Modernism in a Nutshell

[manualman]

1. The Church did not just condemn “utterly pagan religions” for almost 2000 years prior to Vatican II, they condemned the same religions that are now praised for those remnants of the truth not yet totally rejected. But the truth of the matter is that if one culpably rejects one tenant of Divinely Revealed Truth, one rejects it all.

And if you reduce the unabashed and clear teaching of the One True Church for almost 2000 years to “HaHa, your religion sucks and ours is clearly true while yours is clearly nonsense” - you’ve been infected with modernism and ecumania far more than you know. Think about it.

1. What is different about protestantism (or Islam for that matter) now as opposed to the time of Trent, Vatican I, and during all the years and decades in between, during which so many clear and unambiguous encycilicals were penned by the Vicars of Christ on earth - calling these souls to the unity of the One True Church?
2. Is the call to return being vocalized anymore? Is the call to convert to the One Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, being issued any more?
3. Recently it was reported that a large number of Anglicans were wanting to enter the One Holy Catholic Church - and yet a certain Cardinal “stood in the way” of their return. And we are not in a crisis?
4. Well, since their beliefs haven’t changed during the passage of time, then are you suggesting that the Catholic Church “behaved badly” at Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and for the entirety of Christianity pre-Vatican II?

Is daring to audibly utter infallible truths revealed by Christ through His Church now “behaving badly?”

Is Truth is now a bad thing? Truth is now uncharitable?

1. This is a case of differentiating evangelical approach from core doctrine. The early church had a brutal time physically, but a turkey shoot in the spiritual realm. The pagan religions of the day were clear nonsense and the message of the gospel shone unmistakeably in the hearts of those with goodwill. Islam was a totally different animal and the blunt “Turn or Burn” evangelization aproach never worked well on them. The REAL post-Vatican II position on ecumenism is NOT one of Nominalism, but a mere change in approach. Instead of merely throwing out the blunt truth, the idea is to let non-catholics get close enough to us to SEE the light of the gospel instead of alienating them with a haughty attitude so that they never notice Jesus. Look it up, Tradition covers doctrine and dogma in matters of faith and morals. It does NOT guarantee those truths will be presented in the way Jesus wills. The old approach simply does not work on muslims and protestants. I certainly agree with you that there is a modernist element who is trying very hard to hijack catholic teaching, but BXVI and JPII were not among them! Learn the difference and get back to your duty station soldier!
2. Nothing is different about Islam or protestantism today versus then. But perhaps you might like to notice that the pre-VII pastoral approach was rather dramatically unsuccessful in converting those folks? Read much history? Again, nobody ever promised that catholic PRESENTATION of doctrine would be infallible. No truths have changed, but the focus has changed from evangelizing with honey instead of vinegar. Living the gospel in the midst of one’s neighbors works better than anathametizing them. Again, you are certainly correct that there are those who have given up the goal of evangelization. BXVI and JPII are not among them.
3. Yes, but not on TV, nor in Sunday homilies. People whose spiritual formation is limited to that aren’t going to be much good at it anyways. READ BXVI writes and you’ll quickly see that he utterly rejects the ‘hermenuetic of rupture’ which some use in interpreting Vatican II. Instead he consistently teaches that we are to take the PASTORAL aproach espoused by VII and apply it in harmony with the consistent doctrine and Tradition of the church (note capital T). And yes, the Feeneyite interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is clearly refuted. Anybody but a Pharisee should be able to see that.
4. Yuck. Got a reference? You won’t find me arguing that Cardinals can’t be modernists. But I don’t know of this case and am reluctant to judge based on the facts given so far.
5. There is a time and a place for many sorts of pastoral presentation of the gospel. At the time of the Luther and Calvin’s mess there was certainly the need for strong and clear leadership to help a confused public. There were few at that time who had grown up and known nothing but protestant doctrine all their lives. Even today, I speak quite differently to a catholic who knows at least a bit of his faith who is contemplating leaving for an evangelical church than I do to someone who GREW UP in one. Before then, the clear, blunt approach WORKED on the people the Church came across. I see no need to deny that the Church has done an ineffective job at evangelizing muslims. It is just plain honesty to do so and denies no tenet of the faith.
6. Yes, if you utter such a truth in a way that infers some innate superiority that YOU have over another PERSON. If that is the message they receive, then the truth of the words you are using are irrelevant. You are behaving badly, whatever the century. Look, nowhere do I or recent popes suggest waffling on doctrine. What is being suggested is that we be wise and allow the Holy Spirit to prepare the soil before we try to plant the seed. Again, there are sure modernists who see no need to plant seeds anymore at all. Oppose THEM and stop attacking the successor of Peter.

