jump to navigation

Fr. Rosica explains modernism to us…… March 18, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

…….and I must say, he does so perfectly.  Via Vox Cantoris, the highly influential Fr. Tom Rosica, whose career has really taken off since March 2013, had this to say about how doctrine can evolve.  It is as good an encapsulation of the modernist mindset as I have seen:

Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn’t how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God’s transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small-minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world.

If I had the time, I would fisk this sentence by sentence.  What makes a Church Doctrine controversial?  Who says a particular 2000 year belief is “controversial?” Fr. Rosica?  Simply because Catholics in great numbers reject it, does that make it controversial?

As for the rest, the “pastoral contexts” shifting and “new insights” emerging……he is describing the text of Pascendi perfectly, but taking the opposite viewpoint, that such shifts in belief are wonderful.  He also shows us the modernist game plan quite clearly: use pretended changes to “mere discipline” to advance changes in understanding of the Doctrine, and then over time bend the watered-down meaningless doctrine to the new pastoral approach.  See the Episcopal Church USA, Presbyterian Church USA, and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America to see how that works out over time.  Doctrine comes to mean nothing – so long as the offending doctrine is obnoxious to progressives.  If it is favorable to them, such as the grave evil of defrauding the workman of his wages or evils of rapacious forms of capitalism, then that will remain as carved in stone, if not more so.

Doctrine, then, becomes just another tool in the service of progressive politics.  Yes that’s a harsh assessment, but one of the prime reasons modernism developed in the first place – probably the prime reason – was to try to reconcile the Catholic Faith with the progressive political outlook, but as always with the left, with the progressivism ascendant. Modernism was simply one of the early attempts at this reconciliation.  The neo-modernism we are plagued with today is its direct descendant.  And the revolution which struck the Church in the 60s, long simmering under cover, can be viewed (if not entirely accurately) as simply a another leftist political revolution.  One reason why so many people fall into the error today of viewing the Church through a political lens is because so many elements within the Church have become profoundly politicized in the past 50 years. That’s a major reason I oppose the hulking lay bureaucracy that has grown up over the past 50 years: not only is it incredibly expensive, unnecessary, and actually counterproductive in so many instances (bureaucracies being always first and foremost concerned with their own survival and aggrandizement), but it is also represents a huge political base within the Church Herself.

I’m getting a bit far afield, but all these matters are tied together. No I should not unduly stress the political angle but I think it also a mistake to ignore it.  That political angle explains the hypocrisy in this dithering with sacred Dogmas – some remain sacred and inviolable, because they are favorable to the leftist viewpoint, while others must be undermined, changed, or obliterated.  Reducing Church belief to the service of sordid worldly politics has always been a grave danger to the Church, and it has been a key player in many heresies: Arianism, Nestorianism, and others.  We should not be surprised that it would be deeply involved in this the great modernist revaunchist heresy of the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

Comments

1. Baseballmom - March 18, 2015

Thank you for your thoughts on these behemoth bureaucracies in the Church. I have always known that there is something terribly wrong with them, but you articulated for me the reasons why…

2. Woody - March 19, 2015

Makes a lot of sense when you consider why they are so dead against the TLM. Modernism cannot be fully implemented if the TLM is allowed to stay and flourish. Will there be another great schism? We all will have to choose a side. Go with what the modernists say or “suggest” or stay with those clergy who respect Tradition and the magisterium. One road will take you to eternal damnation; the other will get you to heaven. Get yourself to a TLM parish as fast as you can. And then gird your loins! It’s gonna be a hellofa fight.

3. steve - March 19, 2015

“What makes a Church Doctrine controversial?”

The manner in which a doctrine (or even a prayer) is “formulated” or “expressed” has been subjected to criticism for decades by various Churchmen.

Doctrine surrounding the Papacy, for example, has been seen as a “stumbling block” to non-Catholics.

Therefore, many Churchmen have called for a “reformulation” of said doctrine.

The Mass was “reformulated” to…ummm…present doctrine and the Faith in more “positive” fashion to Catholics and non-Catholics.

Pope Benedict XVI declared that the Church’s ancient Good Friday Prayer for Jews was controversial and served to “wound” Jews.

He acknowledged that that spurred him to “reformulate” the “controversial” prayer (teaching) in question.

Therefore, I am not surprised that a priest, for example, would take note of so-called “controversial” doctrine.

Pax.

Steve

4. Frank - March 19, 2015

Case in point of what the progressives just recently achieved in NYC City-the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. You don’t have any LGBT groups demanding to march in any of the other myriad parades in NY under their banner, yet demanded to march in the parade that honors a saint and is linked to the Catholic Church. How much more obvious can you get? Why couldn’t they just march without the banner? Hmmm. It was an in your face statement to the Catholic Church. By the way, why don’t the mafia crime families demand to march under their respective banners in the Columbus Day Parade?

5. Camper - March 19, 2015

Modernists are the rabble ordained. If Cardinal Burke would confront Pope Francis with this simple phrase, the Church would be far better.

6. Camper - March 19, 2015

The trouble is probably that Cardinal Burke is not that conservative. He would probably not support the excommunication of democrats on economic grounds. Anything less, though, is being too soft on those who oppress the Church they purport to love.

7. Dismas - March 20, 2015

Oh…thank you so much Camper. There is much more to be said on this point that is probably best left alone.

And Tantum…your analysis here is masterful. Thank you.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: