Why is it that cafeteria Catholics

[John_of_Woking]

patg:

I guess that really makes me a cafeteria heretic!

Oh…so you don’t agree with what the Church teaches on Faith and morals? Maybe you could set up your own Church?

 

[patg]

John of Woking:

Oh…so you don’t agree with what the Church teaches on Faith and morals? Maybe you could set up your own Church?

No, no, no - I was just making a little sarcastic humor towards those who have called me a heretic for my arguments against the historical accuracy of the bible.

 

[John_of_Woking]

patg:

No, no, no - I was just making a little sarcastic humor towards those who have called me a heretic for my arguments against the historical accuracy of the bible.

I am just glad you agree wholeheartedly with the Church’s teaching on Contraception.

Jesus Rose from the Dead…An event in History?

 

[patg]

John of Woking:

I am just glad you agree wholeheartedly with the Church’s teaching on Contraception.

Actually I totally and absolutely disagree BUT I accept the teaching.

Jesus Rose from the Dead…An event in History?

The resuscitation of a corpse is outside the bounds of human experience so it would seem to be outside of human history. But of course there are many arguments, semantic and otherwise, as to whether supernatural events such as this are part of history or not - it is much simpler to believe it as a matter of faith than to use the historical tools we have to “prove” it. The bible stories relate some very divergent accounts of Jesus’ appearances after his death - some where he was not recognized, some where he couldn’t be touched, and some where he eats some fish. - all of which leave the matter murky at best. I know we are taught it was a full body restoration and I have no doubt that the followers had a profound experience of him after his death. It is also obvious that some of the appearance stories were not in the original gospels but were added on by later editors - we can tell this becasuse the very form of the Greek changes at that point.

Are the stories literal history describing the restoration of a corpse? Well, I’m still studying on that one…

 

[amarischuk]

Turn off our head". No way! Just allow your mind to submit to Truth and the promptings of Grace and then the peneterating rays of the Spirit will illumine what, without the promptings of grace, may appear folly.

Who are you to say that I am not the one being led by grace but you are?

I came to these conclusions through honest study, prayer, charity work, Opus Dei led retreats at the university and even eventually formation at a Catholic seminary.

Jacques Maritain, after his wife passed away, became a monk. Karl Rahner was a devoted priest, Edward Schillibeeckx still is a devoted priest who prays the office daily and fulfills all his presbyteral obligations. Marie-Dominique Chenu was a devoted Dominican priest and world famous scholar. Etienne Gilson is likely the greatest Catholic scholar of the 20th century. Yves Congar OP and Henri de Lubac were both made cardinals for their dedication to the Church.

While reading a passage from Chesterton I found something of interest relating to Thomism, because to much of this illumination theology is antithetical to Thomism and I would argue even Catholicism:

Then he could be compared with other saints or theologians, as mystic rather than dogmatic. For he was, like a sensible man, a mystic in private and a philosopher in public. He had “religious experience” all right; but he did not, in the modern manner, ask other people to reason from his experience. He only asked them to reason from their own experience.

chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/aquinas.htm

Our Reason is clouded by the stain of Original Sin.It needs healing through Grace.

Simply put I do not believe in the latin rite’s Augustinian formulation of original sin which relies so heavily on the mythological creation accounts found in Genesis.

The eastern rite Catholics and the Orthodox have no such formulation of the fall. Even Pelagius is not seen as a heretic to the Orthodox.

And Maccabees writes:

The elite biblical critcism has not caught on beyond the bible professors who have no faith in Christ.

That is the worst ad hominum attack I have read here. Who have I relied on for bible professors? Donald Senior CP, Raymond Brown SS, Lawrence Boadt OFM, Leslie Hoppe OFM. Notice that they are all priests who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Church and Christ?

And besides that, having faith in Christ or not does not negate their criticisms of the biblical text.

You have supported my point Pentacostlas and the Orthodox are known to reject higher biblical criticism and conservative in their Bible interpretation keeping to a strict understanding of the creeds. ANd Islam is not a reglion of higher texutal critisism either. People want to believe in something that proclaims truth.