 

[manualman]

It has been pointed out to you using Holy Fathers on the matter. But I didn’t see anything from any Holy Father in your response, which was only you stating what “think” Pope Benedict and JPII “think.” You failed to actaully cite or reference anything in particular other than your rejection of the OP.

You aren’t giving any reasons for your thoughts or your positions…that’s a pretty good description of “putting one’s head in the sand.”

What!?! The OP makes a BOLD assertion that BXVI is a modernist with NO quotes of BXVI to serve as examples to support that assertion. I jump in to defend him and you call ME out of order? He is guilty until I finish a master’s thesis summary of his life’s work to prove him innocent?

Is this the Bizzaro world forum?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s too bad the OP’s original good info on modernism had to be tainted with party spirit and papal defamation.

 

[I_Believe]

… People were offended, but coldn’t help but see that it was TRUE! Today, that isn’t happening so much anymore. Protestants and muslims (except in isolated cases) do not respond to that message. Their beliefs are so close to true, that what lacks in their faith is obscured to them by the poor charity displayed by the Feenyite catholic. In short, they don’t see Christ in us when we behave badly.

.

So, are you saying false ecumenism is a failure because of the miniscule number of "fenneyites " in the world ?

Protestants not only turned their back on HMC, they really discarded the 4th Commandment when they dishonored their parents by discarding the Faith their parents were bound to pass on to them.

How can you defend today’s error when anti - Catholicism is as bad as it has ever been or worse ?

Protestants either hate us or tolerate us at best, as a whole.

 

[manualman]

1. So, are you saying false ecumenism is a failure because of the miniscule number of "fenneyites " in the world ?
2. Protestants not only turned their back on HMC, they really discarded the 4th Commandment when they dishonored their parents by discarding the Faith their parents were bound to pass on to them.
3. How can you defend today’s error when anti - Catholicism is as bad as it has ever been or worse ?

Protestants either hate us or tolerate us at best, as a whole.

1. A loaded statement, to be sure. The ecumenism of Vatican II has so far failed because the devil has so far managed to convince about 90% of catholics that VII taught that all religions are of equal value, apparently including many Traditionalists. If the latter would READ the darn council documents and get back up on the firing line the way the Holy Father has instructed us to, things would be much better. Instead you buy the same lie the modernists bought.
2. None of the original protestants are alive anymore, so your point is kinds moot. They were all pretty much dead by the time of Vatican II. Catholics today that convert to protestantism rarely know their faith very well to begin with because of the awful state of catechesis in the last 30 years. Yup, the implementation of VII has been hijacked by a lot of modernists. Question? Are you out there teaching what VII REALLY said or supporting the modernist perversion of it?
3. See #1 above. Same answer, really. I’m not defending error. I’m defending godly men falsely accused of error.

Look folks, it is a preposterous fallacy to properly recognize the mess the Church is in today and then to simply assume that the Vatican II council as expressed in its documents is responsible. That kind of thinking is what gave birth to Protestantism. They saw corruption and lax practice in the Church and presumed that the DOCTRINE was responsible, instead of an excess of Judases. So they left and trusted their own interpretations of revelation. And here we are today.

 

[DustinsDad]

1. This is a case of differentiating evangelical approach from core doctrine. The early church had a brutal time physically, but a turkey shoot in the spiritual realm. The pagan religions of the day were clear nonsense and the message of the gospel shone unmistakeably in the hearts of those with goodwill. Islam was a totally different animal and the blunt “Turn or Burn” evangelization aproach never worked well on them.

“Turn or Burn” is an eternal reality - whether folks listen or not. And you can’t say the old approach didn’t work because “not everybody” converted. Likewise you can’t say the new approach does work because you have a few anecdotal stories about folks converting.

Stats don’t lie. The new approach certainly does promote conversions - but not in the direction we want. Stats show it. The new approach has lead to widespread religious indifferentism, massive unprecedented falling away from from the One True Church, Islam taking over as the most populous religion in the world, and now Cardinals and high ranking pre-lates even questioning the need for converstion to Christianity for certain races and populations.

The REAL post-Vatican II position on ecumenism is NOT one of Nominalism, but a mere change in approach.

