Thursday, October 30, 2014

Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism: What is the Difference?

republished from:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ch/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html



The overarching principle of post-conciliar theology is not modernism, properly speaking. Let us get our terms straight.

Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one's lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet 'the needs of modern man'. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

No, the post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie.  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).  

Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church;  people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church.  Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27).

Yet this mentality of reinterpreting everything anew in order to 'meet the needs of the times' is generally tends to be found in different degrees among different post-conciliar sources:  


Thursday, October 23, 2014

Understanding Modernism

Here are a series of video/talks on Modernism. Few understand it and some think it doesn't exist

Thursday, September 18, 2014

BOOK: The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

By Professor Roberto deMattei
No event of the 20th century produced a greater effect upon the Catholic Church than Vatican II, the 21st Ecumenical Council. To many it might seem to have been simply a meeting of important churchmen gathered to discuss church matters, but because the Catholic Church is the only church founded on this earth by God himself to guide men to salvation, the reality is that centuries from now historians will likely consider it, (as well as the message to the world delivered by the Mother of God during her personal visit at Fatima in 1917), as one of the two pivotal events of world history for the recently ended century. Vatican II opened fifty years ago on October 11, 1962. Since it ended in 1965, the council has been written of in countless books, articles, scholarly journals, magazines, and newspapers all over the world. Things said and done since the council, in the name of the council and in opposition to it, have affected the lives of everyone living since that time. As with any significant historical event, it is only after considerable time has elapsed that a fuller story of exactly what happened in those years before, during, and after “the event” can be engagingly told and wisely summarized. Professor de Mattei’s genius lies in the application of a lucid, literate, and philosophical mind to thorough scholarly research and mountains of documentation. From this framework he has presented us with a story; a story of an event, a previously unwritten story that has been begging to be told for many years. This book will unfold for you the answer to the question, What happened at the Council?”  “A work that is as erudite as it is relevant. I am certain that thanks to its rigorous historical-critical method it will convince a vast readership.” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science
Softcover, 640 pages 

Thursday, July 3, 2014

The Condemnation 65 Points of Lax Morality of Jesuitism


[While it is easy to find references to the condemnations Jansenism, and justly so, few remember there were errors on both sides of the argument. The Jesuits were falling into a laxism in morality and Pascal's criticism of the Jesuits also led Pope Innocent XI to condemn (in 1679) sixty-five propositions which were taken chiefly from the writings of the Jesuits. They were said to be propositiones laxorum moralistarum ("propositions of relaxed morality"), and Innocent forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of excommunication. Since they are hard to find and one of the problems in the Church today is laxism, we thought it wise to make this more easily available: ]
Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 [link here]

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Vatican III Third Session---[Original Vatican II Schemas rejected by the liberals]

To go along with our cyberspace Vatican III Council here is some of the original schema that Vatican II was supposed to be, but was rejected at the last minute, by very good lobbying and politics by liberal Bishops. 

{from Unam Sanctam Catholicam Blog --my now favorite blog on the net --editor--Bill Strom. BTW I thank them for this valuable post. I have been looking for these schemas for years!]]

In the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII entrusted the preparation of the documents that would be discussed by the Council to a Preparatory Commission, headed by the venerable Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. The Preparatory Commission ended up drafting a total of nine schemas on a variety of topics. It was these schemas that would be rejected by the Council Fathers are excessively rigid, condemnatory in tone, and too "Scholastic" in their style. The majority of the documents were rejected in favor of what have gone on to become the sixteen documents of Vatican II. Until recently, we in the English speaking world had no way to assess the alleged inferiority of Ottaviani's original schemas; we had to simply take the word of the Council Fathers and periti. Thankfully, however, in 2012 a priest of Marquette University, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, laboriously translated five of the nine schemas into English. We are happy to link Fr. Komonchak's excellent translations below.

Five of the nine schemas are available, with expansive footnotes and helpful commentary by Fr. Komonochak. The original Vatican II schemas available in English are:

Schemas linked here

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Confession on Sundays?

We as a blog have tried to stay focused on the Dogma but like communion in the hand this abuse is so serious it needs to be addressed.

This is where the real mischief is being done to the spirituality of the Church.. Priests will claim Canon Law  forbids them from having confessions on Sunday or that Confessions can't be heard during mass.

Check this out:
The archdiocese of Chicago in its rules, regulations, and by-laws states:

"§202.12. Sacrament of Penance
202.12.1.
Policy The Sacrament of Penance or any other service shall not be
celebrated while Mass is being celebrated in the same space. REGULARLY SCHEDULED CONFESSIONS BETWEEN SUNDAY MASSES ARE NOT PERMITTED "


What kind of diabolical person would forbid regularly scheduled confession on Sunday? That is the BEST day the day most are in Church and most are going to receive communion!

How can any bishop allow any such policy to be practiced?

http://policy.archchicago.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TqqkdlM6gFY%3d&tabid=10169

Friday, November 15, 2013

Fr. Barron ---- Not all will be saved

For some reason this post wasn't being searched on the blog, so we figured we would just re-post it. Something for the Barron-ites and the Balthazar-ites:

Matthew 7:13: "13Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! "

The Council of Quiersy in 853 stated that, "not all will be saved" (Denz. No. 318);

and Pius II in 1459 even condemned the opinion "That all Christians are to be saved" (Denz. No. 717[b]);

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX: "17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." --Condemned

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS--LAMENTABILI SANE, Pius X July 3, 1907 (#24): "24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves ."-- Condemned

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

"Cleansing Fire" is a novel of history and theology



http://cleansingfire-thenovel.com/
 

Cleansing Fire is a novel of history and theology written by Peter B. Kelly, JD.  The book is intended to serve as a study guide to assist readers interested in exploring the theological origins of the global disorder so evident in this first decade of the twenty-first century.
As it is an account of how some believers manage to remain faithful to God and how God responds to that devotion, it is a love story. It is also a story of historic betrayal, and of a hatred of God which still
threatens us all.
This novel is a beacon from a tower of stone, a beam of light searching for drifting castaways. It stands against the cultural wind and scans the storm tossed waves of our world where we all barely float in the treacherous hurricane of Godlessness submerging our mortal - and eternal - existence.
The old world order is rapidly collapsing. Our economic, governmental, cultural and religious systems are changing before our eyes. In theology, the primary methodology of this change is called “Modernism” which includes the concept that important religious beliefs or dogmas not only can change over time, but must change – and be updated - to suit the current culture. But as Pope Saint Pius X warned, this belief will lead to the eventual disregard of all religious beliefs, Catholic and non-catholic alike, that will each eventually be deemed passe’.

The Fourth Memoir of Sister Lucia of Fatima revealed that the famous “Third Secret of Fatima”, which was to be released in 1960 just before Vatican II, begins with the words “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.” In his book, Mr. Kelly suggests that this Third Secret logically continues with a pointed prophesy that Catholic dogma will not be preserved by the Modernists elsewhere on earth beyond Portugal.  Perhaps the Evangelist Saint Luke was envisioning such widespread effects of Modernism when he wrote: “Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find, do you think, faith on the earth.” (Lk 18:8)

Monday, October 7, 2013

ST. Robert Bellarmine and "Baptism" of Desire

  • So far in our studies the saints that supported Baptism of Desire contradict themselves on the issue. St. Robert Bellarmine is no exception.

    When saints attempt to explain speculative things, that are not clearly taught by the Church, they are bound to make mistakes. So Catholics must not follow St. Robert in his difficult attempt to explain "baptism" of desire. He was clearly confused by it:.

    St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante: “Concerning catechumens there is a GREATER DIFFICULTY, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved… THE CATECHUMENS ARE IN THE CHURCH, THOUGH NOT IN ACTUAL FACT, yet at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 3, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75; ]

    Why is he confused? Because Bellarmine, defined the Church as precise as he could and BoD was not a possibility. His definition is considered a classic: