Modernism in a Nutshell

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The following article does a good job in explaining modernism, as defined in the encyclical Pascendi, in easy to understand language. This is a good article to read before reading Pascendi, which is a difficult encyclical to understand.

Modernism in a Nutshell
Religion must change

Modernism, according to Pascendi, starts with the false notion that we can only believe what we can see: what is visible to the senses. If we can’t see, feel, taste, touch or smell it, then we cannot know it is there. Thus, the existence of God, the soul and the supernatural cannot be known. These things are not visible to the senses, so we can know nothing about them, nor even if they exist. This “I-don’t- know-ism” is called “Agnosticism”.

As a result of this Agnosticism, a God “out there” can never be a direct object of study. Nor can any credence be placed in the concepts of “miracles,” “supernatural” or “revelation,” since these things, according to the Modernist, can not be known. Thus the old religion of a God “out there” is to be treated as of no value.

But the modernist can see that religion exists. He sees men the world over leading moral lives in compliance with their religious creed. He sees the houses of worship, hears the religious hymns, smells the incense. This must be explained somehow. Since he has already determined that religion does not come from a God “out there” – because this is unknowable – he concludes that all religion comes from inside of man. Man has a religious sentiment, a need for religion, and constructs a God and religion to fulfill this inner need. All things divine actually come from within man and have their source from within man. This “divine- within-man” is called “Vital Immanence”.

This religious sentiment is often connected with an outstanding historic figure, for example, Jesus Christ. For the modernist, Christ is a historic figure to whom we can attribute nothing supernatural. But the believer, by “faith” subjectively transfigures Christ into a God-Man. Thus the historic Christ is transfigured by “faith,” but also disfigured by “faith,” since the “Christ of faith” is a distortion of the “Christ of history,” who, the Modernists claim, is not divine. Nor did He work miracles. The “divine elements” attributed to Jesus Christ were only what the believers – or consensus of believers – of the time attributed to Him to satisfy their inner need. For the believer, this is his “experience” of God.

Thus, all of Scripture must be re-studied “historically” if we want to separate the true “facts” of history from the “fables” that the scriptural writers imposed in the text to satisfy their “faith”. Scripture still has a place in the Modernist system, since it serves to stimulate the believer to reveal to himself the “faith” that is inside himself.

By logical extension, the modernist will hold all religions as equally valid, since every religion springs from the “Vital Immanence” within man. Every religion is a believer’s legitimate “experience of God”. A “church” is simply a group of people who adhere to the same religious feelings. So all religions are good, providing that they satisfy the yearnings of the human heart. There is no “one true Church”. No, all religions are divine, because they come from the source of all things divine, which is the religious sentiment of man. The modernist, by necessity, must be ecumenical.

What then are dogmas? “Dogmas” are simply the expression of the convictions that come from the inner needs of religious people at a given moment of history. And if the times change, and if the inner religious needs of the people change, then “dogma” must change accordingly. There is no immutable religious truth.

What then is the duty of the religious leader? According to modernism, a true religious leader is not someone who pronounces unchangeable dogmas from a God “out there”. Rather, here’s how it works. At a given moment of history, religious men will have a general sentiment of what is good or bad, true or false, moral or immoral, religious or irreligious. The duty of the religious leader is to tap into the general consensus of what men are feeling about religion and articulate it into a dogma. Years later, when the religious consensus changes, then the religious leaders must tap into the new general sentiment and adjust dogma accordingly. In the modernist system, there is no such thing as unchangeable religious truth.

In fact, change is a necessary element for the Modernist. Since change is a sign of life, and religion comes from the life of man, then religion, if is to be alive, must change if it is to be a successful expression of the evolving religious sense. This is called the “Evolution of Dogma”.

But this Evolution of Dogma must not proceed too fast.Thus in religion there must be a progressive force that forges ahead with the latest ideas, since religion must keep changing or die. But there also must be a conserving force, an authority which keeps the general religious teachings from going too far beyond its “primitive vital principle” and thus cutting the religion completely from its roots.

This is why, to give a contemporary example, a warning from a progressivist such as Cardinal Ratzinger does not trouble an ex- treme-modernist like Hans Küng. Both are serving the opposing sides of the dialectic that Modernism accepts. Küng is the ultra-progressive force, and Ratzinger is merely the conserving force at this stage of the evolutionary process. In time, the views of Küng might be acceptable to Vatican officials, but not yet, since Ratzinger’s present duty is one of conservation: to keep the continuous aggiornamento from moving too fast[1]

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

“Tradition” for the modernist, is nothing more than the former expressions of the collective feelings of a religious group throughout the ages. But the modernist will insist on a “living tradition” that casts aside old dogmas and practices if they are not considered relevant to modern man.

Likewise “sacraments,” for the modernist, are merely the outward sense- expression of the inner religious conviction.

It is easy to see why modernists are so dangerous. They use Catholic words such as “Church,” “Christ,” “Tradition,” “Eucharist,” “Revelation,” “Scripture,” but redefine these terms in accord with their modernist system. A modernist may sound Catholic, since he employs Catholic terminology. But this is a deceptive stratagem, since he does not tell his readers or hearers that he has invested Catholic terms with new meaning. This is why Pius X called modernists “cunning”, “wily,” “mischievous,” “audacious,” and other names to describe clever criminals. This is also why Pius X said, "Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist.[2]

Ambiguity and imprecision of language are likewise modernist stratagems, since the modernist “needs room” in slippery religious jargon to work in his novel tenets. This explains why Modernists despise the scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose precise language, employed by the Church for centuries, leaves them no wiggle room. Pius X rightly said, "there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method.[3] (Not surprising, Cardinal Ratzinger in his memoirs openly boasts of his boredom with Scholasticism, calling it static and “too-ready made”)[4]

The three pillars of Modernism, then, are Agnosticism, Vital Immanence and Evolution of Dogma. The rest of the modernist system flows logically from these tenets. It is a cohesive system. The most tangible aspect of modernism, visible to the average man, is that religion must change for the sake of changing times.

Thus, the modernist is all afire for updating, novelty and endless change. Continuous aggiornamento is his battle cry. The Latin Tridentine Mass cannot be considered alive for it has not changed for centuries. For the Mass to be living, it must be redesigned and modernized. The Rosary has been fifteen decades for eight centuries. How could anyone find it interesting? Thus for the Rosary to be “alive” it must be updated, so let’s add 5 more decades. Perhaps in a few years we’ll add five more. After all, change is a sign of life!

Gregorian Chant was used in churches for 1500 years. How boring, how monotonous. No one will come to church if you sing those old hymns. It all must be replaced with pop music in the sanctuary, complete with strumming guitars and throbbing rhythms: the music of “modern man”. Old baroque church interiors must be gutted and replaced by the theory-driven, shapeless art and architecture of modern man. What could be better than a church that looks like a combination of a Masonic temple and an insecticide refinery?

If dogma is to be “living” it must be subjected to the “new insights” of modern theologians. “Outdated” Catholic Tradition must be replaced by “Living Tradition”.

Thus the ideal modern Catholic religion, one that shows that it is alive, must have a New Theology, New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Catechism, and New Evangelization. And every one of these “new” items will contain aspects that in some way or another, contradict the traditional (“static”) Catholic teaching and practice.[5]

This new religion must also peacefully co-exist with other religions. It must have a new policy of “dialogue and proclamation”. We proclaim our own Catholic religion because we think it’s the niftiest, and perhaps others who hear us, who also think it’s nifty, will become Catholic too. But for those who do not wish to become Catholic, that’s fine. We simply dialogue with them, rather than try to convert them, since all religions are good because all religions spring from the inner religious sentiment of man. Nothing is more offensive to the modernist religion than to declare Catholicism to be the “one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation”.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

And now that we Catholics finally understand all this, after two-thousand years of thinking we are the only true religion, then let’s have a pan-religious prayer- meeting at Assisi, let’s have a Lutheran-Catholic Accord, let’s get “smoked” in a Native American sweet- grass ritual, let’s have Jewish-Catholic dialogue, let’s kiss the Koran. And since the syllabi of Pope Pius IX and Pius X are time-bound documents that might have been “anchors” for a previous age but are no longer relevant to modern religious sentiment, let’s have a Vatican II that is a “counter-syllabus”[6] to usher in this new modernist, ecumenical orientation, the result of which will be a new springtime!

This is the insanity that Pope Pius X combated, the insanity in which we now live. Holy Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Footnotes:

1. Under Pius XII, Ratzinger’s, Congar’s and Rahner’s views were considered progressive and heretical. Now, they are falsely considered as “mainstream, conservative Catholicism”.
2. Pascendi, No. 18, from Popes Against Modernism Errors, p. 196.
3. Pascendi, No. 42, from Ibid.
4. Si Si No No, English translation, March, 1999.
5. For example, the Vatican’s 1993 Balamand Declaration says that the notion that the Schismatic Orthodox must return to the Catholic Church for salvation is an “outdated ecclesiology”, thus defying the thrice-defined dogma (ex cathedra) that “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
6. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar called Vatican II a “counter-syllabus” against Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. They used the term approvingly, in that they believe modern historic conditions now called for a “counter-syllabus”. Thus they believe the false notion that what was “true” for the 19th Century is not “true” for the 20th Century.

 

[podger]

Ambiguity and imprecision of language are likewise modernist stratagems, since the modernist “needs room” in slippery religious jargon to work in his novel tenets. This explains why Modernists despise the scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose precise language, employed by the Church for centuries, leaves them no wiggle room. Pius X rightly said, "there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method.[3] (Not surprising, Cardinal Ratzinger in his memoirs openly boasts of his boredom with Scholasticism, calling it static and “too-ready made”)[4]

Gee I don’t know what to think:shrug: I’m very happy with your information because the book I just got in the mail I couldn’t understand one word!
Can you explain a little more about the above quote.
Are you implying that the past several Popes were mislead into modernism or what?
Do you believe them to be true Popes?
I have heard and read many different theories about the Popes and Vatican ll, I just don’t want to be mislead.
Thanks for you time and God Bless, Kathy

 

[DustinsDad]

…I 'm very happy with your information because the book I just got in the mail I couldn’t understand one word!

Fear not - the ancient and rich enthusiasm of universal spiritual resources will illumine , in a certain sense, the People of God’s future experience of mystery.



DD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Gee I don’t know what to think:shrug: I’m very happy with your information because the book I just got in the mail I couldn’t understand one word!
Can you explain a little more about the above quote.
Are you implying that the past several Popes were mislead into modernism or what?
Do you believe them to be true Popes?
I have heard and read many different theories about the Popes and Vatican ll, I just don’t want to be mislead.
Thanks for you time and God Bless, Kathy

What I am going to say is very unpopular, but it is as plain as day: Yes, the last few Pope have been text-book modernists. John XXIII was removed from his teaching position in the late 20’s for teaching modernism. Paul VI was no better, and John Paul II surpassed both. That doesn’t mean they ceased to be the Popes, but it means their way of thinking was “fuzzy” at best, and leads only to confusion.

The reason modernism is “fuzzy” is two fold: 1.) they use fuzzy language that you can’t understand; and 2.) because their thinking is based on a bad philosophy.

Philosophy is described as the foundation of theology. It is the way in which a person thinks. It is the way the mind considers truth.

For example, Thomistic philosophy, which, according to Pope St. Pius X, is the antidote for modernism, searches for the essence of the being. In other words, what the thing is in and of itself. For example what is the Pope? St. Thomas would answer by saying that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church. A clear and simple answer; but for the modernists that is too “simplistic”.

Modern philosophy, such as that of John Paul II, does not look at what the thing is in itself. Instead, it will search for the “relationship”. In other words, what is the thing in relation to me, or to you, or to Bob down the street? So, for example, John Paul II’s philosophy would not ask what the office of the Pope is in itself, but what it is in relation to others. For example, for Catholics the Pope is the head of the Church and is looked upon as such. For Protestants the Pope has no authority and is merely a “Christian leader” at best (and the antichrist at worst). For the Orthodox the Pope is merely “the first among equals”. “First among equals" is the term they would use to describe the Pope… and interestingly is the term John Paul II used to refer to himself when he met with the Orthodox.