As the OP demonstrates, it’s an approach itself that is modernist influenced, as outlined in many of the Encyclicals of the Holy Father’s in the last couple hundred years. You don’t have to say the pope is a full-fledged modernist, but it is painfully obvious that the last several have been heavily influenced by it’s teachings and philosophy. The warnings of said modernist influence and said modernist influenced approaches are there in black and white for all to read. And now when we see the fruit of the influence and the lack of heeding of the warnings manifest themselves in exactly what we were warned against - we seek to look for some other explanation.

Instead of merely throwing out the blunt truth, the idea is to let non-catholics get close enough to us to SEE the light of the gospel instead of alienating them with a haughty attitude so that they never notice Jesus.

That’s the initial intention (on the part of those who have the faith), that’s how it starts and that’s how it is “sold.” But when examined closely - when we look and see what was said and taught and compare it to the actions and approaches, the words - and perhaps most importantly - the missing words - we see that the approach all-too-often goes not just to being nice and charitable in proclaiming the gospel - it is a stifling and a smothering and a “gag” placed upon the gospel itself.

Look it up, Tradition covers doctrine and dogma in matters of faith and morals. It does NOT guarantee those truths will be presented in the way Jesus wills.

This present crisis in the Church is not a violation of Christ’s promise, and we are not bound to hold as a matter of faith “an approach” - especially an approach that was condemned and warned against EXPLICITLY by the Church for millenia and centuries.

Now so long as you aren’t thinking of defined dogma when you say “It does NOT guarantee those truths will be presented in the way Jesus wills”, I think I’d agree. But for the modernist, the dogmas themselves are prone to reform and change because for them, defined dogma is merely an imperfect human attempt to present a Truth, not Truth itself guaranteed by Jesus Christ.

The old approach simply does not work on muslims and protestants.

Tell that to the great post Reformation saints - one such as St. Francis de Sales for just one example.

I disagree with your statement. Clearly and courageously and with all charity proclaiming the truth works on whatever soul is disposed to receive it. Period. And it is a work of the Holy Spirit - it’s supernatural. But we forget that He wants to use* our* mouths, the mouths of our Bishops and priests, the mouth of the Holy Father. Are we willing to let Him? Are we praying for those above us in the Chruch that they be willing? Or are we comfortable in our indifference - happy to not be persecuted “too much.”

Are we willing to proclaim the truth? Or merely suggest the truth and throw it into the hat of modern opinion as if the One True Church established by Christ and paid for with His Body and Blood on the cross is just another “equal” at the table? Always with the disclaimer “Well since we are Christians, we believe…”, implying that truth for us is somehow different than truth for “them.”

I certainly agree with you that there is a modernist element who is trying very hard to hijack catholic teaching, but BXVI and JPII were not among them! Learn the difference and get back to your duty station soldier!

Sounds good - and is certainly less disturbing. But if you look closely the writings of the Holy Fathers over the past two or three centuries and then look at the writings and actions of recent popes, I think you will see clearly how they (and in turn, the faithful) have been influenced by modernism to some degree or another - sometimes in a high degree.

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

1. Nothing is different about Islam or protestantism today versus then. But perhaps you might like to notice that the pre-VII pastoral approach was rather dramatically unsuccessful in converting those folks? Read much history?

And the new approach is even* less* successful with the added bonus of scandalizing the faithful, massive religious indifferentism and a loss of faith - Christendom is in ruins!!! Read much news?

Would that we listen to the previous popes!
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.” And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
(Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

Again, nobody ever promised that catholic PRESENTATION of doctrine would be infallible. No truths have changed, but the focus has changed from evangelizing with honey instead of vinegar. Living the gospel in the midst of one’s neighbors works better than anathametizing them. Again, you are certainly correct that there are those who have given up the goal of evangelization. BXVI and JPII are not among them.

I thought the focus now was on ecumenism, which is not to be confused with evanglization. Can you point me to something spoken or written by a recent pope and directed to a non-catholic or non-Christian, that actally called them to the conversion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for the salvation of their souls? Anything?

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

1. Yes, but not on TV, nor in Sunday homilies.

Well, that explains why folks don’t believe it anymore then eh?

People whose spiritual formation is limited to that aren’t going to be much good at it anyways. READ BXVI writes and you’ll quickly see that he utterly rejects the ‘hermenuetic of rupture’ which some use in interpreting Vatican II. Instead he consistently teaches that we are to take the PASTORAL aproach espoused by VII and apply it in harmony with the consistent doctrine and Tradition of the church (note capital T).

