FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Revolution Revealed: The Triumph of Modernism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This is a detailed analysis, just released in the last 2 days, of two addresses Cardinal Maradiaga made in the US late last year.
I think it is of relevance due to the Cardinal's recent admonition to Abp. Mueller (head of the CDF) to "loosen up."
Also of relevance is the fact that he is a powerful Cardinal (if not the most powerful) in the Church today.

The complete article is too long to post here, though well worth reading.

I have posted links to both parts and have included the first few sections of text below to get us started...

Part I:

Part II:

Revolution Revealed: The Triumph of Modernism and the End of the Traditional Catholic Church Featured

Written by  Peter Crenshaw | Remnant Columnist

Part I

“The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council”…Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga

Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga is a very important man in today’s Catholic Church.  In addition to being the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, he is the pope’s principal advisor and the chair of a group of eight advising cardinals established by Pope Francis to revise the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia.  He also serves as the president of Caritas Internationalis, is a member of the Congregation for Catholic Education, and was considered a serious contender for the papacy during the last conclave. What he says matters.

In late October, Cardinal Maradiaga gave two keynote addresses in the United States, purportedly to set the agenda for the carrying out of Francis’ plan for the Church.  The theme of the talks was, “The importance of the New Evangelization.”  The first address was given at the University of Dallas’ Ministry Conference, while the second was given at the closing assembly of Miami's year-long Archdiocesan Synod. The basic text of both addresses was recently published online.

In the past, the “conservative” Catholic media has been quick to dismiss the traditionalist critique of post-Vatican II statements coming from the hierarchy.  Since the problematic elements in these statements were often subtle or ambiguous (much like the Conciliar texts themselves) Neo-Catholic commentators would simply apply their own “conservative” interpretation, declare the statements perfectly orthodox, and then move on. They also dismissed the historical evidence of the takeover of the Second Vatican Council by revolutionary progressives as the stuff of conspiracy theory. They confidently assured the faithful that the plan of Vatican II was no revolution, but in complete conformity with the Church of the past.

Reigning in the Revolution

Now, with the recent unprecedented words of the pope’s top advisor spoken for the entire world to hear, all previous Neo-Catholic assurances to the faithful have been shattered. Previously, the extremes of the revolution had been held in check and tempered, at least officially, by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.  These men were all Council Fathers whoshared many of the general ideals of the more radical periti such as Kung, Rahner, Congar, and Schillebeeckx.  However, in contrast to these open radicals, the popes understood that any lasting change to the Church must take place gradually and must attempt to be connected and reconcilable with the Church’s previous teaching.  Thus, these popes made exhaustive pains to try to find seeds of the revolutionary ideas of the Council (religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality) in past Magisterial texts, the obscure writings of Early Church Fathers, and appeals to the “development of doctrine.” These were all “hermeneutic of continuity” popes. They were men who had experienced the pre-Vatican II Church. Though they wished to reform it, they also wished to keep the essence of what it was. Thus, over the past 50 years we have witnessed a sort of confusing double-speak emanating from the Vatican, which at times authoritatively repeats traditional Catholic doctrine, and at other times proposes and enthusiastically supports novelties which undermine that doctrine. If anything, the past 50 years have been a frustrating and futile effort to reconcile the irreconcilable, resulting in a mass confusion and falling away of the faithful.

A Son of the Council

Now, it seems we have entered a new era. With the election of Pope Francis, we have the first pope since the Council who was not a Council Father. More than this, Jorge Mario Bergogliowas only twenty-five years old when the Council opened in 1962 and was not ordained a priest until December 13, 1969.  Thus the Novus Ordo Missae, which had entered into force just two weeks earlier on November 30, 1969, is the only Mass Pope Francis has known as a priest.  Also, unlike recent popes, Pope Francis’ life is not so much a bridge between the past Church and the present Church. Where previous popes had been ordained in the Old Rite and formed in Tradition, Pope Franciswas ordained and has existed as a priest only in the post-Conciliar era.  Thus we have the first pope who is not a father of the Council, but is rather a son of the Council.

Whereas his predecessors took great pains to try to reconcile their actions with the pre-Conciliar Church they had known, Pope Francis’ starting point is not the pre-Conciliar Church but the Church of the Council. Thus, Francisdoes not seem to have the same pressing need to justify current novel acts by relating them to a past Church he never knew as a priest and that a growing number of faithful have never experienced. The Church Fr. Bergoglio came into as a priest in 1969 was a Church of change, of innovation, of “the people”.  For him, religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality were not novel teachings, but teachings of the Church; the Mass of Paul VI was not the “new” Mass, but the Mass. Let no one doubt that we are moving into an era where memories of the Pre-Vatican II Church will remain only as ghosts in pictures, movies, and stories. Soon, everyone who has a memory of such a time will have passed from this world. Our next pope may very well have no memories of this period at all.