You are proving my point…people will readily accept a simple fallacy over a complex truth. Galileo was lambasted for proclaiming Copernican heliocentrism. Julius Wellhausen was also abused. Thomas Aquinas himself found many of his propositions condemned. Newman was viewed with distrust.

It is in the nature of man to seek for easy answers. True Catholicism is above that, or at least I hope it is.

Adam

 

[John_of_Woking]

amarischuk:

Who are you to say that I am not the one being led by grace but you are?

I came to these conclusions through honest study, prayer, charity work, Opus Dei led retreats at the university and even eventually formation at a Catholic seminary.

Jacques Maritain, after his wife passed away, became a monk. Karl Rahner was a devoted priest, Edward Schillibeeckx still is a devoted priest who prays the office daily and fulfills all his presbyteral obligations. Marie-Dominique Chenu was a devoted Dominican priest and world famous scholar. Etienne Gilson is likely the greatest Catholic scholar of the 20th century. Yves Congar OP and Henri de Lubac were both made cardinals for their dedication to the Church.

While reading a passage from Chesterton I found something of interest relating to Thomism, because to much of this illumination theology is antithetical to Thomism and I would argue even Catholicism:

chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/aquinas.htm

Simply put I do not believe in the latin rite’s Augustinian formulation of original sin which relies so heavily on the mythological creation accounts found in Genesis.

The eastern rite Catholics and the Orthodox have no such formulation of the fall. Even Pelagius is not seen as a heretic to the Orthodox.

And Maccabees writes:
That is the worst ad hominum attack I have read here. Who have I relied on for bible professors? Donald Senior CP, Raymond Brown SS, Lawrence Boadt OFM, Leslie Hoppe OFM. Notice that they are all priests who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Church and Christ?

And besides that, having faith in Christ or not does not negate their criticisms of the biblical text.

You are proving my point…people will readily accept a simple fallacy over a complex truth. Galileo was lambasted for proclaiming Copernican heliocentrism. Julius Wellhausen was also abused. Thomas Aquinas himself found many of his propositions condemned. Newman was viewed with distrust.

It is in the nature of man to seek for easy answers. True Catholicism is above that, or at least I hope it is.

Adam

A scholarly analysis is what is required. I do not believe Boadt et al provide one

 

[4_marks]

patg:

I don’t take that as a logical conclusion.
That’s what I am trying to avoid. Ignorance of history and disregard of its importance is what gives us the fabrications we have today. Dei Verbum stresses that the hsitory, literary form and culture which produced the stories alll must be considered.

Fabrications? Do you honestly believe that the Church has promoted fabrications when it speaks of the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, and the Assumption and also of Jesus Christ’s death as the sole avenue of redemption and salvation for humankind? While we are not fundamentalists in the pure sense, and we do take into account history, literary form and culture, more often than not a literal, rather than a metaphoric, interpretation of Sacred Scripture is appropriate.

You seem to misinterpret the intent of “fullness.” I certainly recognize that science, history and theology are distinct disciplines, inter-related at times, but yet distinct. I look to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church to teach me what is correct (orthodox) theologically. I don’t expect them to, if you will pardon the expression, pontificate on matters of strict science, history, etc. I do expect them to advise me wherever other disciplines impinge on faith, theology and morals.

It is absolutely appropriate for the Church to decry the use of all forms of artificial Birth Control as intrinsically evil. They have both a duty and an obligation to speak out against induced abortion and embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.

The real problem behind so called “cafeteria” Catholics is pride and an unhealthy individualism promoted in Western culture through an increased secularization of society. One person’s limited intelligence and finite mind is of little consequence when contrasted with the collective consensus of 2,000+ years of Christian revelatory history.

Like it or not, Mary was conceived without the taint of original sin. She was a perpetual virgin. She was assumed bodily into Heaven. Purgatory is real, and so isn’t an eternal Hell, Jesus truly rose from the tomb, and was assumed into Heaven. The bread and wine upon consecration become the actual, literal, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. How do I know? Because the Catholic Church, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, says so!

 

[John_of_Woking]

4 marks:

Fabrications? Do you honestly believe that the Church has promoted fabrications when it speaks of the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, and the Assumption and also of Jesus Christ’s death as the sole avenue of redemption and salvation for humankind? While we are not fundamentalists in the pure sense, and we do take into account history, literary form and culture, more often than not a literal, rather than a metaphoric, interpretation of Sacred Scripture is appropriate.

You seem to misinterpret the intent of “fullness.” I certainly recognize that science, history and theology are distinct disciplines, inter-related at times, but yet distinct. I look to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church to teach me what is correct (orthodox) theologically. I don’t expect them to, if you will pardon the expression, pontificate on matters of strict science, history, etc. I do expect them to advise me wherever other disciplines impinge on faith, theology and morals.

It is absolutely appropriate for the Church to decry the use of all forms of artificial Birth Control as intrinsically evil. They have both a duty and an obligation to speak out against induced abortion and embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.

The real problem behind so called “cafeteria” Catholics is pride and an unhealthy individualism promoted in Western culture through an increased secularization of society. One person’s limited intelligence and finite mind is of little consequence when contrasted with the collective consensus of 2,000+ years of Christian revelatory history.

Like it or not, Mary was conceived without the taint of original sin. She was a perpetual virgin. She was assumed bodily into Heaven. Purgatory is real, and so isn’t an eternal Hell, Jesus truly rose from the tomb, and was assumed into Heaven. The bread and wine upon consecration become the actual, literal, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. How do I know? Because the Catholic Church, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, says so!

Yep couldn’t agree more although I think you meant to say there IS an Eternal Hell. Pls God that nobody goes there, sadly I think some will

 

[John_of_Woking]

patg:

Actually I totally and absolutely disagree BUT I accept the teaching.
The resuscitation of a corpse is outside the bounds of human experience so it would seem to be outside of human history. But of course there are many arguments, semantic and otherwise, as to whether supernatural events such as this are part of history or not - it is much simpler to believe it as a matter of faith than to use the historical tools we have to “prove” it. The bible stories relate some very divergent accounts of Jesus’ appearances after his death - some where he was not recognized, some where he couldn’t be touched, and some where he eats some fish. - all of which leave the matter murky at best. I know we are taught it was a full body restoration and I have no doubt that the followers had a profound experience of him after his death. It is also obvious that some of the appearance stories were not in the original gospels but were added on by later editors - we can tell this becasuse the very form of the Greek changes at that point.

Are the stories literal history describing the restoration of a corpse? Well, I’m still studying on that one…

You disagree but you accept the teaching. Good, if you apply your mind to it it is easy to accept

 

[Minerva]

one thing to remember is that “cafeteria catholics” are not a recent phenomenon. People have tried to use birth control for centuries, they just weren’t as effective at it as they are now, due to the primitive methods. Contraception certainly became more prevalent since the 1960s, but the “contraceptive mentality” has been around since the beginning of time. More importantly, people calling themselves Catholics have chosen not to follow the Church’s teaching on charity for centuries - look at any history book to see the results. Unfortunately I know several “orthodox” Catholics in real life and on these forums who pick and choose when it comes to loving their neighbor and when it comes to humility. How are these people any better than the Catholics who use artificial birth control, who are so detested on these forums?

 

[sherilo]

patg:

Okay, just a few:

• And I’ll throw in one really specific seasonal one. How often do we hear: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” Every bible scholar knows that this “Christmas” phrase is copied from Isaiah and that in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin. I can’t imagine how many doctrines were developed based either entirely or loosely on this mistranslation. I also am amazed at how few Catholics have even heard of this.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that the whole virgin birth doctrine is in error?

Sherilo

 

[patg]

sherilo:

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that the whole virgin birth doctrine is in error?
Sherilo

No I’m not saying that, as I’m sure this is just a small part of the overall doctrine. Its just an example of an error that is endlessly propagated and never publicly acknowledged - precisely because it would cause people to start questioning things. I think they are right and I think we should question such things. Its also an example of an error in the gospels since Matthew uses this quote from Isaiah as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

 

[mercygate]

patg:

Okay, just a few:

• The idea of a bodily assumption or ascension
• We know enough of history, geography, and science, and ancient literary forms to put to rest the traditional claim that the bible is infallible and innerant in areas where it was never meant to be.
• We know enough biology to figure out that the male and female contribute something to the making of a child.
• And . . . the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin.