I know this has been said - but it’s being said while the rupture goes on, and on, and on…and nothing is done about it.

And yes, the Feeneyite interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is clearly refuted. Anybody but a Pharisee should be able to see that…

Heh - I knew the word “Feeneyite” would have to be thrown in somewhere. Dare to even whisper that EENS is true, and this always pops up.

Lord have mercy.

Can you tell me your understanding of EENS, just so I know where you stand?

Thanks, and I’ll finish with the rest of this post later.

That’s all for now - Peace in Christ,

DD

 

[manualman]

I’m afraid I don’t recognize the acronym EENS. From your context, I imagine you are asking me my position on the exclusive claim the Church has on Salvation?

Gladly. There is one God and no other. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He first revealed Himself to the OT patriarchs and established the Jews as His chosen people from whom the Messiah would come forth and redeem ALL of humanity. Jesus is that Messiah (God the Son) and His death and subsequent resurrection is proof that God still loves humanity in spite of all the ugliness and sin we can muster. None of us are beyond the power of His Grace to save. After the Resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven and left behind his apostles to found His Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He promised endless Grace would pour forth from God through that Church for the rest of time and commanded her to spread the gospel to all nations. No one can be saved apart from Jesus because it was His death and resurrection that redeemed us from sins that otherwise leave us incapable of being in the presence of God (i.e. heaven). Those who comprehend Jesus identity and reject him commit THE unforgiveable sin. Likewise, those who comprehend that the Catholic Church is THE one, holy, catholic and apostolic church he clearly willed all to come to have a grim future. There are, however, those who sincerely and erroneously perceive Jesus to NOT be the Divine Savior through no fault of their own. Likewise there are droves of people who reject what they erroneously perceive the Church to be. These are the ignorant and the invicibly ignorant. It’s God’s job to sort them out, not mine. Any and all He choses to save by His own criteria (which He is not obligated to share with me) will still be receiving the Grace by which this happens via Christ and His Catholic Church.

This last part bothers a lot of people. They feel the need to have God boxed up in a tidy package. It is true that there is ONE lifeboat he sent to save us from this sinking ship of a world - the Catholic Church. Anybody who stays in the water clinging to lawn chairs and floats is a daft fool, and I’m not going to ignore him on the chance he could float to shore. But I’m also not about to beat him on the head with an oar if he refuses to climb in!

Now that that’s done I’m suddenly having a recall of (I think) a GK Chesterton quote (which I’ll likely butcher). Its not that large numbers of people have tried christianity and found it wanting. It’s that large numbers of people have tried christianity and found it HARD and so given it up for something that seems easier.

Gilbert would say the same about the REAL Vatican II. Don’t judge the actual contents by what the usurpers have tried to do with it. Pray, live right, witness to your faith, learn the Truth, receive the sacraments, discern what is REALLY wrong versus what is just a reform and be a POSITIVE part of your local parish instead of abandoning it to the irreligious (or worse). That’s how to fix things. Everything else is just selfish whining.

And I maintain that it is proper to be blunt about such things in a discussion like this between catholics. In discussing the same with protestants, I take the JPII and BXVI approach and focus on what we hold in common. It first confuses, then intrigues them to find out that what they had been told about the Catholic Church was mostly wrong. Then they start to wonder what the Truth is… No question it is more subtle and less gratifying. But coming from the lips of well formed catholics, it WORKS. I can’t disagree that we have a LOT of uninformed catholics. I’m working on it, but a little help would be nice!

 

[I_Believe]

1. A loaded statement, to be sure. The ecumenism of Vatican II has so far failed because the devil has so far managed to convince about 90% of catholics that VII taught that all religions are of equal value, apparently including many Traditionalists. If the latter would READ the darn council documents and get back up on the firing line the way the Holy Father has instructed us to, things would be much better. Instead you buy the same lie the modernists bought.
2. None of the original protestants are alive anymore, so your point is kinds moot. They were all pretty much dead by the time of Vatican II. Catholics today that convert to protestantism rarely know their faith very well to begin with because of the awful state of catechesis in the last 30 years. Yup, the implementation of VII has been hijacked by a lot of modernists. Question? Are you out there teaching what VII REALLY said or supporting the modernist perversion of it?
3. See #1 above. Same answer, really. I’m not defending error. I’m defending godly men falsely accused of error.