The era in which Pope Francis lived out his priesthood, and a growing majority of Catholics have lived their lives is one where only the Conciliar Church has existed. In this era, acceptable belief and practice for Catholics has been much more defined by what the authority is willing to allow rather than what has always been done. This is the first effective step of the revolution. For once Church doctrine and practice is tied only to the will of authority, all that is left is to get that authority to change it. We see this attitude from many on the left who perceive women’s ordination and approval of homosexual relations as completely achievable goals as long as they can elect a pope who would approve of such things. For now, the authority has been unwilling to compromise on such things, but will this be the case in the future? As the idea that tradition is changeable (and should be changed) grows in the Church, will there be a future pope who attempts to follow this legal positivism to its logical conclusion? Will the remaining threads tying the current Church with its past remain, or will they attempt to be explained away as “reformable” teachings?Only time will tell.

For now, however, it is enough to look at the words of the pope’s principal advisor.  The ideas of the revolutioncould not, up till now, be spoken of openly by Vatican officials.  Any talk of a break between the pre- and post-Conciliar Church was frowned upon by authorities as continuity was seen as the key to acceptance and credibility of the reforms.  Now, with Cardinal Maradiaga’s speeches come a watershed moment and turning point in the Church.  Ideas explicitly condemned by the Church have now been, not only publicly spoken by the pope’s top Cardinal, but applauded by millions of Catholics.  The Neo-Catholics, previously used to hearing such radical ideas only from dissenting priests and perhaps a few wayward bishops over the years, have met the Cardinal’s shocking pronouncements with a profound and confused silence. Sadly, they can hardly do otherwise, as to do so would be to contradict the public statements of the pope’s own advisor about the implementation of Francis’ pontificate; statements they cannot dismiss as easily as the personal ramblings of a dissident priest.

“The Church is Rising?”

Cardinal Maradiaga introduced his remarks by referring to Vatican II as both, “an event of grace and a paradigmatic reference.”  The paradigm he sees in the Council is a frightening one, which will be discussed in a moment. The Cardinal then immediately launched into a defense of the fruits of the Council.  As no good fruits of Vatican II are readily evident, it seems the Vatican must, from time to time, point out to the faithful where such good fruits are to be found.  This is redolent of the tailors pointing out to the Emperor how nice his “clothes” are.

According to the Cardinal, the post-Conciliar Church is “rising.”  Knowing that the Church in the West is not rising and the Church in Europe is on life-support, the Cardinal predictably describes the places where the Church is purportedly thriving.  Of course, these are all places of which most Catholics in the United States have little intimateknowledge.  In addition, hard statistics to back up these claims never seem to come. Nevertheless, even if we assumethat there is some sort of measurable growth in these places, it is never explained in what way “the Council,” brought this growth about. Especially since in the very places Vatican II was implemented most vigorously, the United States and Europe, the Church has been dying ever since.

The Cardinal then moved on to mention a “hostile culture” in Europe, “fed by secularism and laicism.” Seeing as how the Cardinal goes on to later praise secularism and laicism in the Church, it becomes hard to see how he can criticize it in Europe as a destructive force to the culture. Do forces which destroy secular culture somehow work towards the opposite goal in the Church?As for the United States, the Cardinal informs us that:

...the Gospel of Christ is…alive and effective. George Weigel assures us in The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church (Basic Books, 2000) that, 200,000 people embraced the Catholic faith in the United States in Easter of 2002, a number that for us is cheerful, and optimistic, and “a vital sign.”

Even though Weigel is considered by many Neo-Catholics to be a prophet, how he can assure us in a book published in 2000 that 200,000 people would embrace the Faith in 2002 is not clear.  To be fair, I searched in the post-2002 versions of Weigel’s book to find any sort of reference to 200,000 people in any context and could not do so. Nevertheless, even if we assume that the number of those entering the Church in the US in 2002 was higher than usual, what we are not told is how many people exited the Church in the same year and, more importantly, whatchurch these people believed they were entering. For if they believed they were entering the church the Cardinal is about to describe, it is not a Catholic Church any Traditionalist, or even conservative Catholic, would recognize.

“…An End to the Hostilities Between the Church and Modernism”

At this point, Cardinal Maradiaga proceeds to drop a bombshell on the Catholic world that the Neo-Catholic press has virtually ignored:

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person. The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents…

This overt justification of what Pope Saint Pius X condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies” by the premiere Cardinal advisor to the successor of Peter in front of the entire world stands as a watershed moment in the history of the Church. Although previous progressive cardinals and prelates have made statements based on Modernist principles, or have preached Modernism using veiled and ambiguous terms, never before have any of them been so brazen as to state that Vatican II ended the Church’s condemnation of Modernism. That day has now arrived.

That the premiere Cardinal in the Church has absolutely no reservation in stating such a thing on two different occasions in laying out Francis’ plans for the Church in the United States should indeed be chilling to every Catholic.  Unfortunately, this was just the beginning. After attempting to preemptively disarm all opposition by dismissing in one paragraph all previous condemnations of the Modernist heresy by the Church, the Cardinal then went on to lay out the principles of the revolution in the Church for the world to see. Take note that this is the very revolution we were warned about for years by such figures as Michael Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre, the very revolution documented in historical accounts of the Council and proclaimed by the revolutionaries themselves, and the very revolution we were assured did not exist. (Read the rest below)

Part I:

Part II:
Where is the revelation in this analysis? Sorry but this is nothing new.
I don't know. A guy writing about a guy talking about the pope.  Everybody is trying to get the pope to be seen as on his side. Time will tell. I think the Remnant article and Card. Madariaga are a little too presumptive and self assured in their speculations.
(01-23-2014, 01:55 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know. A guy writing about a guy talking about the pope.  Everybody is trying to get the pope to be seen as on his side. Time will tell. I think the Remnant article and Card. Madariaga are a little too presumptive and self assured in their speculations.

