those are facts, thoroughly substantiated.
Humanae Vitae did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred after a long series of events. The reaction to it was swift, outrageous, and extremely strong. That did not occur randomly; the groundwork was laid for it decades before, and each year built on the prior one, until all of the expectations that had been building for so long were confronted with HV.
And then everything went every which way but Sunday.
You are certainly welcome to put the players on the table, but if you think that this whole thing started in 1965, you are going to have to do some serious work to convince anyone.
A
Abu
Guest
There is no question that the modernist errors were truly abroad well before Vatican II and those modernist errors prior to the Council are documented in Christ Denied, TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens as stated in post #19.
Those with ears to hear let them hear.
In 1907 St Pius X warned against the venomous effects of modernism in the encyclical Pascendi. “The heart and soul of the movement was Henri Bremond, S.J. whose protégé was George Tyrrell, S.J., whose prize student was Teilhard de Chardin….in 1899, Henri Bremond was appointed editor of Etudes, the official French Jesuit magazine….Bremond’s philosophy would soon tend to affect the whole Society of Jesus….Bremond was succeeded… by Leonce de Grandmaison…whose theology was exactly the same as his predecessor’s.” Christ Denied, p 9-10].
Then followed Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Richard McBrien and even Avery Dulles, who needed years to straighten himself out.
Those with ears to hear let them hear.
In 1907 St Pius X warned against the venomous effects of modernism in the encyclical Pascendi. “The heart and soul of the movement was Henri Bremond, S.J. whose protégé was George Tyrrell, S.J., whose prize student was Teilhard de Chardin….in 1899, Henri Bremond was appointed editor of Etudes, the official French Jesuit magazine….Bremond’s philosophy would soon tend to affect the whole Society of Jesus….Bremond was succeeded… by Leonce de Grandmaison…whose theology was exactly the same as his predecessor’s.” Christ Denied, p 9-10].
Then followed Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Richard McBrien and even Avery Dulles, who needed years to straighten himself out.
O
otjm
Guest
There are any number of issues which have arsine in the last 150 years or so. Modernism, which becomes the whipping boy of every other “ism” that came along, is in its essence a move to agnosticism. The last 4 you name were not Modernists. They ay have gone off in a number of directions (and I don’t agree at all with lumping Dulles with McBrien), but Modernism was not one of them.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
It has not been substantiated that Rahner was a modernist, and apparently Dulles made no retractions.
In fact, your major post (#73) against Rahner only shows how Ratzinger disagreed with him on a theological level. It says nothing about him being unorthodox, and it is notable that unlike some other “progressive” theologians Rahner was never questioned (after VII) by the Vatican about the orthodoxy of his writings. A “disciple” of Rahner, Cardinal Lehmann, was an important teacher for Archbishop Muller, so I doubt the current Prefect of the CDF thinks Karl Rahner was a modernist.
…
Anyway, 1960s…
The Church definitely was too optimistic. Lots of energy came from Vatican II, but many used that in a negative way to promote newness unconnected with the Truth. Which is unfortunate because the eternal Truth is always greater than us, which means it is “ever ancient yet ever new”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
One has to be wary of Fr Dulles *Models of the Church *as Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, in Authenticity, p 247, explains: “On the one hand, it plays down excessively the institutional model, and on the other, it exaggerates as a criterion of value what modern men find to their liking.”
Fr Avery Dulles claimed that “the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error,” in addressing the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1976, also claiming this gem: “Indirectly…the Council worked powerfully to undermine the authoritarian theory and to legitimate dissent in the Church…Vatican II quietly reversed earlier positions…on a number of important issues.” (CTSA Proceedings, 1976, p240-241).
There was mass confusion by Avery Cardinal Dulles in his earlier years after Vatican II, such as The Survival of Dogma, 1971. Dulles writes, p 114: “The times call for an ‘epochal’ reinterpretation of the very notion of ‘magisterium’ ……Contemporary techniques of government, teaching and communications would seem to harmonise at least as well with the demands of the gospel as do the feudal and absolutist patterns of the past.” On pp 117-120, Dulles professes explicitly the doctrine of the historical and cultural relativism of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church – “Man’s religious knowledge is necessarily embedded in contingent notions that depend on particular cultural circumstances…(making) the dogmas of the faith subject to reconceptualization.” Totally false and in keeping with Karl Rahner. [Cf * TheTeaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, The Faith and the Theologies, Msgr Eugene Kevane, Notes p 54].
*ON THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH *(HPR, A-Sep, '99)
In reviewing Faces of the church: meditations on a mystery and its images. By Geoffrey Preston, O.P., edited by Aidan Nichols, O.P. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 255 Jefferson Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503, 1997), x + 310 pgs., Fr. John-Peter Pham Champaign, Illinois writes:
“In his much-heralded Models of the Church with which he intended to identify some of the main trends in twentieth-century ecclesiology, grouping the positions by type (or model) and considering the criticisms directed from each against the others, weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.