Look folks, it is a preposterous fallacy to properly recognize the mess the Church is in today and then to simply assume that the Vatican II council as expressed in its documents is responsible. That kind of thinking is what gave birth to Protestantism. They saw corruption and lax practice in the Church and presumed that the DOCTRINE was responsible, instead of an excess of Judases. So they left and trusted their own interpretations of revelation. And here we are today.

lol, you are so wound up about this, I can’t tell where you stand. You appear to acknowledge modernism is bad, but attacked the OP.

Now you are attacking me and assuming I support the modernists.
All this after I bumped this thread and said it is very informative.

I’m not a Feeneyite or a Modernist, if it makes you fell any better.

If not, try Valium.

 

[DustinsDad]

1. Yuck. Got a reference? You won’t find me arguing that Cardinals can’t be modernists. But I don’t know of this case and am reluctant to judge based on the facts given so far.

The story was bouncing around quite a bit at the end of last year. The Catholic Herald put up the story that started a controversy - it looks like it’s not up at their website anylonger, but you can still read it online here: Cardinal pours cold water on union with rebel (TAC) Anglican group

Just do a google search on that title and you’ll find lots of stories - and alot of commentary - on the matter.

I’m not sure what the current status is, but last I heard Pope Benedict, rather than have the group go through the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Cardinal Kasper’s territory), he sent them to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instead.

(more later, trying to catch up but it’s been a long day…)

DD

 

[manualman]

1. lol, you are so wound up about this, I can’t tell where you stand. You appear to acknowledge modernism is bad, but attacked the OP.
2. Now you are attacking me and assuming I support the modernists.
   All this after I bumped this thread and said it is very informative.

I’m not a Feeneyite or a Modernist, if it makes you fell any better.

1. If not, try Valium.

1. Of course I acknowledge that modernism is bad. That is the catholic position. I’m catholic. My beef isn’t with the critique of modernism, it is with the assertion that Benedict XVI is a modernist.
2. I’m sorry you felt attacked. That was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.
3. Weekends are cheaper and less addictive.

 

[DustinsDad]

1. There is a time and a place for many sorts of pastoral presentation of the gospel. At the time of the Luther and Calvin’s mess there was certainly the need for strong and clear leadership to help a confused public.

I would say there is always a need for strong and clear leadership. And I would also say that the public is no less confused now than they were then - moreso even. These discussion boards are evidence thereof.

There were few at that time who had grown up and known nothing but protestant doctrine all their lives…Before then, the clear, blunt approach WORKED on the people the Church came across.

That explains (maybe) Trent, but then you have all those years after…, and all these popes, all those encyclicals, all those catachisms, and of course The First Vatican Council which stated clearly:

First Vatican Council, Chapter 4. On faith and reason
13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
*not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
*but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

*First Vatican Council, Canon 4, On faith and reason
*3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
And now, just a few decades ago, a new “approach” was ushered in. And what has been the result? Honestly now. I say it’s exactly the result we were warned against by previous popes. You gotta dive in and read all that “stuff” from prior to VII - it’s a real eye opener.

Even today, I speak quite differently to a catholic who knows at least a bit of his faith who is contemplating leaving for an evangelical church than I do to someone who GREW UP in one.

As do I.

I see no need to deny that the Church has done an ineffective job at evangelizing muslims. It is just plain honesty to do so and denies no tenet of the faith.

The problem with not converting may just be more with the muslims and the nature of their particular false religion than with ourselves. And the more we try to “soften things up” in our approach to them, the less they respect us, the more they think we are willing to “negotiate” the truth, and the more they think they can eventually conquer Christendom. Our “softeness” fires them up as much as the moral degradation and sickness in our secular society.

Take St. Francis’ example, he softened nothing (despite today’s historical revision of the great saint), and was totally clear and concise and couragous AND charitable at the same time. This is the authentic traditional Catholic way. In all his charity, he was zealous for the salvation of their souls and pulled no punches on telling them of the necessity of converting to the One True Church.

At this point, the burden of responding to the cast seeds, responding to God’s grace, is in their court so to speak. We cast the seeds and pray.

And ambiguous statements such as have come out in and since Vatican II are so ambiguous as to be commonly interpreted to mean conversion from that false religion is not necessary for salvation. I would say that while not binding formal error, some statements can clearly lead one to an unorthodox and erroneous understanding of the necessity of conversion.

I think, in light of the devastation of the last 40 years, we may just need to start evengelizing ourselves again - and not with some “new” “enlightened” “softer” or “tolerant” evangilazation…but with the old fasioned meat and potatoes, unambiguous catechesis of Catholic Truth.

