The Methods of Modernists
18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Brunne
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children as the bird doth her brood under her wings, and thou wouldest not?” (Lk. 13)
At Mickiweaks, we have taken a leak suggesting Franciscus will cite this verse at the upcoming Feast of Martin Luther in Sweden where, before the international press, he will prolly bow to be blessed by a married lesbian bishop, the wondrously named, Eva Brunne.
Here is the questionable, if not querulous, content of the Papal address we fradulently manufactured and would like the world to consider:
The Holy Spirit prompts us all to love one another as brothers and sisters in the unity of love in the new civilisation of love where, no longer, can there be distinctions made between Catholics and Lutherans since the Incarnation has dissolved the distinctions even between Priest, Prophet, and Poultry as scripture teaches us; yes, precisely because of the Incarnation, all of creation is as one for all of creation is one in the act of original love even as the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is one who loves all equally and it is this unity that the world longs for and that alone is the unity that will bring peace to our common ancestral mother, earth.
His Principles, Immanence and Symbolism
19. And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us to study the Modernists in the theological arena - a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end to be attained is the conciliation of faith with science, always, however, saving the primacy of science over faith. In this branch the Modernist theologian avails himself of exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher, and applies them to the believer: the principles of immanence and symbolism. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. So too, the philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. Truly enormous errors both, the pernicious character of which will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula, but avail himself of it only with the scope of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours to express but without succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines.
20. With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate what is meant, and this example is offered by the Church and the Sacraments. The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also forbidden by the law of immanence which rejects what they call external application; it is further forbidden by the law of evolution which requires for the development of the germs a certain time and a certain series of circumstances; it is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. Still it is to be held that both Church and Sacraments have been founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so, too, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ is according to faith, and so, too, is the life of Christians. And since this life produced, in the courses of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments, it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ and is divine. In the same way they prove that the Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And thus the Modernistic theology may be said to be complete. No great thing, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science must always, and in all things, be respected. The application of these theories to the other points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily make for himself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Modernistic sacramental theology....
He proceeds to do this, appealing particularly to
reflections on the liturgy by Otto Semmelroth, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Karl Rahner. Particularly worthy of note is the following passage, in which Stosur weaves together some of Rahner’s comments on the liturgy:
The very “conceptual model” of sacramentality
therefore shifts according to the way God’s
relationship to the world is understood – in
Rahner’s terms, from one “based on the implicit
assumption that grace can be an unmerited gift
of God only if it becomes present in a secular
and sinful world to which it is mostly denied,”
to one which “starts out from the assumption
that the secular world from the outset is always
encompassed and permeated with the grace of
the divine self-communication”: “The
sacraments accordingly are not really to be
understood as successive individual incursions
of God into a secular world, but as ‘outbursts’
. . . of the innermost, ever present gracious
endowment of the world with God himself into
history. The material things of creation, as
necessary components of the “liturgy of the
world,” are by that very fact valuable. The value
of material creation is in turn understood and
acknowledged in sacramental celebrations,
where these things are utilized for the purpose
of symbolizing this “primordial” liturgy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Check with your doctor