|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 24, 2017 21:22:14 GMT
I have been reading another famous late-60s critique of how things were going wrong in the Church - Dietrich von Hildebrand's TROIAN HORSE IN THE CITY OF GOD. The contrasts to Bouyer are quite interesting - Bouyer is French - literary and satirical - Hildebrand much more abstract, philosophical and Germanic. Hildebrand is also notably more right-wing in his ecclesiology (he praises the LEfebvrist novel THE NEW PRIESTS by Michelle St Pierre, which Bouyer specifically criticises). What they both have in common is a sense that much of the post-Vatican II church was reacting against an earlier angelism which exalted the supernatural at the expense of the natural, by virtually reiecting the supernatural and presenting the Faith in purely naturalist terms. Bouyer complains that both forms of Lammenaisianism have the effect of reducing the Faith to a political programme and downgrading the inner spiritual iourney (bear in mind how Action Francaise exalted the Church as a social force for civilisation while denying its supernatural claims). Hildebrand is in some ways much more interesting because his critique goes to the core of his own personalist philosophy. He sees the belief in a non-personal immanentist God as a recurring temptation which ends by glamourising size and force and by undermining the value of human personality (his central point is that God can be loved because HE reveals HImself as a person, because we can only love as persons and between persons; bear in mind that he was a philosopher of marriage.) Hildebrand is also acutely aware of the ways in which Nazism drew on the German idealist-immanentist-pantheist tradition; his personalism clearly lay at the core of his early realisation of the true nature of Nazism and the impossibility of compromising with it. A critique of Teilhard along these lines is included as an appendix; Hildebrand notes that he is surprised that thinkers whom he respected such as de Lubac can take Teilhard seriously, and explains this by discussing how Teilhard uses orthodox terminology in unorthodox ways (to some extent fooling himself as well as his readers). Hildebrand actually met Teilhard in New York in the 1950s and recalls that when he mentioned St Augustine Teilhard responded "Don't mention that unhappy man - he spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural!" (This is a very odd remark given the Platonic influence on earlier Church Fathers.)
Hildebrand also remarks that an Italian Catholic professor told him how he was once introduced to Hitler (who was visiting Italy). Knowing the professor was a Catholic, Hitler declared that the worst thing about Bolshevism was its denial of God, and began to rant about the need to believe in God; but when the professor asked if he meant a personal God, Hitler replied that he reserved his position on that point. Hildebrand comments that clearly Hitler's use of the term "God" was entirely meaningless and meant only to impress the professor.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 24, 2017 21:26:21 GMT
When Chesterton met Mussolini, Mussolini began to learnedly discourse on the Church of England.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 27, 2017 21:37:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 29, 2017 7:24:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 29, 2017 20:19:23 GMT
So to expand on this, Dr. Kwasniewski provides three examples of hypothetical discourses during three particular judgements in the context of various controversies in Church history. During those discourses, he strongly implies that Pope Francis is a heretic and any Catholic who does not oppose him risks damnation. Moreover, he seems to imply that material heresy is a mortal sin in the third discourse, which is problematic when one considers that as least two Doctors of the Church denied the Immaculate Conception before it was defined.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2017 22:16:04 GMT
I don't think the article is necessarily schismatic - it might be argued that they could keep some people from going into schism by showing that there are precedents in history for the AMORIS LAETITIA problem (even if that problem is given the worst possible interpretation). Similarly,he is quite entitled to make reasoned criticism of Pope Francis if he genuinely believes the Pope is making mistakes; Pope Francis himself praises criticism in theory, though he seems to find it more difficult to deal with it in practice. What is very problematic is placing oneself in the Judgement Seat, putting words in God's Mouth, and making judgements about individuals' eternal damnation. (Even if the given individuals are fictitious, they are presented as having real-life counterparts.) He is either, as you say, implying that material heresy is a mortal sin (and he oversimplifies it a lot - for example, he implies that the Bible makes Arianism self-evidently false but there are texts which an honest person could interpret in Arian terms, and some early Fathers of unimpeachable honesty, such as Justin Martyr, did believe the Son was not coequal with the Father) or else he is making judgments about the good faith of the individual in question (it is suggested the third case is damned not for his views but because he was motivated by worldly ambition) which is encouraging Pharisaism by encouraging the reader to assume others' bad faith and engage in self-congratulation. I think it's the second, not the first. Furthermore,he seems to make arbitrary decisions about why 1 goes to Purgatory when 2 and 3 are damned,given that they all acknowledge their fault (a really damned person would surely continue to insist on his correctness even when confronted with God). It would be better if all three were sent to Purgatory, on the understanding that that is quite painful enough.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 30, 2017 22:36:05 GMT
I don't think the article is necessarily schismatic - it might be argued that they could keep some people from going into schism by showing that there are precedents in history for the AMORIS LAETITIA problem (even if that problem is given the worst possible interpretation). Similarly,he is quite entitled to make reasoned criticism of Pope Francis if he genuinely believes the Pope is making mistakes; Pope Francis himself praises criticism in theory, though he seems to find it more difficult to deal with it in practice. What is very problematic is placing oneself in the Judgement Seat, putting words in God's Mouth, and making judgements about individuals' eternal damnation. (Even if the given individuals are fictitious, they are presented as having real-life counterparts.) He is either, as you say, implying that material heresy is a mortal sin (and he oversimplifies it a lot - for example, he implies that the Bible makes Arianism self-evidently false but there are texts which an honest person could interpret in Arian terms, and some early Fathers of unimpeachable honesty, such as Justin Martyr, did believe the Son was not coequal with the Father) or else he is making judgments about the good faith of the individual in question (it is suggested the third case is damned not for his views but because he was motivated by worldly ambition) which is encouraging Pharisaism by encouraging the reader to assume others' bad faith and engage in self-congratulation. I think it's the second, not the first. Furthermore,he seems to make arbitrary decisions about why 1 goes to Purgatory when 2 and 3 are damned,given that they all acknowledge their fault (a really damned person would surely continue to insist on his correctness even when confronted with God). It would be better if all three were sent to Purgatory, on the understanding that that is quite painful enough. Agreed with everything you say, except that I do think that insinuations such as "false prophet" and "false teacher" could reasonably be considered schismatic. I should clarify that I wasn't saying that he had no right to make such criticisms, only that I disagreed with them for the reasons I gave.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2018 18:44:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 7, 2018 22:02:34 GMT
The current issue of the IRISH CATHOLIC has a piece noting the net apologist Dave Armstrong pointing out that some of Pope Francis's critics attacked John Paul II in similar terms. This is a good illustration of why it is necessary to have a sense of proportion and how dangerous it is to cry wolf. (I remember with particular distaste John Rao's claim that John Paul II was the worst Pope ever, specifying that he was worse than Alexander VI. Mr Armstrong seems to have missed that one.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 8, 2018 11:43:35 GMT
I think what is significant regarding attitudes to Pope Francis is the silence, rather than the criticism.