“Regrettably, two unfortunate consequences arose from Dulles’s otherwise significant work. First, legions of lesser theological minds, rather than ponder the complementarity of his models, by and large took to them cafeteria-style: electing one over the others as the pre-eminent model. Thus, if one were to survey contemporary ecclesiology on the basis of the Dulles taxonomy, one would find an overwhelming option by fashion-conscious theological writers for the servant model — albeit with some lip-service to the herald model — to the wholesale neglect of the institutional, communion, or sacramental models. All, of course, to the impoverishment of ecclesiological science. Second, by the very fact that it attempts a taxonomy, Dulles’s approach, even in its best light, detracts from the mystery which is the Church at her essence.”
To his credit, Fr Dulles was able to renew himself and ceased to promote such error and dissent. He was made a Cardinal.
Fr Avery Dulles, SJ, later wrote: “The distinction between the Church as holy and its members as sinful has a long and venerable history. The Second Vatican Council, following Pius XII, carefully avoided speaking of the Church itself as sinful or as committing sins…The great ecclesiologist Charles Journet, in an article on the ecclesiology of Vatican II, pointed out that while from a purely empirical point of view the Church may appear to be sinful, the eye of faith is able to discern that the Church in its theological reality as Body of Christ is sinless, albeit not without sinners.” Should The Church Repent, First Things, Dec 1998].
A
Abu
Guest
Dissent since Vatican II has been the flavour for the pick and choose cafeteria Catholic, theologian or laity, not the faithful Catholic and led publicly by the likes of Karl Rahner against the infallible condemnation against contraception in Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the infallible condemnation in Casti Connubii of Pius XI in 1930.
‘Rahner, with some others, concocted the notion of a “fundamental option” of a type which denied the doctrine on mortal sin taught by the Council of Trent’ “An Introduction to Moral Theology”, William E May, p 154-155]. Jesuit Fr Karl Rahner, was one of the signatories of a document dissenting from “Humanae Vitae” actually circulated world-wide by its authors so as to get support for it. [Refer Christian Order, Aug-Sep 92, Jorge Molinero - *Recent History of Theological Dissent (20 years of “Parallel Magisterium”, p 432)]. No named censure from Rome, but we know that both errors have been censured by the Holy Father – in “Veritatis Splendour” (# 65-70) and in “Evangelium Vitae”, however.
Fr William Most in The Consciousness Of Christ, Christendom Publications, 1980, cites Karl Rahner and Raymond Brown among Catholics who misled many over the inerrancy of Scripture as taught by Pius XII and Vatican II, and over the self-knowledge of Christ.
Factually, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took issue with Rahner’s views about priestly ordination, contraception and his doctrine of the “anonymous Christian”.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL (EWTN) on Sep-28-2000:
However, his [Rahner’s] interpretations of the Council and his ideas on salvation and ecumenism (the “anonymous Christian” concept) were considered dangerous by orthodox theologians, and were censured informally by the Holy See. This occurred after his death when the Vatican’s newspaper condemned a book published posthumously on salvation outside the Church. If the Church has had to correct many false ideas in this regard, by documents such as the recent Dominus Jesus on the uniqueness of Christ and the Catholic Church, it has Fr. Rahner to thank, in part.
The late Father Karl Rahner, amongst other things, did not accept the Church’s Christology, but replaced it with a Teilhardian-based one that represents Our Lord as not being at all times a Divine Person, but merely as one ascending towards divinity. He also rejected Pius XII’s prohibition against acceptance of the evolutionary inference of polygenism. [See Joseph Cardinal Siri, *Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement (Eng. trans.: Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), pp. 77-87 ISBN 0819908258; G.H. Duggan, S.M., Christologies Ancient and Modern, in *The Priest *(Australia), Vol. 1 (Winter, 1989)].
The arrogance of the “later” Rahner continued:
“ ‘Infallibility’ confined to one person or to the word ‘pope’ will be ‘as obsolete as a dodo bird.’ ”
His “tiny flocks” will find unity in the One Lord who is identified with no particular group, and the Pope himself will be merely an ombudsman to arbitrate disputes and to inspire. [See Rahner’s *Structural Change in the Church as Duty and Prospect, Herder and Herder, 1972; also Karl Rahner’s Brave New Church, America Feb 16, 1974, John Carmody, p 109-111; also National Catholic Reporter, March 30, 1973, p 5].