The current drastic decline in the power of institutional Christianity is occurring not because of liberal compromises with the ancient verities, but because the traditional basis upon which the faith system has been erected can no longer be sustained. The heart will never worship what the mind rejects. When these realities are finally recognized by church leaders, then perhaps the need for a totally new reformation will become both imperative and unavoidable.

Many in the modern world are no longer drawn to blindly accept and obey a religion which suggests that salvation comes through the barbaric human sacrifice of a perfect person who was crucified to appease an offended theistic deity (who through some twist of logic turns out to be himself). Neither are they attracted to the idea that in the shedding of Jesus’ blood somehow the price of sin was paid. These threadbare concepts are not worthy today of eliciting worship. Indeed, they have become grotesque.

 

[amarischuk]

John of Woking:

A scholarly analysis is what is required. I do not believe Boadt et al provide one

First they have to have faith or their scholarship is useless. Then I point out that they are all priests.

Now they have to conform to your personal definition of “sholarly” as if University professors with books published by Oxford University Press and other scholarly presses doesn’t suffice. Then please point me to some “scholar” who agrees with you. Even the conservative Fr. Most (professor at the obscure Loras college in Dubuque Iowa) agrees with these scholars most often.

You disagree but you accept the teaching. Good, if you apply your mind to it it is easy to accept

Just don’t apply your mind too much. Don’t critically analyze the teaching on contracection too closely for you will soon find that, as Germain Grisez indicated, Paul VI natural law argument against contraception in Humani Vitae fails. That is why the present pontiff abandoned Thomism and argues along a personalist and phenomenologist line. The teaching against contraception is a regulation struggling for a sound philosophical justification. Scripturally scholars have already shown that there is no such justification. Paul VI recognized this and made no attempt to fabricate a scriptural justification or include one in Humani Vitae.

Adam

 

[clmowry]

I give, with this view you would be Catholic, or even Christian for what reason?

Chuck

patg:

Okay, just a few:

• The idea of a bodily assumption or ascension is based on the ancient concept of a three tiered universe in which there is the flat earth, the sky as a “half bowl” above the earth on which the sun and stars move, and heaven as a place above this bowl. We know now that a body ascending up through the clouds would continue into “infinite space” and that God or heaven really isn’t right up there… The ascension concept made perfect sense in the primitive understanding of the universe but it is pointless to declare it as absolute doctrine now…
• We know enough of history, geography, and science, and ancient literary forms to put to rest the traditional claim that the bible is infallible and innerant in areas where it was never meant to be. Even though the church conditionally declares this in Dei Verbum, it seldom educates the average catholic about even this partial admission (If you doubt this, just notice the number of posts here with topics like “Are the birth stories in Matthew and Luke history?”, “Did Noah’s Ark exist?”, or “Who sinned first, Adam or Eve?”. Questions like these reveal a serious lack of biblical understanding that is seldom addressed by the church).
• We know enough biology to figure out that the male and female contribute something to the making of a child. The ancients believed that the male seed included everything and the woman only served as the incubator - a misconcept which forms the basis for numerous sins and sexual prohibitions.
• And I’ll throw in one really specific seasonal one. How often do we hear: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” Every bible scholar knows that this “Christmas” phrase is copied from Isaiah and that in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin. I can’t imagine how many doctrines were developed based either entirely or loosely on this mistranslation. I also am amazed at how few Catholics have even heard of this.

The current drastic decline in the power of institutional Christianity is occurring not because of liberal compromises with the ancient verities, but because the traditional basis upon which the faith system has been erected can no longer be sustained. The heart will never worship what the mind rejects. When these realities are finally recognized by church leaders, then perhaps the need for a totally new reformation will become both imperative and unavoidable.

Many in the modern world are no longer drawn to blindly accept and obey a religion which suggests that salvation comes through the barbaric human sacrifice of a perfect person who was crucified to appease an offended theistic deity (who through some twist of logic turns out to be himself). Neither are they attracted to the idea that in the shedding of Jesus’ blood somehow the price of sin was paid. These threadbare concepts are not worthy today of eliciting worship. Indeed, they have become grotesque.