When presented with the three ways of considering the office of the Pope, a mind that thinks correctly would ask: So, who is right? Is it the Catholics who believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, the Protestants who don’t consider him as more than a “minister”, or the Orthodox who believe he is merely “the first among equals”.

Phenominology would not answer that question because it does not think in objective terms. Instead, it would seek to “respond” to the three groups, rather than defending the truth and condemning the contrary errors.

This explains why John Paul II, in the encyclical “ut unum sint” said that the Church must "find a way to exercise the [Petrine] Primacy that …. will open to a new situation” (Ut unum sint, 95b).

There is a movement that is seeking to remake the office of the Pope into a vague figurehead who exercises no authority. (You can probably find a lot of information about this online) After all, since Protestants don’t recognize the authority of the Pope, the office of Pope must be adapted to fit their “understanding” as well as the “understanding” of Catholics and Orthodox. Truth is not based on reality, but on the individuals “understanding”. It is, after all, the individual’s “understanding” that determines the relationship, which is what is considered by modernist philosophy. It is all mushy subjectivism and destroys objective truth (reality). It is another effect of liberalism which seeks to “liberate” man from God in everyway possible ( I could go off on this subject, but I won’t).

We are living in confusing times. As a just punishment from God for the sins of men, God has allowed a great crisis in the Church to come about. This crisis started at the top, and has resulted in great confusion.

This was predicted numerous times by the saints. In fact, Our Lady of Good Success, an approved apparition from about 300 years ago, actually gave the date. She said the crisis she was describing would take place in “the second half of the 20th century”.

The good news is that the same saints who predicted our current crisis also predicted an amazing restoration of the Church that will be beyond anyone’s imagination. This restoration is probably right around the corner. Therefore, let us not lose hope, but instead renew our strength and fight as true children of God for “the faith once delivered to the saints”

As our Lady of LaSallette said: “Fight, ye children of light; combat, ye small band that can see…”.

 

[SemperFidelis]

What I am going to say is very unpopular, but it is as plain as day: Yes, the last few Pope have been text-book modernists. John XXIII was removed from his teaching position in the late 20’s for teaching modernism. Paul VI was no better, and John Paul II surpassed both. That doesn’t mean they ceased to be the Popes, but it means their way of thinking was “fuzzy” at best, and leads only to confusion.

The reason modernism is “fuzzy” is two fold: 1.) they use fuzzy language that you can’t understand; and 2.) because their thinking is based on a bad philosophy.

Philosophy is described as the foundation of theology. It is the way in which a person thinks. It is the way the mind considers truth.

For example, Thomistic philosophy, which, according to Pope St. Pius X, is the antidote for modernism, searches for the essence of the being. In other words, what the thing is in and of itself. For example what is the Pope? St. Thomas would answer by saying that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church. A clear and simple answer; but for the modernists that is too “simplistic”.

Modern philosophy, such as that of John Paul II, does not look at what the thing is in itself. Instead, it will search for the “relationship”. In other words, what is the thing in relation to me, or to you, or to Bob down the street? So, for example, John Paul II’s philosophy would not ask what the office of the Pope is in itself, but what it is in relation to others. For example, for Catholics the Pope is the head of the Church and is looked upon as such. For Protestants the Pope has no authority and is merely a “Christian leader” at best (and the antichrist at worst). For the Orthodox the Pope is merely “the first among equals”. “First among equals" is the term they would use to describe the Pope… and interestingly is the term John Paul II used to refer to himself when he met with the Orthodox.

When presented with the three ways of considering the office of the Pope, a mind that thinks correctly would ask: So, who is right? Is it the Catholics who believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, the Protestants who don’t consider him as more than a “minister”, or the Orthodox who believe he is merely “the first among equals”.

Phenominology would not answer that question because it does not think in objective terms. Instead, it would seek to “respond” to the three groups, rather than defending the truth and condemning the contrary errors.

This explains why John Paul II, in the encyclical “ut unum sint” said that the Church must "find a way to exercise the [Petrine] Primacy that …. will open to a new situation” (Ut unum sint, 95b).

There is a movement that is seeking to remake the office of the Pope into a vague figurehead who exercises no authority. (You can probably find a lot of information about this online) After all, since Protestants don’t recognize the authority of the Pope, the office of Pope must be adapted to fit their “understanding” as well as the “understanding” of Catholics and Orthodox. Truth is not based on reality, but on the individuals “understanding”. It is, after all, the individual’s “understanding” that determines the relationship, which is what is considered by modernist philosophy. It is all mushy subjectivism and destroys objective truth (reality). It is another effect of liberalism which seeks to “liberate” man from God in everyway possible ( I could go off on this subject, but I won’t).

We are living in confusing times. As a just punishment from God for the sins of men, God has allowed a great crisis in the Church to come about. This crisis started at the top, and has resulted in great confusion.

This was predicted numerous times by the saints. In fact, Our Lady of Good Success, an approved apparition from about 300 years ago, actually gave the date. She said the crisis she was describing would take place in “the second half of the 20th century”.

The good news is that the same saints who predicted our current crisis also predicted an amazing restoration of the Church that will be beyond anyone’s imagination. This restoration is probably right around the corner. Therefore, let us not lose hope, but instead renew our strength and fight as true children of God for “the faith once delivered to the saints”

As our Lady of LaSallette said: “Fight, ye children of light; combat, ye small band that can see…”.

Fantastic post Pax. Bravo, and may God Bless you!

 

[podger]

Wow! what else can you teach me?
A very very good explaination I will look forward to more of your posts in the future.

God Bless; Kathy

 

[DustinsDad]

This was just published in the March edition of Credo of the Catholic Laity (local paper here in St. Louis) - good stuff:​

Modernism and Pope Pius X
by Dana Cole

The loss of faith is the rotten core of Modernism. The heresy of Modernism was identified and condemned by Pope Pius X in the early 20th century in his encyclical, “Pascendi Domenici Gregis.” Since this heresy was so pervasive at that time, reaching into the heart of the Church itself, the Pope took severe measures to root it out of the Church. While these measures stemmed the tide of the heresy and saved many young priests and the faithful from its effects, it continued to thrive in the secular world. However, once Vatican II provided a forum for broader theological inquiry, the virus of Modernism took hold in the Church once again, encouraged by an agnostic mind-set in the secular world.

