Shadow Council
#1
So remember the Shadow Council that met earlier this year to meditate ways in which they could accommodate sin? Recently what they said was published, here's a summary.

One will note the high use of postmodern language. I know some folks lament how Catholics do not incorporate postmodernity in the Church theology, making us look like backward folks. Well, there it is the result.

But in the end this is all an excuse to impose one's will above God's. So, if you read the summary, one dominating theme is that marriage must be thought through the history of the subject—so basically one determines what marriage is, and not the opposite of one letting marriage form oneself (and, like I really enjoy throwing resourcement back at liberals to advocate for the TLM, I'd point out what von Balthasar said about marriage).

Basically nothing is wrong, according to these scholar's logic. Sodomy, adultery, masturbation? No problem, if you tell us your history well enough.

You know, if we keep at this pace in two or three years there will be Synods to consider the peripheries, the kerygmatic hemeneutic one must have in reading the Gospels narrative in love and mercy (yep, I think these are all the god terms in fashion today), so as to change the Pater Noster, so that our wills be done.

Reply
#2
Fr. Z reports a new Shadow Synod will take place in September, quite close to the real Synod.

He says Schokenhoff (check out the folks he quotes, in the first article) is a
Fr. Z Wrote:heretic

They will unite under the name of International Academy for Marital Spirituality.

Last year the orthodox side was publishing a book. What they're doing now? I mean, its not like these Cardinals or theologians have to harvest the crops. Its their job to protect the Church.
Looks like resistance is weak this year :(
Reply
#3
They really should bring back the bell, book, and candle ceremony and just do a large scale televised ceremony to excommunicate tons of people. I'm talking about heretical priests, bishops, religious, politicians, celebrities, the whole lot of them.
Reply
#4
(08-01-2015, 09:31 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: So remember the Shadow Council that met earlier this year to meditate ways in which they could accommodate sin? Recently what they said was published, here's a summary.

One will note the high use of postmodern language. I know some folks lament how Catholics do not incorporate postmodernity in the Church theology, making us look like backward folks. Well, there it is the result.

But in the end this is all an excuse to impose one's will above God's. So, if you read the summary, one dominating theme is that marriage must be thought through the history of the subject—so basically one determines what marriage is, and not the opposite of one letting marriage form oneself (and, like I really enjoy throwing resourcement back at liberals to advocate for the TLM, I'd point out what von Balthasar said about marriage).

Basically nothing is wrong, according to these scholar's logic. Sodomy, adultery, masturbation? No problem, if you tell us your history well enough.

You know, if we keep at this pace in two or three years there will be Synods to consider the peripheries, the kerygmatic hemeneutic one must have in reading the Gospels narrative in love and mercy (yep, I think these are all the god terms in fashion today), so as to change the Pater Noster, so that our wills be done.

Resourcement theology seems determined to rewrite the early Church so as to conform it to modern philosophies. Some of the most highly educated Catholics I know are really steeped in this stuff. All the "popular" Catholic theologians of the day seem to be. I say give me a simple person who just knows enough to know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God over some bigshot theologian with "itching ears."
Reply
#5
(08-04-2015, 12:31 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Resourcement theology seems determined to rewrite the early Church so as to conform it to modern philosophies. Some of the most highly educated Catholics I know are really steeped in this stuff. All the "popular" Catholic theologians of the day seem to be. I say give me a simple person who just knows enough to know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God over some bigshot theologian with "itching ears."

I kinda agree with you, what I meant is probably best exemplified in this interview with a Benedictine Abbot who went full trad on his monastery.

Quote:What Kind of spiritual development have you noticed since then? What has been the effect of this change to the Extraordinary Form on your Community?

We must not underestimate the spiritual enrichment, which has been brought about by the search for and rediscovery of the sources. ...

In the end I think we could, if we had some smart folks on our side, use precisely the same language of resourcement but not to place the Fathers contra Aquinas and the Piuses, but the Fathers, Aquinas and Late Medievalism contra Modernism. And as modernists often assume the praxis over theoria BS, we should start precisely with practice. Its simply useless to attack their thinking, they will only morph into another thing and keep doing their thing. No, we must make an Eucharistic procession with all our Baroque decadent pomp :LOL:

Reply
#6
(08-04-2015, 11:16 AM)GangGreen Wrote: They really should bring back the bell, book, and candle ceremony and just do a large scale televised ceremony to excommunicate tons of people. I'm talking about heretical priests, bishops, religious, politicians, celebrities, the whole lot of them.

They should also bring back a pope to celebrate such a ceremony!  :P
Reply
#7
(08-04-2015, 01:57 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(08-04-2015, 12:31 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Resourcement theology seems determined to rewrite the early Church so as to conform it to modern philosophies. Some of the most highly educated Catholics I know are really steeped in this stuff. All the "popular" Catholic theologians of the day seem to be. I say give me a simple person who just knows enough to know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God over some bigshot theologian with "itching ears."

I kinda agree with you, what I meant is probably best exemplified in this interview with a Benedictine Abbot who went full trad on his monastery.

Quote:What Kind of spiritual development have you noticed since then? What has been the effect of this change to the Extraordinary Form on your Community?

We must not underestimate the spiritual enrichment, which has been brought about by the search for and rediscovery of the sources. ...

In the end I think we could, if we had some smart folks on our side, use precisely the same language of resourcement but not to place the Fathers contra Aquinas and the Piuses, but the Fathers, Aquinas and Late Medievalism contra Modernism. And as modernists often assume the praxis over theoria BS, we should start precisely with practice. Its simply useless to attack their thinking, they will only morph into another thing and keep doing their thing. No, we must make an Eucharistic procession with all our Baroque decadent pomp :LOL:

Many resourcement theologians are modernists though.  They didn't like the theology they were getting, so they supposedly went back to the sources (that's why they call it resourcement theology)- the supposed actual writings of the Early Church Fathers that supposedly say things very differently than what they were taught.  My experience with this personally is that people often want some sort of novelty and try to push it on more traditional-minded (but uninformed) Catholics under the guise of it being "the way things were done in the early Church."
Reply
#8
The problem with popular academic postmodernism is that it is actually late modernism, or as the late Fr. Benedict Ashley, OP, called it, "ultramodernism." It is nothing but the absurd logical consequences of Kantianism, Hegelianism, etc. But Catholic theology presupposes a realistic philosophy and hence cannot be ultramodern or modern.

The attempt to incorporate postmodern terminology, if it is to be done at all, can be done only if its "syntax" is given a thorough change and purification, just as the moderns totally deformed the traditional scholastic terms. It also requires calling out ultramodern thought for what it is and going back to medieval sources, before modernity took over. There are some growing trends in philosophy that are doing this work, which began with C.S. Peirce.

I would be willing to bet that liberal theologians who eat up the ultramodern resourcement nonsense also are deeply lacking in spiritual lives, rooted in humility and obedience to the Church. I think this is the true cure for proper theology and academic theology: one has to begin, as a matter of unshakable principle, with obedience to the Church. Magisterial acts, while they make use of tradition and hand on the tradition in their exercise, are also in a certain sense a-historical because they make a solemn and definite pronouncement on matters that may have experienced a wide diversity throughout history, which diversity the resourcement folks seize upon and then crown themselves the new Magisterium to pick and choose as they please. But at a certain point, the wheat must be separated from the chaff by a solemn pronouncement, and like Benedict XVI, they should be willing to think with the Church and redact erroneous past statements.

Another big problem is that you have a bunch of scholarly types who can retain and regurgitate volumes of information without having an ounce of self-reflection and without ever realizing what their fundamental values are—Antichrist. A feminist can go on and on about all the ways women were treated by the Church in different places at different times without ever calling into question whether her feminism is in harmony with the teaching of the Gospels. As Renatus noted, people want to rewrite the Gospels according to their assumptions, rather than being challenged to conversion by spiritual values that transcend the world. You see several examples in that article linked: Christ's injunction in Matthew 19 should be understood in a "Jewish context," through a "lens of anthropology" rather than as a "juridical statement." Isn't that almost the equivalent of a sin against the Holy Ghost? How can one be converted if one refuses to accept that conversion challenges us to purify our beliefs?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)