 

[rlg94086]

Minerva:

More importantly, people calling themselves Catholics have chosen not to follow the Church’s teaching on charity for centuries - look at any history book to see the results. Unfortunately I know several “orthodox” Catholics in real life and on these forums who pick and choose when it comes to loving their neighbor and when it comes to humility. How are these people any better than the Catholics who use artificial birth control, who are so detested on these forums?

The difference is in the details. Not following the Church’s teaching (i.e. sin) is not the same as rejecting the Church’s teaching. If I believe contraception (or pride, or hatred) is a sin and still do it, I have sinned. If I reject the sinfulness of these actions/attitudes, then I am dissenting.

When people use the term “cafeteria Catholic”, they are generally referring to Catholics who reject teachings they don’t like. Otherwise we would all fit the description, since we all sin (hence the verse in my sig). Detest is a strong word. I hope people on the forums aren’t being detested. Tone can be misread in written forums.

 

[TNT]

patg:

Post **17 **Okay, just a few:

How often do we hear: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” Every bible scholar knows that this “Christmas” phrase is copied from Isaiah and that in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin. I can’t imagine how many doctrines were developed based either entirely or loosely on this mistranslation. I also am amazed at how few Catholics have even heard of this.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign:the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.Is7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

See if I got this right: You say that a pregnancy as common as pebbles on the beach will be a distingushing sign, unmistakable? To be a sign, would mean a distinguishing uniqueness. Thus only a virgin birth would qualify as such a unique sign. A standard pregnancy is no sign at all for a nation.

Further: The Hebrew manuscripts record as follows:

Gen 24:16 (Rebekah) An exceedingly comely maid (almah), and a most beautiful virgin (bethulah ), and not known to man: and she went down to the spring, and filled her pitcher and was coming back.

Gen 24: 43 Behold I stand by the well of water, and the virgin (almah) , (Rebekah) that shall come out to draw water, who shall hear me say: Give me a little water to drink of thy pitcher:

44 And shall say to me: Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman, whom the Lord hath prepared for my master’s son.

45 And whilst I pondered these things secretly with myself, Rebecca appeared coming with a pitcher, which she carried on her shoulder: and she went down to the well and drew water. And I said to her: Give me a little to drink.

Genesis 24 relates the story of the betrothal of Rebekah to Isaac. In verse 16 she is referred to as “a virgin “bethulah”], neither had any man known her”; whereas in verse 43 she is referred to as a virgin “almah” in the Hebrew text]. In such contexts the words are synonymous**. Can you find any **usage of the word “almah” in the Hebrew Bible shown to mean other than a sexually mature virgin?
In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman was expected to be a virgin. So, whether one referred to an unmarried young woman as a virgin or as a maiden, the same thing was meant.

not because of liberal compromises

with the ancient verities, but because the traditional basis upon which the faith system has been erected can no longer be sustained (and may I complete: by liberal compromises based on agenda and not scholarship).

I think they are right and I think we should question such things.

That’s what I am doing with your thesis…And look into BOTH sides of the issue.

Whatever you come up with, know that someone in the last 2000 years has given a viable explanation. Just complete the investigation of both sides so that your conclusion will hold up to an unbiased examination.

 

[Maccabees]

amarischuk

That is the worst ad hominum attack I have read here. Who have I relied on for bible professors? Donald Senior CP, Raymond Brown SS, Lawrence Boadt OFM, Leslie Hoppe OFM. Notice that they are all priests who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Church and Christ?

First of get over yourself your not that important.
Second of all catholic priest make the most popular heretics Pelagius, Arius, Luther, Zwingli, and the list keeps growing.
What better way to enter the church for the devil than for him to be wearing the collar I am sure that was his latest attack on the church through the recent scandals.
If yoy want to be the John Spong of the catholic church fine but don’t expect a lof of followers that man alienated his entire diocees leaving an enitre diocees empty of parishoners because after listening to him nobody beleived anything could be truth.
The way you approach your faith ends in pluralism of any biblical account for they can always be explained away in some way.

