P
ProVobis
Guest
Which “ism” eliminated H*ll?
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
Actually, you are wrong. John Paul 2 - who had a PhD in Philosophy as well as in Theology, stopped using that term; he called the various problems by their correct terminology, rather than using the term “Modernism”.
That is not to deny what Pius X wrote about; it is not to deny that Modernism was a serious problem during Pius X’s time (Loisy being a prime example). But Modernism is not the problem in the vast number of issues that certain people now identify as Modernism; that is just sloppy thinking. Which is why John Paul and Benedict called them by their proper terms.
R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
I believe it to be Universalism, however I could be wrong.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Abu,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and good to see you on the boards again.
When I spoke of the Church failing to condemn and admonish I had in mind the Church at grass roots level, that is to say bishops and parish priests rather than the Magisterium or Papacy. My apologies for not making that clearer, dear friend. My point is that the Church at *this *level has, since the Sixties, adopted a more ‘user friendly’ approach and has shied away from the more rigorous approach to religion that one associates with previous generations of Catholicism. This has, of course, also happened within the mainline Protestant denominations, where a free and easy informal approach is a very common feature. Thus we hear less now about mortal sin, avoiding the occasions of sin, the importance of frequent confession, the call to personal sanctity and separation from the godless world, renunciation and spiritual warfare, ascesis and mortification as essential to the pursuit of holiness. These, it seems, are considered by many bishops and priests to be unpopular topics and even controversial because they have no appeal to the Catholic youth of today, who have largely, in the West at least, embraced a hand in hand with the world type of religion. There is undoubtedly a fear about speaking plainly and bluntly concerning worldliness and that the entire course of this life is a state of probation. The chief worry seems to be making the Church look credible and not distancing the youth, but the fact is that without holiness no man shall see the Lord (cf. Heb. 12: 14). How often do we hear the aforementioned topics preached upon or even referred to in homilies? Very seldom, if my own experience is anything to go by. This is because they there is a failure to condemn and admonish at the parish level so as to avoid giving the impression that the Church is harsh and that the religion of Christ is exceedingly demanding. Nevertheless, all of the Catholic faithful are called to holiness and must cultivate a more intimate union with our Blessed Saviour - all of which entails a godly separation from the world and its unholy influences and distractions, for example pop/rock music and unwholesome media. Where is the condemnation of these worldly influences and distractions to the life of faith?
Unfortunately, dear friend, the Pentecost of spiritual renewal long promised and awaited has failed to arrive and the Catholic youth of the West are virtually indistinguishable from their pagan contemporaries. Moreover, they know nothing of the habit of obedience and how to take orders, having been dreadfully spoilt by over indulgent parents, who have given them far too much freedom. Did all this have its origin with the anti-Christian culture of the Sixties? Yes, I am of the opinion that that period was the beginning of many troubles and the social ills that beset contemporary society. Has that anti-Christian secular culture had a negative impact upon the way Catholics think? yes, I firmly believe this to be the case. This is why we are woefully failing to provide the vibrant Christian counter-culture that our troubled world so urgently requires.
Finally, dear friend, the brave new world of today has no place for a supernatural influence. It does rather seem that the Church no longer believes that it can attract souls by just being itself. It must adopt modern ideas and play along with the secular culture and even be a part of it. Even at huge youth gatherings such ‘World Youth Day’ there has to be a ‘party atmosphere’ and much frivolity. However, do the young pilgrims leave this gathering with a greater desire for personal sanctity and worldly separation and do they leave with a greater appreciation of the exceeding sinfulness of sin? It does seem that this big extravaganza has more in common with pagan pop culture and is saying that for the religion of Christ to be acceptable and credible today faith and fun must mix. This is wrong and very damaging and would have been unthinkable to pre-1960’s Catholics. What is required is good old fashioned catechesis and moral theology teaching and, of course, discipline. Let us return to the ‘old paths’ wherein is the good way.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
T
TimothyH
Guest
I care about the truth, and the accuracy of words.
We complain that non-Catholic Christians don’t understand the difference between justification, sanctification and redemption and that they have an incorrect understanding of the word “Worship”. We have endless discussions about subtle and not so subtle differences between mortal and venial sin and their implications. Right now there is a thread on the meaning of the word “grave” and another where people are arguing about which orders are “contemplative” and what that really means. 99% of the people on CAF and a good number of priests, don’t even know the difference between the terms Minister of the Eucharist and Minister of communion and 99.99999% of Catholics don’t use the term Real Presence correctly.