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

Yes, if you utter such a truth in a way that infers some innate superiority that YOU have over another PERSON. If that is the message they receive, then the truth of the words you are using are irrelevant.

Depends on what you mean by superior here. The fact of the matter is that the faithful catholic is, by virtue of them being a faithful catholic, is “superior” to the non-Catholic, in that they are in the One True Church, they have been given the way to eternal life, and have been grafted into the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they have His Divine Life in them (sanctifying grace), and access to the means by which this Divine Life can be strenghthened and, when damaged, repaired (the Sacraments). In short, they have been “given much.”

It is not “innate” in that it is in them by virtue of some merit of themselves, but it is given them by the mercy of God, and it is offered to all. The Catholic Church IS God’s mercy incarnate in the world, precisely because we are not good or worthy of His Divine life on our own or apart from Him.

And there is something that one just can’t get around - that is the “offence of the Gospel” - it’s always going to be with us until the end of time, and we ain’t going to negotiate enouch or give enough harmless sounding platitudes to get around it. It’s why there are martyrs, heck, it’s why there was the Cross in the first place. And remember, the servant is no greater than the master. We can wish all we want, but preaching the Truth will always bring the cross. Always.

If that is the message they receive, then the truth of the words you are using are irrelevant. You are behaving badly, whatever the century.

I say if one preaches the Truth, those who reject the Truth will always be prone to take it “that way.” It’s just a fact of life. We can not change the truth, or put it under a bushel basket just because alot of folks reject it or are offended by it.

And if you disagree with this, then how do you reconcile this position with the fact that the Catholic Church used this clear and direct approach in the old Catechisms, the old Encyclicals, and the old Councils for nearly 2000 years - where they using the wrong approach all this time, and only within the last 40 years stumbled on the “right” approach? And if so, where is the tangible fruit of this “right approach”? Or rather, have we seen a devastation within the Church in this approach’s wake?

Look, nowhere do I or recent popes suggest waffling on doctrine.

I would say the behaviors, the actions, and the “new approach” itself suggests a waffling on doctrine has occurred somewhere along the way. It’s a human thing here mind you, nothing is (or could ever be) bound for the faithful in this regard because to do so would make Christ a liar.

But the actions, or inactions, the words spoken and words not spoken of even the successor of Peter, can cause confusion in the minds of the faithful. So much so, that faithful catholics sit here and debate issues and Truths - trying to make sense of it all.

What is being suggested is that we be wise and allow the Holy Spirit to prepare the soil before we try to plant the seed.

And just when exactly will we know the soil has been prepared so that we can go ahead and cast the seed? What is the “green light” so to speak?

What exactly are we waiting for?

Again, there are sure modernists who see no need to plant seeds anymore at all. Oppose THEM and stop attacking the successor of Peter.

My intention is not to attack the successor of Peter, my intention is to wake folks up to the need to pray for the successor of Peter.

Courage and clarity - that’s what we need so desparately from the Vicar of Christ. Courage and clarity!

That’s what I pray for anyway.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

(I’ll respond to your EENS post later…)

 

[manualman]

…all these popes, all those encyclicals, all those catachisms, and of course The First Vatican Council which stated clearly:

First Vatican Council, Chapter 4. On faith and reason

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

*not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,

*but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

First Vatican Council, Canon 4, On faith and reason

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

You DO know that not everything in a Baltimore Catechism is a DOGMA, right? I recommend Ludwig Ott (find him on Google) for a superb explanation of the various levels of authoritativeness (is that a word?) in catholic teaching and a pretty darn complete listing of what falls where (from theological speculation to dogma). Your quote is specific to dogmas and is, of course, dead on. No one can say Jesus only rose ‘spiritually’ from the dead. No one can deny that Mary is the Mother of God. Them’s dogma. What DOGMA has been twisted or reinterpreted by VII?

The problem I have with some Traditionalists is that they often don’t distinguish between Tradition and tradition. Scripture clearly shows that the Church can make pastoral mistakes (note Paul’s rebuke of Peter on the unclean meat issue). You make great and valid criticism about the pastoral approach of the Church today being so wishywashy that it is virtually ignorable. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way than was done 60 years ago. And I don’t think Vatican II itself was the CAUSE of the current situation. (BTW, I think St Francis is a great example of how to behave when evangelizing muslims. Too bad Sulieman (sp?) considered him an oddity instead of the real thing of Christianity.)

