continued…
I am well aware that the roots of the problems that were swept under the umbrella of the term Modernism go back behind historical criticism, but that is the main point where the issues started to show in theology. I have read Pascendi; I am not as illiterate as you would have me to be.
Yet you present your position as if Modernism is an ancient problem that was handled and ‘today’s’ problems can’t be found as having anything to do with modernism.
Frankly, that is wrong. Reading the documents of the Popes of the late 19th and first half of the 20th Century, the condemnations and proper teachings have all been reversed in today’s practice. The Loisy’s and the Chenus, lead to the The Kungs, the Rahners, and they lead to the current crop of worthless bishops that we have today, spreading error and ignorance and persecuting and stamping out, clear, traditional Catholic thought, practice and living.
I have also read Raymond Brown, whom Benedict 16 has had good things to say. You may not like Brown, but most people who try to read him fail to understand that he is a scholar, his works are meant primarily for scholars, and they require critical thinking, something that most people are not acquainted with.
Brown follows the same liberal agenda of undermining the truth of the Scriptures that is the hallmark of the modernist as historian, apologist and reformer as condemned by St. Pius X.
Bob Sungenis did a detailed examination of Brown’s exegesis and shows the modernist, fudging, assertions, and assumptions in Brown’s writing that always, inevitably, like clockwork lead to a liberal conclusion undermining the authority and teaching of the Church.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/fr-ray-brown1.htm
Benedict 16 has said that the historical critical method has its limitations, something that Brown would readily agree with; the fact that it has limitations does not mean that it has no validity, a point that those who are so quick to criticize Brown would make.
I can use a gun to defend or a gun to oppress and attack. Brown uses historical research to attack and undermine the truth of the Gospels and the Church itself and he doesn’t mind a little dishonesty in his scholarship to help him out.
If the Pope doesn’t make that point, you might try to agree a little bit with him, even though we both know he is not speaking ex cathedra.
Why? My biggest criticism of B16 is that he refuses to condemn the same liberal errors that were roundly condemned prior to the Council. Probably because he is sympathetic to those errors.
Oh, and I would lay dollars to donuts that Ratzinger studied the same people that Rahner did, and John Paul also studied them. Rahner got off the path from the Magisterium, but that doesn’t make him a closet Modernist. It does make him wrong, but it takes intellectual work to understand why.
JPII has followed the views of people like Rahner and Kung as if he had read from a manual.
Pope Benedict unfortunately hasn’t taken any steps to undo the calamity resulting from these horrid policies and subordination of clear Catholic teaching.
Unfortunately if one judges appearances, he’s actually acting as the ‘conserving force’ opposed to JPII’s “progressive force” as described in Pascendi. He’s basically providing a “breather” before the next big shift towards liberalism.
And John 23rd was by no means the only priest or theologian who was accused of being a Modernist; that whole thing devolved into something approaching a witch hunt, and good people were accused; some of them in very damaging ways.
A witch hunt is a good thing when you have a problem with witches.
Strange that the Pope who revived the careers of the theologians who hijacked Vatican II had philsophical and theological sympathies with them. John XXIII was no prize Pope.
Just because someone explains something theologically in a way that you are not familiar with or don’t understand doesn’t mean they are spouting heresy or becoming a Modernist.
True. But when someone does explain something theologically in a way that has all the earmarks of Modernism as condemned by Pope after Pope, you can be assured that it is prudent to be suspicious of their orthodoxy.
It may simply mean that they have a different way of explaining a truth.
Or, it may be that they are genuinely moving off the rails.
Pope Benedict 16 has recently come out and said we need to find a new way of evangelizing Asia, a way that understands and fits in with their cultural background.
The blood of the martyrs in China will do more for the Church than any “cultural” and ecumenical “fan dance” that these post-conciliar Popes will do. The Catholic Church shapes and reshapes cultures, not itself to suit those cultures. Externals may differ slightly, from culture to culture but the essentials must remain since people are all the same in the light of the truth.
When the Church tries to reconcile herself to the World at the expense of the clarity and complete deposit of the faith, the results are always lamentable.
Does that now make him a Modernist because he does not use European symbols to express the Gospel? I think not, but someone, I am sure, will accuse him of such.
He was under suspicion by the Holy Office prior to the Council. I’m sure he’s imbibed in many modernist ideas and was probably taught them as authentic Catholicism.
For one thing, B16 is completely taking on faith the idea that macro-evolution (ie. descent with modification from a common ancestor into all species) is a fact. He has had to construct a whole new theology of man, God’s redemption, original sin and various other aspects of the faith that results in a murky, disembodied, experiential *(immanentist) theology. This critical error/assumption has lead to disaster in terms of people’s faith, how they live their lives and the salvation of souls.
As I said, the article was good until the author decided to throw some terminology around that had no place in the discussion. Other than that, it was a good article
.
You say it has no place in the discussion. It does.
The article says:
"The common theory is that bishops fear a turn away from modernism will further put the Church out of touch with the culture and also further empty the pews (when, in fact, others theorize, it was modernism, including awkward and rocking new music, that helped empty them to begin with). Where is the move in America to traditionalize? "
If one goes through Pascendi and other documents like it, one finds a stunning number of propositions condemned that have been accepted hook, line and sinker by the majority of bishops, priests and nuns throughout the world. It only follows that the parishes that imbibed in these innovations suffered a loss of grace and consequently a loss of faith and therefore, there was no grace to keep people around and in the pews.
It is quite reasonable to assume that modernism in all of its various forms has contributed significantly to the emptying of the Churches and the drying up of vocations. And that Modernism is alive and well and thriving in the post-conciliar Church.
(Reading recommendation: The Popes against Modern Errors) by Tan Books. a collection of relevant encyclicals showing the errors of the modern day.