We should hold ourselves to the same standard, that’s all, and should use our own terminology correctly.
Words like heretic, modernist, liberal and schizmatic are thrown around indiscriminately like hand grenades and it cuts both ways. The SSPX takes offense when they are incorrectly labeled as schizmatics by people who don’t have a clue what the word means. Mainstream Catholics wonder what they did wrong when they are incorrectly called a modernist because of the way they receive communion or because their daughter is an altar server. Both sides should really just shut up and get a good dictionary.
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree with what you’re saying. I attribute a lot of the problems to our understanding of these things in English. You probably won’t find so much variation in meanings in Polish or Spanish, where more of those speakers are Catholic. My Polish-speaking dad, for example, had a completely different understanding of socialism, communism, etc, than a typical American, who will argue mostly in the abstract about them. OTOH terms like modernism or conciliarism or such would have been completely foreign to him. Not that Polish doesn’t have its own set of derogatory terms, though, but it doesn’t seem to have such divisive effects.
T
TimothyH
Guest
That’s exactly right. It’s different when you live it every day. America is such a mish-mash of people’s and cultures. It is good in some ways but bad in others.
-Tim-
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Here’s the thing: I’m not very knowledgable about Rahner’s theology–i.e I haven’t read very much of Rahner himself, only some basic outlines of his thought. Yet at a conference discussing Rahner’s thought–a perfect opportunity to both praise and critique his thought–not only is Rahner considered orthodox by Ratzinger’s assistant at the CDF, but his Christology is praised. I’m going to disagree with Cardinal Siri’s assessment that Rahner doesn’t always accept Christ as divine, since AFAICT his Christology is based on the self-communication of God in the Incarnation; IOW it presupposes that Christ is divine. There are other things in your post you cover that I think properly interpreted need not be considered problematic, but that would probably require a different thread.
And then when Ratzinger was questioned why Rahner wasn’t condemned, here is what reportedly happened:
“As for dear Fr. Rahner, you know that the congregation has procedures that are very rigorous, but also very just, in my opinion,” he said.
Then his bottom line: “Please leave to the congregation its study and its practice.”
Pope Francis has spoken of Rahner as “difficult to read”, but similarly hasn’t condemned him.
With regards to de Chardin, de Lubac defended his work and Fr. Lombardi, spokesperson for the Vatican, said that “By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied.” That said, perhaps Lombardi is only saying we shouldn’t entirely dismiss him. In any case, I personally won’t be reading him because the Vatican has had a negative assessment of him as recently as 1981 (which leads me to believe JPII agreed with the negative response to de Chardin’s work, regardless of what de Lubac or even Ratzinger thought), and in any case he must at a minimum be extremely ambiguous.
D
Deltadeliquent
Guest
I just wanted to say that this discussion has been one of the most interesting and well thought out that I have ever read. Here or otherwise.
It makes me smile that all of you are my brothers in the Church. The Church’s tradition of intellectulism is one of her best.
Ed, I’m all for you. Go get 'em!
It makes me smile that all of you are my brothers in the Church. The Church’s tradition of intellectulism is one of her best.
Ed, I’m all for you. Go get 'em!
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
My point is that even if some people have been vague and have caused confusion, that doesn’t mean we ought to dismiss them or say that because of what happened, what they said or meant was all wrong. The Vatican knows more than we do about these theologians. Ratzinger knew Rahner’s work better than possibly anyone else, and he never condemned it as heretical. I think that’s worth keeping in mind.
E
edwest2
Guest
Dear Portrait,
As always, you articulate the problems and offer what should be obvious solutions. However, dear brother, decades of meditation on the immoral, combined with its constant promotion today, has distracted too many of us. We, you and I, are free to disengage. Next, we must listen to our Holy Father, who speaks bluntly and plainly.
“When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: “Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil.” When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness.”
“A Christian without a church is something purely idealistic, it is not real,” the Roman Catholic Church leader argued.
"He said that one cannot “understand a Christian alone” any more than “Jesus Christ alone” can be understood.
“Jesus Christ did not fall from the sky like a superhero who comes to save us. No. Jesus Christ has a history. And we can say, and it is true, that God has a history because He wanted to walk with us. And you cannot understand Jesus Christ without His history. So a Christian without history, without a Christian nation, a Christian without the Church is incomprehensible. It is a thing of the laboratory, an artificial thing, a thing that cannot give life,” Francis said."