 

[TNT]

patg:

Post 17: Okay, just a few:

We know enough biology to figure out that the male and female contribute something to the making of a child. The ancients

believed that the male seed included everything and the woman only served as the incubator -
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman…
Of course, mankind has observed the woman’s monthly cycle for 1000’s of years, along with when they got pregnant and when they did not, and just couldn’t figure out anything at all. Poor Neanderthals! Nevertheless, Paul says MADE of a woman. I guess he was a feminist in this one case, and the elite call him a chauvinist everywhere else.

BTW…By “ancients” in that post, is meant in newspeak, “un-evolved human intellects”. It is a way of minimizing historical wisdom, which the liberal refers to as ancient (meaning also, outdated). We, today are conspicuously more intellectually evolved. So the assumed belief goes. Actually the liberal believes that only the elite have fully evolved…the common person has actually devolved, and therefore will not only swallow ancient (historic) verities, but will salute the shallow positions of the elite liberal “scholar” who is still stumped by the awesome engineering of the pyramids, and has no certain answer how they were accomplished.

• a misconception which forms the basis for numerous sins and sexual prohibitions.

Now, an appealing way to justify male Masterb. is to make us common folk believe that un-evolved man thought sperm was somehow a fetus or embryo or incipient organism. Of course that turned out to be false, ergo Masterb. is now OK. People will swallow anything if it excuses objective sin or promotes self-gratification. (no pun intended).
If our intellect has truly evolved to a higher order, we would be even more aware of what is sinful, instead of minimizing nearly all sin.
Did you happen to notice that all heresy is a result of reducing the beliefs of the RCC, never, ever expanding on them or adding to them?.

 

[TNT]

amarischuk:

Post 3:
Maybe because the Church’s arguments against contraception could not even convince Paul VI’s own committee on it, and other leading Catholic philosophers and theologians of the 20th century, including Karl Rahner… Gee! I wonder why?

Father Karl Rahner, the progressivist Jesuit who "set the direction for the Second Vatican Council,"carried on a secret 22-year “romance” with German writer Luise Rinser. (No need for contraception here, right?)

This revelation came to light in 1994 when Rinser published her autobiography which contained her half of the correspondence between herself and Rahner, a correspondence that lasted from 1962 to Rahner’s death in 1984. The book was entitled *Gratwunderung, *loosely translated as “a walk on the edge”. Published in Germany, it has not yet been translated into English.

The Jesuits have never denied the truth of the Rinser-Rahner relationship, but refused to allow Rinser to publish the letters Rahner sent to her, claiming that Rahner’s letters are the property of the Jesuits, not Rinser.

The subject of Rahner’s bizarre romance received little press in the English- speaking world. England’s Tablet published a brief 1995 report about Rinser’s book. The National Catholic Reporter ran a story about it in late 1997, which was not the result of NCR’s own investigative reporting, but spotlighted the work of Pamela Kirk, Associate Professor at Saint John’s University in Jamaica, New York, who is described as a Rahner specialist.
Sometimes writing to her 3 to 4 times a day. In all, Rahner would write her more than 2200 letters, 758 of them written from 1962 to 1965, the years of the Second Vatican Council, while he was steering the Church into its brave new future.

Note that the *conservative *Maritain…rejected Humani Vitae

Now, there’s S T R E T C H …and his authority to reject comes from?? Ahh, Oh yea, the Apostle M. Luther.
Quotations from avant-garde “luminaries” such as Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Henri de Lubac, Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, make it clear that these men believe that the “old religion” (or at least parts of it) had to be wiped out in order for the “new springtime” of Vatican II to succeed. Thus, the destruction and confusion that followed the Council is not something they find appalling. In fact, within varying degrees among the progressivists, they recognize this destruction as good and necessary so that their new religion may grow and conquer.

Why is it that (here comes the newspeak) reactionary Catholics (=traditional Catholics faithful to the constant Magisterium) are always (more newspeak coming) blindly accepting some (and finally, some more newspeak here)* irrational* authority? (Of course, these are all rational comments.)
Adam