“At the opening of the German Synod in January 1971 Cardinal Hoffner of Cologne announced that before any discussions could be conducted some truths must be presupposed, since their denial placed one outside the Catholic faith. Among such doctrine he mentioned were Christ’s divine sonship and resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the indissolubility of a consummated and validly contracted marriage. Karl Rahner rose to intervene, claiming that assertions in this form were of little use to people today because formulas themselves were still subject to further questioning and discussion.” *The Teaching Church in Our Time *in *What Future Is There For The Teaching Church?, *Msgr George A Kelly, Ph.D., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 225].
Despite his earlier orthodoxy, Rahner displayed the confusion and dissent that Cardinals Siri and Hofner identified.
C
Cat
Guest
Am I correct when I say that edwest2 has a conspiracy theory about the 60s and the Catholic Church, in which there was a deliberate movement headed by real people who were determined to bring the Church down?
Many of the rest of you are describing various conditions that contributed to the changes in the Catholic Church that happened during and after the 1960s. But edwest2 seems to be the only one so far describing an actual organized movement.
Right? Or am I missing the whole point here?
I’m not saying that edwest2 is right or wrong, or that all the rest of us are right or wrong, either. I’m only trying to determine whether there is a conspiracy theory that edwest2 is presenting, and whether this is commonly accepted among other Catholics.
Thanks.
Many of the rest of you are describing various conditions that contributed to the changes in the Catholic Church that happened during and after the 1960s. But edwest2 seems to be the only one so far describing an actual organized movement.
Right? Or am I missing the whole point here?
I’m not saying that edwest2 is right or wrong, or that all the rest of us are right or wrong, either. I’m only trying to determine whether there is a conspiracy theory that edwest2 is presenting, and whether this is commonly accepted among other Catholics.
Thanks.
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s all presented here:
catholic.com/projects/catholics-and-the-culture-war
The 1960s was the final turning point that led us to today. The drawing together and unleashing of those forces that oppose what is good, moral and right.
Peace,
Ed
K
kozlosap
Guest
Ed - As I read this thread I see that a few posters seem to think that you are implying, through your research, that there was a vast defined conspiracy to change social norms and mores in the mid sixties. Is this the case?
E
edwest2
Guest
Yes.Ed - As I read this thread I see that a few posters seem to think that you are implying, through your research, that there was a vast defined conspiracy to change social norms and mores in the mid sixties. Is this the case?
Best,
Ed
A
AggieCatholic86
Guest
There is a vast conspiracy(though not really secret), defined by two Harvard Professors, pushed by legions of disaffected homosexuals to make homosexuality commonplace, accepted, and embraced. Why wouldn’t we think the same of the 50’s and 60’s? Besides, the devil and his legions have been doing this for ages, from inside and out. Is it foolish to think he could co-opt numbers of people in this world to collaborate to bring down morality and Church authority? In the 50’s the Church was more a pillar of the world, now it’s more ignored and less followed, especially seen in Church attendance. I don’t know that you need a secret organization to bring down the Church and it’s authority, because now people are much more open about their disillusion with the Church, much more from within though. This conspiracy, really was nothing more than a bunch of like-minded people who hate the teachings of the Church on sexuality. I can’t blame them, it’s natural to want to have sex and be selfish.
I’m not sure if Vatican II was the right timing or not. If the Church hadn’t changed would we have lost so many Catholics? If the Papal Commission on the Pill hadn’t been leaked, would Humanae Vitae have been so angering and rejected?
I’m not sure if Vatican II was the right timing or not. If the Church hadn’t changed would we have lost so many Catholics? If the Papal Commission on the Pill hadn’t been leaked, would Humanae Vitae have been so angering and rejected?
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear edwest2,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Indeed and absolutely bang on target.
What happened during that turbulent decade of decadence is what happened, largely as consequence of the tragic diminuition of the Christian consciousness that had generally held sway in previous generations, keeping the spread of sin and vice in check. No, not everything was perfect and idyllic before but we definitely did not witness the moral and cultural deterioration that has sadly become so prevalent in the Western world since the permissive Sixties.
Who can honestly deny, dear brother, that many of the social problems that beset us today were caused by the massive revolution in morals that shook the 1960’s? The so called ‘social reforms’ of that decade, the legalisation of abortion and homosexual vice, liberalising divorce and enabling the shameful distribution of contraceptives, were said by some (for example, Roy Jenkins here in Britain) to embody a ‘civilised society’! We should be under no illusions, the Sixties was an unprecedented period of liberation and rebellion against Christian morality and the good restraints which it imposes upon men. Alleged intolerance and religious bigotry were triumphantly consigned to the dustbin of history and those who continued to warn that freedom was being confused with anti-social license were dismissed as hidebound reactionaries. What has changed there? However, you only need to look at the vulgarity and many social ills that now so trouble our age to see who was right. They do not speak of the moral revolution of the Sixties for nothing. Even the debased rock/pop music of that decade fitted well with the new mood and that ‘whole generation with a new explanation’, for its very beat an sound implicitly rejected the restraints of previous God-fearing generations and celebrated freedom and sexuality. Apparently during the Vietnam War, the United States government wanted to send a top ‘rock group’ to entertain the troops in Asia, but had possible groups screened first to ensure that they were clear of drugs. No surprise, dear brother, the plan had to be abandoned because a ‘clean’ group could just not be found.
All of this very depressing, dear brother, but what is even more depressing is that multitudes of professing Catholics, either wittingly or unwittingly, have allowed themselves to be caught up with the whole secular drift of the times since the permissive revolution of the Sixties. Consequently, many today, especially the youth, opt for a ‘Catholicism Lite’, which makes little demand upon them in terms of personal sanctity and separation from the godless world. With the coming of the Sixties and its new found ‘freedom’ everything changed from a rigorous approach to religion to a more relaxed and less demanding approach which sat comfortably with the new mood. There was much talk of a ‘new Pentecost’ and spiritual renewal but it has failed to deliver and our Catholic youth are not providing a vibrant Christian counter-culture that dares to be different. They are almost apologising for the Church’s supposedly harsh teachings on homosexual vice and contraception and their only concern seems to be making the religion of Christ ‘user-friendly’. There is also a complete loss of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, with the result that a general carelessness about avoiding the occasions of sin abounds, especially among Western Catholic youth.
All efforts to renew Holy Mother Church in the last fifty years have so far proved jolly fruitless, dear brother. There have been many false initiatives and misguided efforts and hidden agendas, but all to no avail. Pastoral centres, retreat houses, spiritual centres for renewal have been set up but all are only vain efforts and substitutes for the authentic renewal that the Church so urgently needs. The strength of the Church in former ages was its discipline and earnest prayer-life. Think of the dwindling Mass attendance and the numbers who go to confession regularly and you can see that all is not well with the health of the Church. The biggest failure of the modern day Church is surely its inability to condemn and admonish as in the good old days, through a morbid fear of being thought harsh and unwelcoming, especially with the secular youth of our age. Moreover, there are still too many liberal bishops who continue to insist that that there is no crisis within the Church, notwithstanding all the evidence witch points to the contrary. The existence of an a la carte approach to Church doctrine is just one example that could be cited and reveals inadequate catechesis of the faithful.
It admits of no serious doubt, dear brother, that multitudes of Catholics allowed themselves to be influenced by the godless Sixties culture and its very anti-Christian ideologies. Am I alone in thinking that our Church should have denounced this culture and its subversive ideologies a great deal more forcefully than it has? Of course there have been individual Bishops and priests who have spoken out occasionally, but generally speaking their appears to be a reticence when it comes to warning against worldliness and rejecting Church teaching, through fear of giving offence or making the Church seem harsh and uncompromising. This just cannot be the way forward or, indeed, the way to win lasting converts.
God bless and thankyou for your excellent posts ed.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
O
otjm
Guest
Modernism is not a desire for change and novelty. Modernism arose out of the philosophical works in the 1700’s and 1800’s, which in turn was pushed by a rise in scientific research and methodology, and resulted in a move toward agnosticism, based on the idea that science could answer all questions and that religion was simply mythological.
Your comment is exactly why I find it so frustrating; people use the word as a whipping boy for anything and everything they don’t like, without having a clue as to what the term means. It has become a code word rather than a word with meaningful content.
Peace to you too.
A
Abu
Guest
In writing of “the Church” that statement is simplistic, as the extensive pontificates of St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have been absolutely outstanding, among the greatest ever in the history of the Church. Pope Paul VI is especially noted for his concentrated and timely discourse and infallible teaching against contraception and the Pill despite the infamy of the majority report from his Commission on that very topic.
Pope Francis has certainly condemned and admonished, as well as encouraged towards the good, and his continuation with even more emphasis on revamping various Congregations of the Holy See shows his drive to reform.
Vatican II was a great Council, and there seems to be a lack of knowledge of how great and extensive these pontificates have been despite the renewed onslaughts of the devil, the world and the flesh. But what is the individual Catholic doing to foster the reign of Christ and His Church? Check Christifideles Laici issued by St John Paul II. It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
E
edwest2
Guest
I see. The Vatican would disagree:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
Peace,
Ed
T
TimothyH
Guest
This is true. The term is hardly understood and misused more often than not.
Someday there will be a new Heaven and a new earth, and the sea will be no more, and the new Jerusalem will come down from Heaven, and it will all be blamed on modernism.
-Tim-
- Status