I’m not a scholar nor a saint. But I’ve seen and read enough BXVI to know he’s no modernist. I still believe we haven’t SEEN the genuine fruit of Vatican II yet, just the chaos from the attempted hijack of it. Stay tuned though. Life is always interesting in the aftermath of a Council. Yes, we’ve got infiltrators on the loose, but papa ain’t one of them and the gates are still closed fast.

 

[DustinsDad]

You DO know that not everything in a Baltimore Catechism is a DOGMA, right?

Of course - but I didn’t bring up the Baltimore Catechism one way or the other so I’m not sure what you’re driving at.

The part of the post was discussing the “approach” - and how we can’t just say “We must approach it differently now because the original reformers are now dead.” This theory doesn’t work because the original reformers were dead long long before the new “approach” was ushered in and alot happened in the meantime.

And I quoted Vatican I’s infallible explanation of dogma at the end of this part to demonstrate how the “new approach” has led otherwise faithful catholics to believe that dogma can change into something other than what it once was dogma. Alot of folks are quite shocked to see that particular canon and chapter from VI.

(continued)

 

[DustinsDad]

Your quote is specific to dogmas and is, of course, dead on. No one can say Jesus only rose ‘spiritually’ from the dead. No one can deny that Mary is the Mother of God. Them’s dogma. What DOGMA has been twisted or reinterpreted by VII?

Eh, twisted as in error formally bound as truth? None. Impossible for one thing. For another, the Council itself contained no new dogmatic declarations or definitions, it was to change nothing, as Pope John XXIII stated at its opening:

…The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character
*Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech, Vatican II *

However…good intentions notwithstanding, was dogma in some sense twisted and reinterpreted in practice and in action, as a result of the inherant ambeguities in the essays/documents of Vatican II, taken advantage of by the notorious “Spirit of Vatican II”? I’d say yes - plenty of times in plenty of places and by plenty of folks. I think the “approach” itself has resulted in a twisting and distorting of Tradition in how it’s taught and handed on, how dogma is received and learned and lived.

The problem I have with some Traditionalists is that they often don’t distinguish between Tradition and tradition.

I think what alot of traditionalist folks are saying is that changing so much tradition has an unintened consequence of changing Tradition - at least in the minds of the faithful. In short, confusion is rampant.

Scripture clearly shows that the Church can make pastoral mistakes (note Paul’s rebuke of Peter on the unclean meat issue). You make great and valid criticism about the pastoral approach of the Church today being so wishywashy that it is virtually ignorable.

Be careful talking like that - you might get acused of being a radical traditionalist!

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way than was done 60 years ago. And I don’t think Vatican II itself was the CAUSE of the current situation.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course. But it seems pretty obvious there were alot of problems perculating under the surface - and the new “openness” of VII, I think, was just the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. Like opening the windows when a bad thunderstorm was just hitting.

I don’t think it’s schismatic or disobediant to think this - a smarter man than I once said: “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, tr. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1987), 378.

I’m not a scholar nor a saint. But I’ve seen and read enough BXVI to know he’s no modernist. I still believe we haven’t SEEN the genuine fruit of Vatican II yet, just the chaos from the attempted hijack of it. Stay tuned though. Life is always interesting in the aftermath of a Council. Yes, we’ve got infiltrators on the loose, but papa ain’t one of them and the gates are still closed fast.

From one non-scholar, non-saint to another…I wouldn’t go so far as to name Pope Benedict a “modernist” either. But I’ve gotta be honset here. Modernism, as written about by previous popes, especially as laid out in Pope Pius X’s Pascendi, has influenced alot of what is going on today in the Church, and yes, its influence can be seen in some of what Pope Benedict (mostly when Cardinal Ratzinger) has written in the past - some of it not all that distant. I think the article posted in the OP raised some very valid points that must be considered honestly.

But I’m not a complete pessimist. I think (and hope and pray) the pope is beginning to, little by little, get us back on track. And if this is the case, it’s fair to say that he’s facing opposition more than we can even imagine. From the inside and from the outside.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…I still believe we haven’t SEEN the genuine fruit of Vatican II yet, just the chaos from the attempted hijack of it. Stay tuned though. Life is always interesting in the aftermath of a Council…

Read The Church Since Vatican II by Michael Davies. Davies is no schismatic, and was praised by then Cardinal Ratzinger. This article is one of the best summaries I’ve ever read on the current state of the Church. Check it out.

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

I imagine you are asking me my position on the exclusive claim the Church has on Salvation?