E
edwest2
Guest
Let us ask ourselves, dear brother, how did the Christians who lived in the land of Roman Orgies survive and grow in holiness?
biblehub.com/psalms/1-2.htm
We cannot meditate on the unholy, immoral and degraded. And we cannot lose hope. We should meditate on the words spoken on Catholic Radio and in authentically Catholic publications. My mother used to get a Franciscan magazine delivered to our home every month. She regularly listened to a “Rosary Hour” where a priest read off questions and provided answers.
I know the great ship of the Church was pushed off course, but things are changing. Not as the world thinks of change but as God does.
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedicts-men-u.s.-vocations-strengthen-during-his-eight-year-papacy/
Remember, even after doing great works among them, the Israelites tended to stray, yet God always kept a faithful remnant.
May God be with you,
Ed
biblehub.com/psalms/1-2.htm
We cannot meditate on the unholy, immoral and degraded. And we cannot lose hope. We should meditate on the words spoken on Catholic Radio and in authentically Catholic publications. My mother used to get a Franciscan magazine delivered to our home every month. She regularly listened to a “Rosary Hour” where a priest read off questions and provided answers.
I know the great ship of the Church was pushed off course, but things are changing. Not as the world thinks of change but as God does.
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedicts-men-u.s.-vocations-strengthen-during-his-eight-year-papacy/
Remember, even after doing great works among them, the Israelites tended to stray, yet God always kept a faithful remnant.
May God be with you,
Ed
O
otjm
Guest
You can credit that at least partially to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
People of a rational mind would not call him a Modernist.
But then not all people are rational.
A
Abu
Guest
The condemnation by the then Cardinal Ratzinger already presented is quite sufficient for the realist to identify some Rahner’s errors among which were negating the role of Scripture and the Fathers. I pray for him, among others.
As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998.
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).
In 1969 Fr Ratzinger was appointed to the International Papal Theological Commission, in which he says, “there was considerable tension”, but found much support from such as “Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina (Chile)”, and the “great figure of Hans Urs von Balthazar….Never again have I found anyone with such a comprehensive theological and humanistic education as Balthazar and de Lubac….” (p143).
“Rahner, on the other hand, for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy….Rahner and Feiner, the Swiss ecumenist, finally left the Commission because, in their opinion, it was worthless since the majority of its members was not ready to subscribe to radical theses.” (p143-4).
“In 1972 the magazine’s policies had become so manifestly subversive and so much of its contents questionable that Frs von Balthazar, Ratzinger and de Lubac detached themselves and founded the rival international theological quarterly Communio, to which other members of the reform party still loyal to the Holy See, like Frs Louis Bouyer and Rene Laurentin, soon adhered.” [Philip Trower, *Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius Press 2003, p 32].
Although one of the founders of Concilium in 1964, by 1972 Fr Ratzinger had founded Communio with other great Catholics because as he said:
“It is not I who have changed but others….I pointed out two prerequisites to my colleagues. The first one; our group must not lapse into sectarianism or arrogance, as if we were the new, true Church, an alternative Magisterium with a monopoly on the truth of Christianity. The second one: discussion had to be conducted with without any individualistic flights forward, in confrontation with the reality of Vatican II with the true letter and the true spirit of the Council, not with an imaginary Vatican II. These prerequisites were increasingly less observed…up to a turning point…around 1973 – when someone began to assert the texts of Vatican II were no longer the point of reference of Catholic theology…. I very soon disengaged myself from the directorate as well as from the contributors’ staff.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius 1985, p18-19].
That is the reality.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear ed,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
Indeed, that is something that we must always remember, even when the times look very bleak, for the activity of forces hostile to the cause of good, both within and without the bosom of the Church, will never utterly prevail (S. Matt. 16: 18).
It would seem, dear friend, that the faithful remnant will be quite a small body prior to our Lord’s Second Advent, whenever that might be. As our Lord Himself said, "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (S. Lk. 18: 8). Now whilst faith may not always be entirely denied, neither will it be held or *fully *embraced, especially as we approach the final days of the world. Men will increasingly have a form of godliness and will be satisfied with a perfunctory approach to their religion, denying its power by shameful worldly conformity and compromise. Those in earnest respecting the pursuit of holiness will be contemptuously branded ‘Puritan’s’ or ‘Jansenists’ and will be accused of being ‘overscrupulous’. However, it is they who will be the tiny faithful remnant of the last days and it is they who will, if necessary, be prepared to die for the faith of Christ. The half-hearted and worldly will never stand firm when times of persecution and affliction come, as they surely will in the Western world. Even now it is jolly hard to be a thoroughgoing Christian who is prepared to nail his colours to the mast by rebuking sin and vice.