What is Modernism? Pope Pius X analyzed various writings of the Modernists and identified three main themes: vital immanence, the historical-critical method of studying Scripture, and evolution of doctrine.

Vital Immanence: Essentially, agnosticism is a refusal to believe in anything beyond our five senses. If something cannot be seen, felt, heard, etc., it is not an objective phenomenon which can be studied by science and history. Therefore all past religious revelation and doctrine was only a collection of personal internal experiences, conjured up by the tension of man’s existence in an unpredictable world. This is the principle of religious immanence. Faith consists only in a sentiment originating in a need for the divine. Religious consciousness, then, is solely personal and unique to each individual. This is the philosophy permeating secular thought in the last two centuries, and when admitted into the seminaries and universities of the Church, it destroys faith.

The Historical-Critical Method: As Catholics, we read our Scripture with a trust that God’s Word is true and that Christ is Who He said He is: the Son of God. St. John the Evangelist most beautifully crafts his gospel to bring out the divinity of Jesus, the “Word made Flesh.” Where miracles occur in the historical records of the Old Testament and the New, we believe that God suspended the laws of nature to perform these.

However, the Modernists believe that the men who followed Jesus were so enthralled by His personal charisma and His teaching that they ascribed divine attributes to Him, elevating Him above His true condition, and embroidering the historical account with what seemed to be miracles. Because they are agnostics, the Modernists cannot accept what is not perceptible to the senses, and when they read the Scriptures they remove everything which raises persons or events above historical conditions. They must manufacture common, everyday reasons why things which looked like miracles occurred. As for Christ Himself, because the Modernists believe He was “transfigured” by men into a divinity, He must be stripped of all deeds and words not in keeping with the times and conditions in which He lived. Once stripped, He becomes just an itinerant preacher who suffered crucifixion and death because He fell afoul of the religious and political rulers of His day. There was no resurrection, they say. So this is the “Christ of history,” the real Christ, versus the “Christ of faith,” a fiction. Catechetical materials which present Jesus as a social revolutionary and downplay His divinity and His call to holiness betray the Modernist school of thought.

Evolution of Doctrine: Modernists believe that a living religion must change constantly, evolving with changing times and cultures. And, since for them religion is essentially a personal experience, they admit a wide variety of interpretations and modifications, all completely subjective without reference to an objective truth independent of time or culture. Today what matters is what one feels.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the recent “ordination” of two Catholic women in a synagogue in St. Louis. Despite two thousand years of unbroken tradition and the unambiguous words of Pope John Paul II that the Church is unable to ordain women, these two women pursued this objective because “it felt right to them.” And the female rabbi of the synagogue, against ecumenical protocol and common decency, provided them with a venue because “it felt right to her.”

Toward the end of his encyclical, Pope Pius X lists certain reforms advocated by the Modernists:

• Theology is to be reformed, based on modern philosophy.
• Historical methods are to be reformed consonant with modern methods and principles.
• Dogmas are to be harmonized with science and history.
• Regarding worship, the number of external devotions are to be reduced.
• Church authority must be decentralized and democratized.
• In morals the principles of “Americanism” must be adopted; i.e., the active virtues are more important than the passive (action more important than contemplation).
• Ecclesiastical celibacy must be suppressed.

Modernism is alive and well today.

---

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Genesis315]

Pax et Caritas:

What I am going to say is very unpopular, but it is as plain as day: Yes, the last few Pope have been text-book modernists. John XXIII was removed from his teaching position in the late 20’s for teaching modernism. Paul VI was no better, and John Paul II surpassed both. That doesn’t mean they ceased to be the Popes, but it means their way of thinking was “fuzzy” at best, and leads only to confusion.

And yet, John XXIII was made a Cardinal by Pius XII–was Pius into promoting modernists?

The reason modernism is “fuzzy” is two fold: 1.) they use fuzzy language that you can’t understand; and 2.) because their thinking is based on a bad philosophy.

Modernism isn’t all that fuzzy if you understand the bad principle behind it–the results are all over the place, but the source of error is quite clear and definable.

St. Pius X described it well and in a much better way than the article you posted (DustinsDad’s article was a better explanation as well). Likewise, none of the writings of the above mentioned popes are fuzzy.Furthermore, none of those popes ever advocated the idea that dogmas originate in the consciousness of the masses and therefore can be altered by the consciousness of the masses through a struggle with the authority which ratifies them.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with explaining the same truths in different ways. The scholastic Doctors explained truths in different ways, than say, the Eastern Doctors of the Church. In fact, the scholastic movement itself was introduced to explain the truth in way suited to the needs of the times (as it was certain rationalistic philosophies that were offered as challenges to Catholic truth, so they were responded to in kind.)

Likewise, the rites and discipline of the Church can be changed, and according to Trent (and many other sources) the purpose is to fit the needs of time and place. That is not what Modernism is.

Philosophy is described as the foundation of theology. It is the way in which a person thinks. It is the way the mind considers truth.

For example, Thomistic philosophy, which, according to Pope St. Pius X, is the antidote for modernism, searches for the essence of the being. In other words, what the thing is in and of itself. For example what is the Pope? St. Thomas would answer by saying that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church. A clear and simple answer; but for the modernists that is too “simplistic”.

Modern philosophy, such as that of John Paul II, does not look at what the thing is in itself. Instead, it will search for the “relationship”. In other words, what is the thing in relation to me, or to you, or to Bob down the street? So, for example, John Paul II’s philosophy would not ask what the office of the Pope is in itself, but what it is in relation to others. For example, for Catholics the Pope is the head of the Church and is looked upon as such. For Protestants the Pope has no authority and is merely a “Christian leader” at best (and the antichrist at worst). For the Orthodox the Pope is merely “the first among equals”. “First among equals" is the term they would use to describe the Pope… and interestingly is the term John Paul II used to refer to himself when he met with the Orthodox.

When presented with the three ways of considering the office of the Pope, a mind that thinks correctly would ask: So, who is right? Is it the Catholics who believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, the Protestants who don’t consider him as more than a “minister”, or the Orthodox who believe he is merely “the first among equals”.

