Is Christian Unity possible?
#61
(11-27-2010, 12:48 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Interesting. Did you see my thread on this subject?

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread.
Reply
#62
INPEFESS Wrote:False ecumenism, feeding off the ambiguity of Vatican II, yet justifying itself with the "traditional interpretation" of Vatican II, is a sure means by which the dogmatic mutability of the Modernists can be brought about and actuated. Though this end has not yet been officially declared, pronounced, or taught, it is the sure means by which this end is accomplished. Perceiving the Church's teachings according to the principles of "modern thought" (as stated by John XXIII) is the very purpose of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems they are deluding themselves who insist that we must interpret these documents "in light of tradition." That is specifically contrary to the very intention of the teachings of this council. Nevertheless, the "traditional interpretation" is what we are told we must consider every time one of these novel implementations is contradicted by some aspect of Church teaching. The implementation of this ecumenical activity appeals to "modern thought" as the means by which this false ecumenical activity is justified, but, when Catholics object, the "traditional interpretation" is the justification of sorts that can look so good on paper when it cites magisterial teachings as its base.

It is brilliant, it is deceptive, and it is the language of the devil speaking in the Church.

I don't see how anyone with understanding of this method can assert that this is not the work of Modernism.

Very good points.  Let us not forget that neo-modernism is also at work:

"It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'.  This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism.  It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.  Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times.  In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...at-is.html


"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.

"Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say" (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, nn. 14-15).
Reply
#63
(11-27-2010, 01:25 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:False ecumenism, feeding off the ambiguity of Vatican II, yet justifying itself with the "traditional interpretation" of Vatican II, is a sure means by which the dogmatic mutability of the Modernists can be brought about and actuated. Though this end has not yet been officially declared, pronounced, or taught, it is the sure means by which this end is accomplished. Perceiving the Church's teachings according to the principles of "modern thought" (as stated by John XXIII) is the very purpose of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems they are deluding themselves who insist that we must interpret these documents "in light of tradition." That is specifically contrary to the very intention of the teachings of this council. Nevertheless, the "traditional interpretation" is what we are told we must consider every time one of these novel implementations is contradicted by some aspect of Church teaching. The implementation of this ecumenical activity appeals to "modern thought" as the means by which this false ecumenical activity is justified, but, when Catholics object, the "traditional interpretation" is the justification of sorts that can look so good on paper when it cites magisterial teachings as its base.

It is brilliant, it is deceptive, and it is the language of the devil speaking in the Church.

I don't see how anyone with understanding of this method can assert that this is not the work of Modernism.

Very good points.  Let us not forget that neo-modernism is also at work:

"It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'.  This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism.  It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.  Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times.  In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...at-is.html


"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.

"Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say" (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, nn. 14-15).

Oh no, there's no problem at all.

I really fear that the most effective weapon the Modernists have is Catholic ignorance: Catholics of today, collectively, simply do not understand what Modernism is all about, how it is detected, and what are the means by which it is effected. No-one is going to come out and declare, "Truth is mutable!" Such a declaration would be counterproductive to the design of the heresy, though I must admit that there seem to have been a few prelates who have been so bold as to announce the only logical conclusion of the heresy. Rather, this belief is brought about slowly, without ever receiving its own dogmatic definition, but purchased little by little by the very principles which fund this conclusion: "Aggiornamento," they cry. 
Reply
#64
(11-27-2010, 12:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 12:48 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Interesting. Did you see my thread on this subject?

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread.

I actually really like your depiction of the post-VII teaching of the Church insomuch as I think it is much closer to their vision than what I represented in that post. I would like to pose the question to the forum again using that diagram and see how many here really agree with that vision.
Reply
#65
(11-27-2010, 03:01 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 12:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 12:48 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Interesting. Did you see my thread on this subject?

Yes, I'm familiar with that thread.

I actually really like your depiction of the post-VII teaching of the Church insomuch as I think it is much closer to their vision than what I represented in that post. I would like to pose the question to the forum again using that diagram and see how many here really agree with that vision.

I'm sure many will say that the diagram does not represent "true" Vatican II teaching. I've read all the sophistry on this but, in my opinion, that's all that this "teaching" amounts to: non-conversion to the Church, including non-Christians, especially the Jews. Almost 50 years post factum and there's still doubt as to what the Council really said and meant, even if it's "in light of tradition." In fact, there's no such thing as a Church teaching that's not "in light of tradition." It's a redundant addition. The fact that we have to insert that clause belies the heterodox nature of the documents. Frankly, I'm passed that.

Anyway, you're free to make that diagram anew if you wish to present it in another thread for discussion. I did it in a rush, using Windows Paint. I'm sure you can do something aesthetically nicer than my opus parvum.
Reply
#66
INPEFESS,
I must confess that I only know the basics of Modernism and Neo-Modernism.  I need to do much more reading regarding these heresies (up to now, I've been focusing on the antidote, Thomism/Scholasticism).  Interestingly, we have to turn to traditional sources to get a clear and accurate understanding of Neo-Modernism because its many adherents aren't going to come out and tell us that they've spent the last 60 years trampling Humani Generis under foot.  And yes, they are promoting it in various ways... it's truly saddening.

I've just found a possibly shocking quote, but I'm hesitant to post it due to the rules.  Anyway, it has to do with the Church's "being" having "a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church." It seems to confirm what Vetus said in his last post.
Reply
#67
(11-27-2010, 03:40 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: INPEFESS,
I must confess that I only know the basics of Modernism and Neo-Modernism.  I need to do much more reading regarding these heresies (up to now, I've been focusing on the antidote, Thomism/Scholasticism).  Interestingly, we have to turn to traditional sources to get a clear and accurate understanding of Neo-Modernism because its many adherents aren't going to come out and tell us that they've spent the last 60 years trampling Humani Generis under foot.  And yes, they are promoting it in various ways... it's truly saddening.

I've just found a possibly shocking quote, but I'm hesitant to post it due to the rules.  Anyway, it has to do with the Church's "being" having "a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church." It seems to confirm what Vetus said in his last post.

Would you be able to send it to me in PM?
Reply
#68
INPEFESS,
I've sent you links of the articles via PM.  The first one is very, very disheartening and confirms things which I have suspected over the last couple of months (i.e. Vatican Council II rejected scholastic terminology). The second article is somewhat relevant to Pope Benedict's personal reflections on the Jews in the new book, The Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.
Reply
#69
(11-28-2010, 12:58 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: INPEFESS,
I've sent you links of the articles via PM.  The first one is very, very disheartening and confirms things which I have suspected over the last couple of months (i.e. Vatican Council II rejected scholastic terminology). The second article is somewhat relevant to Pope Benedict's personal reflections on the Jews in the new book, The Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.

Yes, I just received them. Thank you for sending them.

I briefly skimmed through each just to become somewhat familiar with the presentation method. Indeed, it is very disheartening, but it isn't as if anyone has just now deciphered their methodology. We must thank God that He has provided us with so many brilliant Vicars of Christ through whom He has warned us and exposed the tactics of those who have endeavored to hijack His Church.

About posting them here? I see what you mean. They would undoubtedly be very controversial. Nevertheless, they aren't designed to promote certain forbidden conclusions; they merely present information--information which could prove very helpful to those who are unaware. The reader may then do what he wants with it and is free to come to his own conclusions.

Anyway, again, thank you. The information provided isn't necessarily anything I didn't already know--though I must admit that I have not seen many of those statements from the cardinal,--but to answer your question: no, I have not seen these articles before. It is good to have such a concise and orderly presentation of some of the topics that have been at the forefront of many of the discussions here.

Pax tecum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)