FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Spiritual Worldliness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Pope Francis' brilliant Evangelii Gaugium speaks of Spiritual Worldliness which I'm afraid is not uncommon among many traditionalists:


No to spiritual worldliness

93. Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for: “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). It is a subtle way of seeking one’s “own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It takes on many forms, depending on the kinds of persons and groups into which it seeps. Since it is based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep into the Church, “it would be infinitely more disastrous than any other worldliness which is simply moral”.[71]
[Image: Pharisees+question+Jesus.jpg]

94. This worldliness can be fueled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

[Image: francis-healing.jpg]

95. This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. In others, this spiritual worldliness lurks behind a fascination with social and political gain, or pride in their ability to manage practical affairs, or an obsession with programmes of self-help and self-realization. It can also translate into a concern to be seen, into a social life full of appearances, meetings, dinners and receptions. It can also lead to a business mentality, caught up with management, statistics, plans and evaluations whose principal beneficiary is not God’s people but the Church as an institution. The mark of Christ, incarnate, crucified and risen, is not present; closed and elite groups are formed, and no effort is made to go forth and seek out those who are distant or the immense multitudes who thirst for Christ. Evangelical fervour is replaced by the empty pleasure of complacency and self-indulgence.
[Image: mq08.jpg]

96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight. How often we dream up vast apostolic projects, meticulously planned, just like defeated generals! But this is to deny our history as a Church, which is glorious precisely because it is a history of sacrifice, of hopes and daily struggles, of lives spent in service and fidelity to work, tiring as it may be, for all work is “the sweat of our brow”. Instead, we waste time talking about “what needs to be done” – in Spanish we call this the sin of “habriaqueísmo” – like spiritual masters and pastoral experts who give instructions from on high. We indulge in endless fantasies and we lose contact with the real lives and difficulties of our people.

[Image: 3523761_com_pharisees_on_the_sanhedrin1.jpg]
97. Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances. Their hearts are open only to the limited horizon of their own immanence and interests, and as a consequence they neither learn from their sins nor are they genuinely open to forgiveness. This is a tremendous corruption disguised as a good. We need to avoid it by making the Church constantly go out from herself, keeping her mission focused on Jesus Christ, and her commitment to the poor. God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings! This stifling worldliness can only be healed by breathing in the pure air of the Holy Spirit who frees us from self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the Gospel!
[Image: pbiw.jpg]
(11-27-2013, 03:54 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Francis' brilliant Evangelii Gaugium speaks of Spiritual Worldliness which I'm afraid is not uncommon among many traditionalists:
Actually, I think it describes Modernists. See below.
(11-27-2013, 03:54 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: [ -> ]93. Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for: “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). It is a subtle way of seeking one’s “own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It takes on many forms, depending on the kinds of persons and groups into which it seeps. Since it is based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep into the Church, “it would be infinitely more disastrous than any other worldliness which is simply moral”.[71]

94. This worldliness can be fueled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith
Modernists are subjectivists.
Pascendi 17: For the Modernists, "science [objective by its nature] is to be entirely independent of faith [which is only subjective or "immanent" according to them], while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science," (in their desperate attempt at giving their naturalized faith a false sense of objectivity).
(11-27-2013, 03:54 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: [ -> ]whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism.
This is what Modernists believe. See this.
(11-27-2013, 03:54 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: [ -> ]It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