Phenominology would not answer that question because it does not think in objective terms. Instead, it would seek to “respond” to the three groups, rather than defending the truth and condemning the contrary errors.

This explains why John Paul II, in the encyclical “ut unum sint” said that the Church must "find a way to exercise the [Petrine] Primacy that …. will open to a new situation” (Ut unum sint, 95b).

There is a movement that is seeking to remake the office of the Pope into a vague figurehead who exercises no authority. (You can probably find a lot of information about this online) After all, since Protestants don’t recognize the authority of the Pope, the office of Pope must be adapted to fit their “understanding” as well as the “understanding” of Catholics and Orthodox. Truth is not based on reality, but on the individuals “understanding”. It is, after all, the individual’s “understanding” that determines the relationship, which is what is considered by modernist philosophy. It is all mushy subjectivism and destroys objective truth (reality). It is another effect of liberalism which seeks to “liberate” man from God in everyway possible ( I could go off on this subject, but I won’t).

In regards to Ut Unum Sint, it is historical fact that the office of the papacy was exercised differently in different times. That doesn’t mean the revealed truths concerning the papacy changed over time. The fact is, historically, when portions of Eastern Churches returned, the Popes always chose to exercise the papacy differently towards them then it had been doing with the rest of the Church before they were re-united–mostly, the Pope didn’t get involved in their affairs except in very rare occasions (as opposed to his practically constant involvement with the whole Church before their return–as was continued after their return with the Roman rite.) This difference in the exercise of authority is not a bad thing, rather it is a prudential choice within the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

It is also a fact that the Pope has been called a first among equals be saints of the Church. The Pope is equal in sacerdotal dignity to the rest of the bishops, but he is first among them in rank as their head.

The truth is not changed to fit understandings–that has never been offered.

 

[Genesis315]

In regards to phenomenology, John Paul integrated phenomenology with Thomism. Thomism deals with the objective reality, while Phenomenology deals with how individual humans perceive that reality. The fact is, and anyone with any teaching or coaching experience knows this, is that different people learn the same truth in different ways. A particular explanation or demonstration may help one person, but a different explanation or demonstration may help another. That doesn’t mean that a different truth is being taught in each case.

Finally, the last few Popes have all stressed both contemplation and action (as has always been the case), the divine structure of Church governance, etc.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Genesis315:

In regards to Ut Unum Sint, it is historical fact that the office of the papacy was exercised differently in different times. That doesn’t mean the revealed truths concerning the papacy changed over time.

“Revealed truth”? Do modernists believe in revealed truth? If so, how it is revealed? Is it revealed directly by God through Jesus, handed down by the apostles, and preserved as a complete body of doctrine, points of which are defined infallibly by the Church? Or is it revealed within man via his “consciousness”, and then sanctioned by the Church according to the general consciousness of the time?

Above we have the two “understandings”. The Catholic Church teaches that the truth has been revealed directly by God directly through Jesus and the apostles. With the death of the last apostle, public revelation ceased. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles have been passed down to us complete. This body of truths is called “the deposit of faith”. At various times in the history of the Church (usually at Church councils) points of doctrine contained within this “deposit of faith” are defined infallibly, at which point they become dogmas. Although we are required to believe all that is contained within the “deposit of faith”, when something has been defined, it adds clarity to the doctrine and ends any further discussion. Prior to a dogmatic definition there can be some disagreement; but after it is defined, the point is fixed and settled. Defining a doctrine is the mechanism for clearing up confusion that may “develop”, and condemning errors related to the particular doctrine. Once a dogma has been defined it is fixed and settled, and anyone who later rejects the teaching is anathema.

For the modernists, the infallible dogmas are merely an attempt to express a truth contained within the definition. Theologically speaking, it could be said that, according to the modernists, the infallible definition (the words used) are merely the “accidents” which is intended to express the “substance” of the teaching; rather than an infallible statement that we are bound to accept forever as defined. In other words, modernists will usually not openly reject a dogma, but will attempt to “reinterpret” the infallible truth in a “new” way.

Another error of the modernists (which is similar to what was described above) is to claim that a dogma is merely a historically conditioned statement, which is an expression of the “Christian consciousness” of the time. The particular dogma will remain “relevant” as long as the general consciousness does not change, at which point the dogma would need to be reformulated to express the new “understanding” that has evolved.

As you can see, for the modernists, nothing is fixed and certain. Instead, everything is in a constant flux and a continual evolution due to the “vital immenance” expressing itself through man’s consciousness – which, for the modernists, is the voice of God.

Keep in mind what Pope St. Pius X said was the goal of these modernists: Their goal was to reform the Church based on their false teachings. No wonder he called them “enemies” of the Church.

Now, let’s look again at what you said:
Genesis3:15:

In regards to Ut Unum Sint, it is historical fact that the office of the papacy was exercised differently in different times. That doesn’t mean the revealed truths concerning the papacy changed over time.

But for the modernists revealed truth does change, since dogmas are merely an expression of the truth for that particular time, rather than a fixed rule of belief that all must adhere to. Let’s take an example to show how the modernist’s “evolution of dogma” (which is in reality a rejection of dogma) works.

The modernist’s “understanding” of ecumenism is that all groups must unite, but not as a result of the heretics and schismatics renouncing their errors and returning to the Catholic Church. The modernists have long since rejected that “outdated ecclesiology”, and are instead seeking a “new” kind of unity. Rather than a unity founded on the true faith, with the infallible dogmas as the fixed rule of faith that all must accept, they now seek a “unity in diversity” where the Catholics, heretics, and schismatics set aside their differences and unite as “one”. I call this the “big tent” religion. It is big enough for every group as long as they are willing to compromise the truth.