Ed, it is always cheering and informative reading your posts on these boards and I always feel more sanguine for having read them - you are truly a chap who has understanding of the times, both past and present. Please keep up the good work here.
May I wish you, my dear brother, and all other contributors and viewers of this thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I’d say – some have taken on – a manichean ethos. For example – not seeing the good of World Youth Day – supported and authorized by Pope John Paul II – now Saint, by Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis and calling it a religious “woodstock” – like the “radical tradtionalist” that made the comment below.
ralfyman
New member
This might help
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_since_1962
including points concerning liberation theology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_since_1962
including points concerning liberation theology.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I haven’t seen any condemnation. Is negating Scripture and the Fathers a problem? Certainly (although one could argue that Rahner doesn’t negate the Scriptures and the ECF’s, but that’s beside the point). Does it make one a heretic? Nope.
I’m sure Ratzinger held–and still holds–that for neoscholasticism “Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance”. Because neoscholasticism took pride in being ahistorical. But would anyone claim that Suarezian scholasticism is heretical? Certainly it isn’t popular today, but it was mainstream among the Jesuits before VII ever since Francisco Suarez.
My understanding is that what differentiates Rahner from other neoscholastics is that his way of approaching issues was from a completely different perspective. But he still tried to stay within the neoscholastic framework. What differentiates Rahner from Ratzinger (at least from my understanding of the situation) is that Ratzinger, along with von Balthasar, completely did away with the neoscholastic framework. Or, to use the terminology of Ratzinger, Rahner still lived on the “planet” of neoscholasticism.
I’m reminded of this meditation from Pope Francis.
Especially: "the prophet fights against putting the Holy Spirit in a box”…“I’m thinking of someone now, at this moment, not far from us, a man of goodwill, a true prophet, who in his books reproached the Church for falling away from the path of the Lord. He was immediately summoned, his books were placed on the index, they took away his platform, and this is how his life ended, not so long ago. Time passed and today he is a blessed”. But how, one could object, “how can he be a heretic yesterday and a blessed today? Yes, “yesterday, those in power wanted to silence him because they didn’t like what he had to say. Today, the Church who, thanks be to God, knows how to repent, says: no, this man is good! Even more, he is on the road to sainthood: he is a blessed”.
Notice he says “difficult to reconcile with”, not “impossible to reconcile with”.
, Ignatius Press 2003, p 32].
This is just someone’s commentary, and it can’t be denied that there are still important people in the Church today who have certainly been influenced by Rahner, not excluding Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. IIRC, Ratzinger’s chapter on the Church in his Introduction to Christianity was credited to Rahner’s thought.
Yep. Concilium had people such as Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckx who were more concerned with the “spirit” of Vatican II, which wasn’t even its true spirit.
Still, no condemnation of Rahner from the Church or even from prominent members of the Church has surfaced. It’s not like I personally have a dog in this fight–I’ve barely read any of Rahner, and by that I mean a couple of snippets from maybe his Theological Investigations or some quotes about spirituality. But Rahner is consistently criticized all over the internet when the worst Church authorities have said about him is that he is ambiguous. Pope Francis has said that he is “hard to read”, so that probably means his work isn’t meant for lay people (besides his books on spirituality). But that doesn’t mean his name should be thrown under the bus just because in his heavier theological works he isn’t speaking to the average (or even theologically minded) lay person.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
WARNING
WYD is sanctioned by the Holy See and is an official apostolate of the Holy Father. If you have a problem with WYD, please write to the Holy Father. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES undermine, bash, or speak negatively about something that is very special to the pope so the non-Catholic world can use ammunition provided by Catholics against the Church. You are not doing the pope or the Church any favors.
Therefore, you will be suspended for causing scandal.
Do not respond to me here, because I will not answer you. If you want to discuss it, us the PM feature.
Thanks
WYD is sanctioned by the Holy See and is an official apostolate of the Holy Father. If you have a problem with WYD, please write to the Holy Father. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES undermine, bash, or speak negatively about something that is very special to the pope so the non-Catholic world can use ammunition provided by Catholics against the Church. You are not doing the pope or the Church any favors.
Therefore, you will be suspended for causing scandal.
Do not respond to me here, because I will not answer you. If you want to discuss it, us the PM feature.
Thanks
- Status