Oh no I have not doubts as far as what Card. Madariaga has said or thinks, what I am saying is that there this was suppose to be a "revelation" in the analysis. I failed to see one, for anyone who has been paying attention this has been the progressing for the last 50 years to usher in this so called new church and yet for the the past 50 years they have failed. They are weaker today than they were in the 80s or the 70s and with each passing year their movement shrinks and more importantly VII is coming under more and more scrutiny and the critics are getting louder and more numerous.

OK, OK, but please don't change his name.  He is Cardinal Rodriguez, not Cardinal Maradiaga.  Spanish-speaking countries utilize the mother's maiden surname after our own (our father's) surname. In any case, call him Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga.  Actually, he can be called Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez (dropping the Maradiaga) and it would be OK.

This is an important series of articles, one that should be made known far and wide. It's been obvious to trads that Modernism has wreaked havoc on Holy Mother Church, and we've been talking about it for years only to be told we're paranoid, nutters, nostalgic, reading things wrong, conspiracy theorists, misinterpreting, and, in essence, making much ado about nothing -- no matter the logic and statistics we use to make our points. But this Cardinal lays it right out there for all to see, which, in a sane world (ha) should force the Catholic "conservative" types to reckon with what we've been saying all along. Either Modernism is a heresy -- rather, the "Synthesis of ALL Heresies" -- or it isn't, and whether it is or isn't (and we trads know it is), we're being told that the point of Vatican II (whether its documents themselves positively call for it rather than allowing it because of ambiguity) was to embrace it. One'd think that "conservative" Catholics would at least realize we're in big heap trouble, even if they (as I do) don't condemn the Council's documents themselves.*** At least they should conclude that no matter the content of the documents, Vatican II hasn't served the Church well at ALL.

I wonder whether any of this has been addressed at CAF. I'd bet that anyone even posting what the Cardinal said would get booted.

*** I don't condemn the documents themselves because I give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a Latinist or a theologian, haven't read the documents in their original language, etc. I've read arguments from all sides about various aspects of the documents but don't feel qualified to come to a conclusion one way or another. I don't even know if a Council can produce documents with positive errors. I know that during the course of my life as a trad, I've read a number of arguments that I initially bought into only to discover that the person making the argument didn't know what he was talking about. I learned my lesson, in other words, and try to be very careful about -- well, bloviating about things I know nothing about. As far as I know, the documents could contain outright error, but I simply am not in a position to know one way or another whether they do or if it's possible, and until I do know one way or another, I go with the idea that they're badly written and full of ambiguities, but, um, "kosher" underneath it all. In any case, though, I wish Vatican II had never happened, that's for sure. And that evil "spirit of Vatican II" is plain and simple Modernism, post-Temple Judaism and its "powers that be," and the forces of a decadent popular culture getting together and making the Evil One very, very happy, I'm sure.

Seeing this guy and Pius X together blows me away.
VERY grateful to OP for posting this ...

I'm with Vox - this is very important, I think.

The question it all turns on is this: How important to the Pope is Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga?

If he is not so important, then yes, this is just spin ...

Alas! I don't think it's spin at all. I have seen indications from the very beginning that Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga may be VERY significant indeed.

Too tired to say more easily now - but want to keep this important thread alive.

So throwing out the $64,000 question now to anyone who can answer it:

How important to the Pope is Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga?

(01-24-2014, 12:07 AM)voltape Wrote: [ -> ]OK, OK, but please don't change his name.  He is Cardinal Rodriguez, not Cardinal Maradiaga.  Spanish-speaking countries utilize the mother's maiden surname after our own (our father's) surname. In any case, call him Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga.  Actually, he can be called Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez (dropping the Maradiaga) and it would be OK.

Thanks very much for this observation!  Always a pleasure to learn foreign usages like this!

Quote:The question it all turns on is this: How important to the Pope is Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga?

He seems to be the single most important Cardinal in the Church right now.  He's the coordinating member of Pope Francis' specially chosen privy council of eight cardinals to reform the Curia.  The only cardinal I can think of who has seemed more important in the recent past is (currently) Abp. Mueller.  One might also be able to make an argument for Ouellet, who is still in charge of the Congregation for Bishops.

But I don't think there can be any question that Cardinal Marad-- beg pardon, Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga-- is very important to Francis.

The only possible question could be, is this a case of "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"  Personally, I doubt it-- we know that two other cardinals on the privy council, O'Malley and Marx, also have serious issues.

This article goes hand in hand with the discussion about Cardinal Maradaiga. The roots were laid several centuries ago.  We are now seeing the fruits of modernist ideology.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,  ora pro nobis.
Pages: 1 2 3