Now, for Catholics the problem with this kind of “unity” is those darn Catholic dogmas. They just keep getting in the way. For example, Vatican I defined, as an article of faith, that the Pope holds the Primacy and that all are bound to submit to him. This pesky dogma gets in the way of unity with the East, who do not accept that the Pope has “supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church”. Obviously something has to give, and I’m sure you can guess what that will be.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Proceeding with this thought, let’s quote from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Principles of Catholic Theology written in 1982 and published by Ignatius Press. We will begin with the Cardinal discussing how unity can be achieved with the heretics and schismatics. Below he gives, what he refers to as, “the maximum demand” for unity to come about.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches…”

Let’s stop here for a minute. The Uniate Church is a Church that renounced its errors, accepted the office of the Pope as defined by Vatican I, and returned to union with the Catholic Church. Keep in mind that Cardinal Ratzinger described this as the “maximum demand” for unity with the East. Not the minimum demand, but the maximum demand.

Next the Cardinal looks at it from the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox heretics, and says that from their side, the “maximum demand” would be for the Catholics to renounce the dogma of the Papal Primacy, as defined at Vatican I, and several of the Marian dogmas that they reject.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West [The Roman Catholic Church] declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”.

Next he discusses the “maximum demand” for unity with the Protestants…

Cardinal Ratzinger: “As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism."

He concludes by saying this:

Cardinal Ratzinger: "none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

Notice that he says none of these “offer any real hope of unity”. Keep in mind what is included in “none”. “None” includes the first part I quoted above – that the East accept the Primacy of the Pope as defined at Vatican I. He says that this offers no real hope of unity.

In other words, he is saying that unity is not to be sought by the East accepting the dogma of the Papal Primacy, as did the Uniate Church. He says that this “solution” does not offer “any real hope of unity”. What does this show? It shows that they are not seeking a unity in truth, but a unity with those who absolutely reject the truth. And who is the Truth? Jesus Christ is the truth. Why in the world do churchmen want to be united with heretics who reject the truths revealed by God? But for a modernist, truth is secondary. The primary goal is unity, and if truth must be compromised, so be it.

So, what will the Cardinal propose for attaining to this unity? How will he get around the dogmas from Vatican I. Before we answer this question, we better review the dogma so it is fresh in our minds.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus
speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the
full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things
which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and
government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the
more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be
anathema.”

The above is what the East rejects. They may admit that the Pope has a place of honor, or is the “first among equals”, but they reject that the Pope has “supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church”. So how can there be unity with those who reject that dogma? Let’s find out…

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. [p. 199]

There you have it. No need for the East to accept the infallible dogmas of Vatican I, but only that which was formulated and lived during the first millennium, which he pretends was different than what Vatican I defined as a dogma.

But to believe that, one would have to reject what the Church teaches. What I mean is, if a Catholic, who accepts the Primacy of the Pope as defined at Vatican I, says that the East does not have to accept that dogma, the Catholic himself falls into error for simply making that assertion.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”

So claiming that the East is not required to accept that dogma, is to reject the dogma ones self.

But it gets worse. He justifies the teaching that the schismatics don’t need to accept the dogmas of Vatican I by claiming that they were “historically conditioned”, and only “more or less true”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “What is at stake here is unity of belief, that is, the question of truth, which cannot be the object of political maneuvering. As long as … the maximum solution must be regarded as a requirement of truth itself … there will be no other recourse than simply to strive to convert one’s partner in the debate. In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so. **We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth. Whenever, then, the weight of truth and its incontrovertibility are involved, they must be met by a corresponding sincerity that avoids laying claim to truth prematurely and is ready to search for the inner fullness of truth with the eyes of love **( pg. 198).

Clearly, he doesn’t believe that the dogma of Vatican I – the acceptance of which is the “maximum solution” for unity with the East - is a truth revealed by God, but merely a “historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse” (pg 198).

You see what is happening? An “evolution of dogma” is taking place. While claiming not to reject Vatican I, he states that what was defined as an article of faith “is not the only possible form, and consequently binding on all Christians…”.

I would love to believe that what he meant was that the Papal Primacy could be exercised in a different way, as long as the East accepted the dogmas of Vatican I, but that is clearly not what he meant, since he specifically stated that requiring them to accept the Primacy as defined by Vatican I, as did the Uniate Church (what he refers to as the “maximum demand”), “offers no real hope for unity”.

Remember, for a modernist dogmas are not fixed, but are merely an expression of the understanding at the time. When the “general consciousness” changes, the dogma must evolve. That is why, after laying out the “maximum demands”, which he says “offer no real hope of unity”, he explains that the maximum demands *“are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness." (pg 198) *

The “Christian consciousness” has changed, which means the dogma must be “adapted” to fit. This is accomplished by pretending that the dogma was merely a “historical development” rather than a truth revealed by God that all are bound to accept. The “historical development” must then be set aside to make room for the new “Christian consciousness”.

This modernist through explains the Bellamand Agreement that John Paul II signed. The Ballamand Agreement taught that the Eastern Orthodox – who are both schismatics and heretics - are just as much a part of the true Church as the West and that the West should not attempt to convert them.

Now, before ending I have to say that this book was written in 1982. It is no secret that Cardinal Ratzinger was a progressive. Out of charity I am going to assume he no longer believes as he did when he wrote the book.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. [p. 199]

There you have it. No need for the East to accept the infallible dogmas of Vatican I, but only that which was formulated and lived during the first millennium, which he pretends was different than what Vatican I defined as a dogma.

But to believe that, one would have to reject what the Church teaches. What I mean is, if a Catholic, who accepts the Primacy of the Pope as defined at Vatican I, says that the East does not have to accept that dogma, the Catholic himself falls into error for simply making that assertion.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”

So claiming that the East is not required to accept that dogma, is to reject the dogma ones self.

But it gets worse. He justifies the teaching that the schismatics don’t need to accept the dogmas of Vatican I by claiming that they were “historically conditioned”, and only “more or less true”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “What is at stake here is unity of belief, that is, the question of truth, which cannot be the object of political maneuvering. As long as … the maximum solution must be regarded as a requirement of truth itself … there will be no other recourse than simply to strive to convert one’s partner in the debate. In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so. We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth. Whenever, then, the weight of truth and its incontrovertibility are involved, they must be met by a corresponding sincerity that avoids laying claim to truth prematurely and is ready to search for the inner fullness of truth with the eyes of love ( pg. 198).

Clearly, he doesn’t believe that the dogma of Vatican I – the acceptance of which is the “maximum solution” for unity with the East - is a truth revealed by God, but merely a “historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse” (pg 198).