95. This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time.
This is pure Modernism. Modernism subjugates dogmas and doctrine to the "necessities and needs" of the Church in a particular era; thus, dogma—whose sole purpose is, according to them, to produce "religious experience"—evolves.
Pope St. Pius X says in Pascendi 26.: "this whole theory of necessities and needs…is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists."
Pope Pius XII describes this dogmatic evolutionism in Humani Generis:
Quote:14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs
(11-27-2013, 03:54 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: [ -> ]In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few.
The Catholic dogma and creed are museum pieces! They're set in stone, and if you don't believe each and every jot and tittle of them inviolate, you cannot have eternal life.
Also, according to numerous saints, the number of the blessed is "a select few," but certainly the Church's treasures should be available for all those who seek them.
subscribing
I thought it was the modernists at first, then I realised he was talking about the modernists and the... what would be a proper name for toxic trad? ???
While the term 'spiritual worldliness' applies equally to both, there's very few toxic trads and many more modernists. So for that fact I think it is more directed towards those types of people, though the teaching on this matter applies equally to all of us.
We could all find ourselves slipping into such a way of thinking, if we're not careful -modernist or trad. I don't think it's good to be looking for hidden political messages in some solid advice for all Catholics.
I think it applies across the spectrum of so called modifiers used to describe Catholics, from modernists, progressives, neo-cons, and trads.  What I see is each group has it's reform agenda for the Church which really is political ideology. While Capitalism has not been condemned anyone with a head can see it's as dangerous as socialism or communism.

With the release of the latest Evangelii Gaudium, Fox News brought out Fr. Johnathon to get the "capitalist" slant. Fr, Johnathon is a card carrying Republican neo-con and a Catholic. Well he "explained" it away and made it appear "capitalism, more or less unfettered is the bestest in the westest". What these folks do not understand is business or commerce without moral guidelines is war, and that war is waged on the poor. 

When NGO's lend a few dollars to women in the third world to start a small business, and the only strings are using the pill, abortion, or sterilization, free trade is right there with communism in the wicked evil department.  The IMF lend money to third world nations with the stipulations,  they must sell their water rights to a large international business, and they must ban DDT, that alone kills millions upon millions in those nations.

tim
I think the truly brilliant thing about Evangelium gaudii is that it takes wide, ambiguous swipes at many different groups, convicting all sorts of people within their souls--in order to place Christ as the proper end and means in their appropriate place.

For example, do the pieces above regarding those who have an ostentatious preoccupation with the liturgy talk to traditionalists--who love the Latin Mass--or progressives, who every Sunday figure out what they can improv in the Novus Ordo?

How often do we, specifically, damage souls in our zeal for the Latin Mass? I know I do it all the time with my terrible and overzealous presentation.

How often do we analyze the state of the Church and Vatican II when really, we are armchair laypeople with no training? How often do we read books on liturgics and moral theology, instead of praying deeply at Mass and living a good life for others? How quickly do we dissect the Pope's words and try to categorize him?

Again, how often to progressives do certain things (I wouldn't know specifically, not having that mind set) that are focused on people, but not God, which ends up being a pseudo-people oriented focus?

I think we shouldn't be too afraid as a whole traditional movement. After all, Pope Francis has, in perhaps the under-reported stories, clearly aligned himself with Pope Benedict XVI on important things, especially lately. Rather take the letter to heart in an introspective manner and realize where you have left God and others down. Our Lord, after all, preached the beatitudes to the multitude, not the summa.



(11-27-2013, 11:37 AM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]I think the truly brilliant thing about Evangelium gaudii is that it takes wide, ambiguous swipes at many different groups, convicting all sorts of people within their souls--in order to place Christ as the proper end and means in their appropriate place.

For example, do the pieces above regarding those who have an ostentatious preoccupation with the liturgy talk to traditionalists--who love the Latin Mass--or progressives, who every Sunday figure out what they can improv in the Novus Ordo?

How often do we, specifically, damage souls in our zeal for the Latin Mass? I know I do it all the time with my terrible and overzealous presentation.

How often do we analyze the state of the Church and Vatican II when really, we are armchair laypeople with no training? How often do we read books on liturgics and moral theology, instead of praying deeply at Mass and living a good life for others? How quickly do we dissect the Pope's words and try to categorize him?

Again, how often to progressives do certain things (I wouldn't know specifically, not having that mind set) that are focused on people, but not God, which ends up being a pseudo-people oriented focus?

I think we shouldn't be too afraid as a whole traditional movement. After all, Pope Francis has, in perhaps the under-reported stories, clearly aligned himself with Pope Benedict XVI on important things, especially lately. Rather take the letter to heart in an introspective manner and realize where you have left God and others down. Our Lord, after all, preached the beatitudes to the multitude, not the summa.

Boy O Boy, I'm right behind you. I've often said here; that saying a rosary poorly is better than all of the reading of tomes way over our heads, unless you're in seminary.

tim
(11-27-2013, 11:37 AM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]Rather take the letter to heart in an introspective manner and realize where you have left God and others down. Our Lord, after all, preached the beatitudes to the multitude, not the summa.

Yes, indeed.  Thank you for your excellent analysis.
(11-27-2013, 09:52 AM)Mr.Crowley Wrote: [ -> ]I thought it was the modernists at first, then I realised he was talking about the modernists and the... what would be a proper name for toxic trad? ???
While the term 'spiritual worldliness' applies equally to both, there's very few toxic trads and many more modernists. So for that fact I think it is more directed towards those types of people, though the teaching on this matter applies equally to all of us.
We could all find ourselves slipping into such a way of thinking, if we're not careful -modernist or trad. I don't think it's good to be looking for hidden political messages in some solid advice for all Catholics.
Yes, every heresy has a corresponding, reactionary heresy.
(11-27-2013, 11:37 AM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]I think the truly brilliant thing about Evangelium gaudii is that it takes wide, ambiguous swipes at many different groups, convicting all sorts of people within their souls--in order to place Christ as the proper end and means in their appropriate place.

For example, do the pieces above regarding those who have an ostentatious preoccupation with the liturgy talk to traditionalists--who love the Latin Mass--or progressives, who every Sunday figure out what they can improv in the Novus Ordo?

How often do we, specifically, damage souls in our zeal for the Latin Mass? I know I do it all the time with my terrible and overzealous presentation.

How often do we analyze the state of the Church and Vatican II when really, we are armchair laypeople with no training? How often do we read books on liturgics and moral theology, instead of praying deeply at Mass and living a good life for others? How quickly do we dissect the Pope's words and try to categorize him?

Again, how often to progressives do certain things (I wouldn't know specifically, not having that mind set) that are focused on people, but not God, which ends up being a pseudo-people oriented focus?

I think we shouldn't be too afraid as a whole traditional movement. After all, Pope Francis has, in perhaps the under-reported stories, clearly aligned himself with Pope Benedict XVI on important things, especially lately. Rather take the letter to heart in an introspective manner and realize where you have left God and others down. Our Lord, after all, preached the beatitudes to the multitude, not the summa.

Very well put. But the problem I see is that Pope Francis is being too obscure at times. Father Zuhlsdorf has the same problem trying to figure out what he is driving at:
"The new Apostolic Exhortation is out: Evangelii gaudium.  In English it is some 51000 words.  It is a slog.

It is not an encyclical.  It is not an apostolic letter.  It is only an apostolic exhortation.

I caution all of you (and myself as well) not to rely only on accounts or summaries of this document in the New York Times, or Fishwrap, or … name your liberal source… or trad source for that matter.  I am for now avoiding reading about it.

See if you can avoid getting kicked by the knee-jerks.

I will have more observations later.  However, as I have begun my work on it – and when I land on something that I sense will be controversial – one of the things that I constantly remind myself of is “About whom is the Pope talking in this phrase?” and also, “What does that really mean?”  Half the time, when I review his daily sermons, I have a hard time figuring out what on earth he is talking about.  What on earth does he mean by “ideology”, anyway?  When he talks about people who do “X” (something bad), I am often often hard-pressed to determine precisely to whom he is referring.  I am finding that in this document too, but I still have a lot more to read.  What does “promethean neopelagianism” mean?  Anyone?  It may be that something – a lot? – is being lost in translation.  Moreover, we are only getting snips from the fervorini.  That’s a problem.  I digress."

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/first-com...hortation/

C.
Pages: 1 2