Yes. Here the the infallible binding proclamations:“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)These are binding and infallible. It sets for the reality that there is only salvation in the One Holy Catholic Church. I would agree that the constant understanding of this dogma is that it is possible at least to be in Her, to be united to the Soul of the Church, while not being a visible member.

…After the Resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven and left behind his apostles to found His Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He promised endless Grace would pour forth from God through that Church for the rest of time and commanded her to spread the gospel to all nations. No one can be saved apart from Jesus because it was His death and resurrection that redeemed us from sins that otherwise leave us incapable of being in the presence of God (i.e. heaven).

You mention that God’s endless grace would “flow forth from that Church” - do you mean Sanctifying Grace? Sanctifying Grace in and of itself unites one to and puts one “in” the Church. I would say you can’t mean Sanctifying grace in this sense, because it would be pretty darn close to a fundamental change in the infallible dogmas above. No longer would the Church be the arc (as in Noah’s forshadowing), outside of which no one is saved, now salvation “flows forth from the Church” zapping folks along the way according to how much truth they have or have not rejected.

But how much truth can one culpably reject - how much of Jesus can one culpably reject, and still be saved?

On the other hand, if you would say that the Good Lord uses His Church as one of the primary means for sending forth actual graces, I’d give a hearty AMEN! These are the graces that go forth from His Church, free gifts that draw, nudge, and call those outside of Her into Her for the salvation of their souls.

Those who comprehend Jesus identity and reject him commit THE unforgiveable sin.

Here’s where I think we run into a problem…what of those who refuse the actual grace that allows for the comprehension? They never comprehended because they chose not to cooperate with the grace that would have allowed for that comprehension in the first place. See what I mean?

We start drifting to what is so commonly said nowadays - that there is no sin in not being Catholic unless the person knows for sure the Church is true and then refuses to enter. It makes every anathema and canon meaningless, or forces an “unless you don’t believe this” disclaimer after every one. Sort of like this:
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved - unless one doesn’t believe this.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff - unless one doesn’t believe this”. (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Unless he doesn’t believe this.” *(Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)*It kind of puts it in a whole new light, eh?

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

Likewise, those who comprehend that the Catholic Church is THE one, holy, catholic and apostolic church he clearly willed all to come to have a grim future.

Certainly.

There are, however, those who sincerely and erroneously perceive Jesus to NOT be the Divine Savior through no fault of their own.

Yes, and there are those who sincerely and erroneously preceive Jesus to NOT be the Divine Savior, and are culpable for these sincere but erroneous perceptions.

Likewise there are droves of people who reject what they erroneously perceive the Church to be. These are the ignorant and the invicibly ignorant. It’s God’s job to sort them out, not mine.

Of course He is the judge. And we pray for mercy for those who die outside of the visible Church, for some miracle of last minute conversion that we don’t see, or perhaps some factor that makes their rejection inclupable, etc. But we err on the side of caution on this side of the pearly gates…not assuming a person meets all the criteria we know must be present for eternal life outside of being visibly united to the One True Church (baptism or baptism of desire + no culpability for their ignorance or rejection of Christ’s Church + no mortal sin on their soul or perfect contrition for mortal sins committed, etc.)

Any and all He choses to save by His own criteria (which He is not obligated to share with me) will still be receiving the Grace by which this happens via Christ and His Catholic Church. This last part bothers a lot of people. They feel the need to have God boxed up in a tidy package.

Oh, I don’t know. On an individual case, of course we can’t see the state of the soul - or the multitude of invisible graces that the Good Lord sends and has sent throughout the person’s life. But we can’t say, objectively, it’s a big mystery how people are saved. For those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church, we know that certain things have to be there in the objective order. The old Baltimore Catechism #4, question 121 had a pretty good detailed explanation, as does this part of the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X.

It is true that there is ONE lifeboat he sent to save us from this sinking ship of a world - the Catholic Church. Anybody who stays in the water clinging to lawn chairs and floats is a daft fool, and I’m not going to ignore him on the chance he could float to shore. But I’m also not about to beat him on the head with an oar if he refuses to climb in!

Well, that drastic jump - from just plain ignoring, to beating him on the head with an oar, just doesn’t fit. No one is suggesting beating th guy on the head with an oar. But nowadays, merely telling the person that he needs to get on the boat or drown is tatamout to beating him on the head with an oar.

I’ll tell you what is just as bad as beating him on the head with an oar is though…that is telling him what a wonderful boat his lawn chair is!

(continued…)