You see what is happening? An “evolution of dogma” is taking place. While claiming not to reject Vatican I, he states that what was defined as an article of faith “is not the only possible form, and consequently binding on all Christians…”.

I would love to believe that what he meant was that the Papal Primacy could be exercised in a different way, as long as the East accepted the dogmas of Vatican I, but that is clearly not what he meant, since he specifically stated that requiring them to accept the Primacy as defined by Vatican I, as did the Uniate Church (what he refers to as the “maximum demand”), “offers no real hope for unity”.

Remember, for a modernist dogmas are not fixed, but are merely an expression of the understanding at the time. When the “general consciousness” changes, the dogma must evolve. That is why, after laying out the “maximum demands”, which he says “offer no real hope of unity”, he explains that the maximum demands *“are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness." (pg 198) *

The “Christian consciousness” has changed, which means the dogma must be “adapted” to fit. This is accomplished by pretending that the dogma was merely a “historical development” rather than a truth revealed by God that all are bound to accept. The “historical development” must then be set aside to make room for the new “Christian consciousness”.

This modernist throught explains the Bellamand Agreement that John Paul II signed. The Ballamand Agreement taught that the Eastern Orthodox – who are both schismatics and heretics - are just as much a part of the true Church as the West and that the West should not attempt to convert them.

Now, before ending I have to say that this book was written in 1982. It is no secret that Cardinal Ratzinger was a progressive. Out of charity I am going to assume he no longer believes as he did when he wrote the book.

 

[DustinsDad]

Thanks for taking the time to write out all of the above Pax. Very explanatory, very illuminating, and yes…a little disturbing.

But whether then Cardinal Ratzinger and the previous several popes were influenced somewhat by modernist thought, or even if they embraced modernism wholeheartedly, my trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ leads me to believe confidently that such troubling things, such confusion, won’t result in a violation of Christ’s promise of regarding the Church’s indefectibility and infallibility (as I’m sure you will agree).

Such statements are either going to be outside the realm of the protection of infallibility, or they’ll be ambiguous enough as to not bind the faithful to the erroneous modernist conclusion, no matter the personal opinon of the author. It’s one or the other.

A crisis situation? Yep. Confusing times for the Church? No doubt.

What are the faithful to do? Stay grounded in the faith of the Church as it’s been taught for 2000 years and pray, pray, pray. For the pope, for our bishops, for our priests - and of course for us lowly lay-folks in the pews.

And stay close, very close, to Our Lady.

And step up for and defend the perrenial teachings of Holy Mother Church when the opportunity demands it. In season and out of season, that sort of thing.

…Now, before ending I have to say that this book was written in 1982. It is no secret that Cardinal Ratzinger was a progressive. Out of charity I am going to assume he no longer believes as he did when he wrote the book.

I hope and pray for this also. I have no way of knowing presently - it seems we’re moving in the right direction in alot of areas. Time will tell.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Thanks for taking the time to write out all of the above Pax. Very explanatory, very illuminating, and yes…a little disturbing.

But whether then Cardinal Ratzinger and the previous several popes were influenced somewhat by modernist thought, or even if they embraced modernism wholeheartedly, my trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ leads me to believe confidently that such troubling things, such confusion, won’t result in a violation of Christ’s promise of regarding the Church’s indefectibility and infallibility (as I’m sure you will agree).

I agree completely. I have no doubt in the least in our Lord’s promise. The contrary does not even enter my mind.

Such statements are either going to be outside the realm of the protection of infallibility, or they’ll be ambiguous enough as to not bind the faithful to the erroneous modernist conclusion, no matter the personal opinon of the author. It’s one or the other.

A crisis situation? Yep. Confusing times for the Church? No doubt.

What are the faithful to do? Stay grounded in the faith of the Church as it’s been taught for 2000 years and pray, pray, pray. For the pope, for our bishops, for our priests - and of course for us lowly lay-folks in the pews.

And stay close, very close, to Our Lady.

And step up for and defend the perrenial teachings of Holy Mother Church when the opportunity demands it. In season and out of season, that sort of thing.

Yes, and I would also add that we should read the old encyclicals. Many of them describe and refute the common errors of our day. They are the antidote to the confusion of our times, and a true light in the current darkness.

 

[DustinsDad]

Hey Pax et Caritas and Genisis 315,

Have either of you read PJP2’s 1998 encyclical FIDES ET RATIO?

In it, the pope seems to make some good observations…
Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth…
(FIDES ET RATIO cf 5)
And p(name removed by moderator)oints some antidotes for the problems:
…In our own century too the Magisterium has revisited the theme on a number of occasions, warning against the lure of rationalism. Here the pronouncements of Pope Saint Pius X are pertinent, stressing as they did that at the basis of Modernism were philosophical claims which were phenomenist, agnostic and immanentist…

Later, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned against mistaken interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism and historicism…"Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in human hearts, cannot afford to ignore these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these theories well, not only because diseases are properly treated only if rightly diagnosed and because even in these false theories some truth is found at times, but because in the end these theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths".
(FIDES ET RATIO cf 54)
So far so good, but now things start to get a little confusing…
In this regard, Pope Leo XIII with his Encyclical Letter Æterni Patris took a step of historic importance for the life of the Church… The great Pope revisited and developed the First Vatican Council’s teaching on the relationship between faith and reason, showing how philosophical thinking contributes in fundamental ways to faith and theological learning. …his insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of Saint Thomas. A renewed insistence upon the thought of the Angelic Doctor seemed to Pope Leo XIII the best way to recover the practice of a philosophy consonant with the demands of faith
…
The positive results of the papal summons are well known. Studies of the thought of Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received new impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a rediscovery of the riches of Medieval thought, which until then had been largely unknown; and there emerged new Thomistic schools. With the use of historical method, knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased greatly …
The most influential Catholic theologians of the present century, to whose thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was much indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic philosophy. Throughout the twentieth century, the Church has been served by a powerful array of thinkers formed in the school of the Angelic Doctor.
(FIDES ET RATIO cf 57-58)
If as Pope John Paul II says, Vatican II was much indebted to Thomistic philosophy - then how so (especially within the areas of ecumenism and religous liberty)? And who were/are the theologins of the 20th century he is referring to here that were formed in the school of the Angelic doctor?

