Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
(09-07-2012, 01:34 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-07-2012, 01:33 PM)JayneK Wrote: I don't know where the quote was taken from so I don't know what the rest of if says.  It looks like a typical out-of-context quote designed to make the pope look bad.  Anything specific about opposing Modernism would have been left out, if it was there.  Even so, the opposition is implied in what we have.

Perhaps someone can provide the context for us.

I googled around and discovered it appeared in an Osservatore Romano interview of Cardinal Ratzinger that accompanied the release ofInstructions on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian.  This document mentions the doctrinal/ pastoral distinction, so it looks like he was giving some examples to explain it.  I can't find the whole interview but it was not actually about modernism so it probably did not go into details.

Here is an article that shows what Cardinal Ratzinger thinks of modernism.  It does not use the term modernism, but it discusses many of the key ideas of modernism.  It is called Relativism the central problem for faith today
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZRELA.HTM
Reply
Thank you, Jayne, you found it!

"I am of the opinion that neo-Scholastic rationalism failed which, with reason totally independent from the faith, tried to reconstruct the with pure rational certainty.  The attempts that presume to do the same will have the same result.  Yes, Karl Barth was right to reject philosophy as the foundation of the faith independent from the faith.  If it were such, our faith would be based from the beginning to the end on the changing philosophical theories."

Contrast that with:

"However, in order that the 'obedience' of our faith should be 'consonant with reason' [cf. Rom. 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all [can. 3 and 4]. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies. ...  If anyone shall have said that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and for this reason men ought to be moved to faith by the internal experience alone of each one, or by private inspiration: let him be anathema" (Vatican Council, Sess. III, ch. 3 et can. 3: Denz. 1790, 1812).

See also especially Denz. 1622-27, 1650ff.

http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=32&title=Denzinger+1600+-+1699&page=2
Reply
How about this?
Quote:All other drafts - particularly those prepared by the preparatory theological Commission chaired by Cardinal Ottaviani – are judged by Ratzinger to be “too scholarly”. One draft he dismissed particularly vehemently was the text on the preservation of purity of the depositum fidei (“it is lacking to such an extent that it cannot be presented at the Council as it is”). As concerns the text on the “sources” of the divine Revelation, Ratzinger suggested substantial changes to its structure and content. Meanwhile, the drafts concerning Christian moral order, virginity, family and marriage are dismissed with arguments based on pastoral opportunities. According to Ratzinger these texts “overwhelm the reader with their excessive use of words.” The young professor form Bonn University stated that Council documents “should provide answers to more pressing problems and should do so, as far as possible, without judging and condemning, but by using a maternal language, presenting the wealth of the Christian faith and its comforts.”

Source: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/hom...pope-17620

"Too scholarly," yet, it was good enough for generations of faithful, some even illiterate farmers. However, a poster said
Quote:He is a retired theology professor.  He talks like a theology professor.  It's not riddles.  It's stuff you don't have the right background to understand.
Reply
(09-07-2012, 04:22 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Thank you, Jayne, you found it!

"I am of the opinion that neo-Scholastic rationalism failed which, with reason totally independent from the faith, tried to reconstruct the with pure rational certainty.  The attempts that presume to do the same will have the same result.  Yes, Karl Barth was right to reject philosophy as the foundation of the faith independent from the faith.  If it were such, our faith would be based from the beginning to the end on the changing philosophical theories."

This paragraph cannot be properly understood without considering the following one:

"But Barth was wrong when, for this same reason, he proposed the faith as a pure paradox that can only exist against reason and totally independent from it. It is not the lesser function of the faith to care for reason as such. It does not do violence to it; it is not external to it, rather, it makes it come to itself. The historical instrument of the faith can liberate reason as such again so that by introducing it to the path, it can see by itself once again. We must make efforts toward a new dialogue of this kind between faith and philosophy because both need one another reciprocally. Reason will not be saved without the faith, but the faith without reason will not be human."
(09-07-2012, 04:22 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Contrast that with:
"However, in order that the 'obedience' of our faith should be 'consonant with reason' [cf. Rom. 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all [can. 3 and 4]. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies. ...  If anyone shall have said that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and for this reason men ought to be moved to faith by the internal experience alone of each one, or by private inspiration: let him be anathema" (Vatican Council, Sess. III, ch. 3 et can. 3: Denz. 1790, 1812).

See also especially Denz. 1622-27, 1650ff.

http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=32&title=Denzinger+1600+-+1699&page=2

What contrast?  Are you meaning to say you think these passages contradict in some way?
Reply
If the preambles to faith rely on faith, how then can they be preambles?  It has been said that they lead to faith but are not themselves the constitutive element of faith.  The motive of faith is entirely supernatural.

I shall come back to this thread later.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)