Have you noticed how many Catholics have simply stopped talking about him at all? I suspect it is following the logic: "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing."
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 8, 2018 22:06:29 GMT
What is interesting is that some liberals, as well as conservatives, are complaining about him - partly, I suspect, because as a populist he is neither consistently liberal nor conservative, partly because they may have started looking towards the next Pope.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 28, 2018 21:58:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2018 23:37:16 GMT
Here we have a clash between Rod Dreher (who left Catholicism for Orthodoxy in reaction against the clerical abuse and cover-up scandals) and a traditionalist priest, Fr Richard Munkelt, writing in the REMNANT. Fr Munkelt is a former member of the pseudo-traditionalist Society of St John (late of Scranton, Pennsylvania) who blew the whistle on it when he realised it was little more than a homosexual cult. Dreher holds up Fr Munkelt's attacks on him as an example of how Catholic trads often antagonise people by an excessively intellectualist approach without regard to circumstances (based on intellectualised forms of neo-Thomism) and of being aggressively argumentative and hostile. I must say I have noticed this attitude in some trads who try to argue against Eastern Orthodoxy without addressing the views put forward by the Orthodox. A few points: (1) Dreher's secession to Orthodoxy, however understandable, was a mistake. (2) Fr Munkelt's unclubbable disposition may actually have contributed to his ability to see through the blandishments of the SSJ conmen and his willingness to call a spade a spade over what they were doing. (For a description of how effective they were as conmen by a sympathetic journalist who was conned at the time : - www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2018/10/12/on-erring-pennsylvania-priests-sometimes-reporters-miss-the-story (3) Fr Munkelt takes an extremely literal view of the precept that every apostate from Catholicism is necessarily in bad faith. He therefore starts from the assumption that Dreher is consciously and deliberately dishonest and must be treated as such, that his purpose in publicising Catholic scandals is purely and simply to damage the Church and promote EO; therefore, thinks Munkelt, he does not deserve the slightest courtesy and the only purpose of addressing him is to keep him from leading others astray by showing him up. (Treating St Jerome as an exemplar is a very bad idea, given that some of St Jerome's letters are so famously intemperate that it has been said if their author could become a saint there's hope for everyone). (4) Fr Munkelt might benefit from such models as Salesian spirituality with its emphasis on catching flies with honey rather than vinegar (though the fact that the SSJ conmen used Salesian spirituality as a pretext to live in luxury off the suckers' contributions may have made him suspicious of it) and John Henry Newman's personalist approach to evangelisation. (5) Fr Munkelt serves as a reminder of why systematic neo-Thomism was widely replaced by neo-Patristic approaches before and after the Council (this process went too far IMHO). This is all very sad. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/richard-munkelt-catholicism-rad-trad/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2019 21:46:29 GMT
A video talk by Fr Chad Ripperger of the FSSP discussing some of the problems/vices to which traditionalists are subject. onepeterfive.com/the-gnosticism-affecting-traditionalism/NB - I am a bit reluctant to link to OnePeterFive or visit it too often because it sometimes IMHO falls into Francis Derangement Syndrome, but when I find something useful on it I will highlight it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 3, 2019 19:26:38 GMT
One thing that some traditionalists are unfortunately well known for is falling prey to cranks and crooks with dodgy conspiracy theories (partly because once you have seen that so much of the mainstream understanding of reality is wishful thinking - priests and religious should be holy, therefore they all are - or malignant falsehood - abortion is healthcare - it becomes hard to judge credibility generally). Taylor Marshall's new book claiming there has been a systematic plot to infiltrate the Church by communists and freemasons is an example of the crank school, based on guilt by association and speculation treated as proof. Oddly enough, it reminds me of nineteenth-century Protestant evangelicals who claimed that the Oxford Movement was produced by Jesuits infiltrating the Church of England, in that it rests on a refusal to believe that anyone could honestly (however wrongly and mistakenly) have gone from being genuinely one of "us" to become one of "them". Dave Armstrong's reply has some useful links but suffers from a problem which affects many critics of traditionalism - namely the writer assumes that because Vatican II set out to achieve various desirable aims therefore it must actually have succeeded in doing so, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. (The claim that all those who fell away post-Vatican II did so merely because their faith was merely external, with the implicit suggestion that they are no loss, is both self-righteous and offensive.) www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/05/31/infiltration-innuendo-and-the-longing-for-certainty/www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2019/05/reactionary-infiltration-of-taylor-marshalls-book-infiltration.html
|
|