And if these new schools of Thomistic philosophy were the result of a new “Historical Studies” which uncovered many “new” things previously and largely unknown, then what of the beforementioned papal warning against mistaken interpretations linked to historicism?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me an attempt to bridge some tenants of modernism with authentic catholic theology/philosophy. Yet then later we see from within this encyclical, that when this is attempted, and the beforementioned warnings manifest themselves, Pope John Paul II is understandibly concerned - but is this not what we were warned about?
Among the objective elements of Christian philosophy we might also place the need to explore the rationality of certain truths expressed in Sacred Scripture, such as the possibility of man’s supernatural vocation and original sin itself. These are tasks which challenge reason to recognize that there is something true and rational lying far beyond the straits within which it would normally be confined. These questions in fact broaden reason’s scope for action.

In speculating on these questions, philosophers have not become theologians, since they have not sought to understand and expound the truths of faith on the basis of Revelation. They have continued working on their own terrain and with their own purely rational method, yet extending their research to new aspects of truth. It could be said that a good part of modern and contemporary philosophy would not exist without this stimulus of the word of God. This conclusion retains all its relevance,** despite the disappointing fact that many thinkers in recent centuries have abandoned Christian orthodoxy.**
(FIDES ET RATIO cf 76)
Some things to ponder. I’m interested in both of your thoughts on this encylical.

Thanks and peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Reactionary]

I am afraid so say that Pax has made several major errors in his analysis of Ratzingers words and a misunderstanding of Church history.

Firstly, he says that Ratzinger rejects to proposition that the Eastern schismatics should accept the definitions of Vatican 1. This is clearly untrue for

A) Ratzinger states that the East should not be forced to accept Papal "primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches ". By this he clearly means the Easterners should not be forced to confirm all episcopal appointment with the Pope and submit to the oversight of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. The point he is making is that the east is unlikely to submit to these disciplines and, since neither of those things are matters of Faith, they should not be required to. He is merely disassociating HOW the primacy is exercised from WHETHER THE POPE CAN exercise such power. To claim, as he does, that the ONLY model for union with Rome acceptable is the model in current use is totally at odds with the traditionalist mindset which understands that previous structures are often better with leads on to my second point.

B) To accuse anyone of rejecting Vatican 1 because the recommend the ecclesiastical structures of the first millennium is clear modernism. During the first millennium all understood that the Pope had “supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church”. To suggest that they did not is to suggest that V1 is heretical as the orthodox Christians of the first millennium number among them the apostles and the Fathers. What he is suggesting is that V1 added to the Faith! That would be heresy. Councils merely formulate dogma and condemn error they never ADD anything to the Faith.

C) If he is not suggesting this and are instead saying that Ratzinger understands the first melleniam to have not held the same Faith as V1 you better come up with a damned site more evidence then you have done. You declare that Ratzinger holds that there is “no need for the East to accept the infallible dogmas of Vatican I, but only that which was formulated and lived during the first millennium, which he pretends was different than what Vatican I defined as a dogma.” Where does he pretend this? When does he say this? Give us some EVIDENCE.

On the contrary Ratzinger positively affirms his belief in Papal primacy: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void”. The nest few lines which he takes such issue with are not concerned with denying V1 but with pointing out the flaws in the relatively new system by which those powers are exercised. Hence Ratzinger refers to “the *form *this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”. Ratzinger could not possibly have been referring to the dogma in this statement because V1 was in the 19th century NOT the 20th. He is thus clearly referring to the manner of its exercise.

There is no ‘evolution of dogma’ taking place here. He is merely discussing structures and modes of exercising an authority he at no point denies the existence of.

Pax,

You are suggesting that the Pope is a heretic. That is very grave and, if false, is a mortal sin. For the sake of your soul I strongly suggest you rethink this.

 

[DustinsDad]

Have either of you read PJP2’s 1998 encyclical FIDES ET RATIO?..

After I posted the above and was out driving around today (my job entails alot of driving around)…the following phrase from Fides et Ratio jumping out at me today

"A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth…"What exactly is it that differenciates “legitimate plurality” from “undifferentiated pluralism?” The answer, I submit, is dogma. The defined dogmas of the faith set the boundries, so to speak, of the One True Faith. They are necessary - and given to us by God through His Church to distinquish just this question - truth from error.

The problem the pope mentions above occurs, I submit, when members of the Church, the hierarchy, and yes, Pope John Paul II himself, refrain not from heaping praise on religions that in and of themselves by the very creeds, reject many of these Truths, these very dogmas of the faith.

The intention (I would hope) of this approach was to point out the elements of the truth (to one degree or another) not yet rejected in these religions as a non-confrontational means to bring these folks back to the One True Church - where they wold then be separated from the error of rejecting Truth, which is Christ Himself. But to do this without mentioning the eternal peril souls ensnared in these religions are in by rejecting (to whatever degree) Divinely Revealed Truth, is simply asking for religious indifference and confusion. Of course this approach is going to result in “the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.”

It’s as if a person let’s a four-year-old play with matches and then is surprised that the kid burnt the shed down. (sorry, that’s the best analogy that came to mind).

Now of course, hindsight is 20/20. Which leads me to think, in all chairty, that we should accept that the intial attempts at this approach, this prudential decision, was made with good intentions and was made in hoping for the result of bringing home those outside of Holy Mother Church (ecumenism of return).

Which is sometimes hard to do, I admit. For if the intended result (as it should be) is the same as elaborated in Mortalium Animos:Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the ChurchIt is strange to say the least, that the method chosen for getting there, at the very least, looks alot like the methods Pope Pius XI and others said wouldn’t get us there. and in fact warned against.

Of course, for the more cynical minded, one could attribute the orthodox things written in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, when held up against the novel “approaches” and seemingly unorthodox other writings, are evidence of modernist “doublespeak” - as described in Pascendi by Pope St. Pius X:
Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. But hey - I try not to be cynical.

Pray!

That’s all for now - I’m off to contemplate some more.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad