Athanasius called Semi-Arians Brothers; can we call Semi-Modernists Brothers while correcting their Ambiguous Errors?
Chapter 1 Athanasius called Semi-Arians Brothers; can we call Semi-Modernists Brother while correcting their Ambiguous Errors?
Cardinal John Henry Newman in his historical research into the Arian heresy showed that the Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius was careful to make the distinction between the full fledged Arian heretic and the "weak" Semi-Arian:
"Some... assembled [Council] prelates advocated... harsh measures towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers... Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion... Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox [Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)
'Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the {300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers [Note 7]; considering that, however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large, that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note 8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians [Note 9]."
[ http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html]
- Cardinal John Henry Newman
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis is a full fledged Modernist. He apparently doesn't care about being loyal to the total body of infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a total Modernist (See: //catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-evidence-that-pope-francis-is.html?m=1):
-"[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics... If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?"
- Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
"Between [Modernist Maurice] Blondel's philosophy of action and Pope Francis' pastoral action, there are significant coincidence."
- Pope Francis's close longtime theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone
( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III /www.laciviltaca
Francis's closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
"The Second Vatican Council... meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism... Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person."
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, "The Council's 'Unfinished Business,' The Church's 'Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" - A Southern Weekend with Francis' 'Discovery Channel,'" October 28, 2013)
The homosexual journalist conservative Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos in his book "Diabolical" reported:
"Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding together the conservative [Semi-Modernist] and liberal [Modernist heretic] factions that emerged in its wake."
Why were the conservative Vatican II popes, John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI and why are almost all the conservative present day bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the Modernist heretic faction?
Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?
If Francis is a Modernist then was Pope John Paul II and is Pope Benedict XVI a Semi-Modernists?
Remember what Cardinal Newman said:
"Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion."
Semi-Arians were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in schism with the total Arian heretics.
So today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the Semi-Arians have tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.
Newman said that during the Arian Heresy Crisis 80% of the bishops were heretics which is probably similar to the number of bishops who today have fallen into Modernism or Semi-Modernism.
Columnist Chris Jackson writes that the Semi-Modernist whom he says have the Neo-Modernist faith by simple statistics show that their Modernism has led to the collapse of the Catholic faith in America and the world:
"It is a shame that the [Semi-Modernist] Neo-Catholics interviewed simply cannot make the obvious connection so many Traditionalists have made before them. That far from protecting the faith of Catholics against modern errors and temptations and helping to spread the Faith, Vatican II and its reforms opened the Church up to the modern errors and temptations and fed Her sheep to the wolves."
"... In order to be meaningful to anyone, the Faith being offered must have meaning to begin with. And Neo-Modernist faith does not. In fact, it is not faith at all. The Neo-Modernist faith ascribes to a mythical god who is not just, who punishes no sin, no matter how egregious, who works no real supernatural miracles, who is merely a representation or allegory of vague concepts, and who is to be used as a mascot to help attach religious significance to merely naturalist and humanistic concerns. Those who were poisoned by this 'faith' were right to leave it. Their only mistake was not replacing it with the true Faith it is obscuring. The answer to this exodus is not some desperate attempt to be even 'more relevant' by infusing more of the same poison, but to make these people aware of the true Catholic Faith that most of them have never even experienced despite growing up as Catholics in the modern era."
"... Sadly, the answer is no. What do they blame the mass exodus from the Church since Vatican II on [is not Vatican II] ? You guessed it. [They blame]Traditional Catholicism (aka Catholicism itself)."
[https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4465-the-victims-of-vatican-ii-american-catholics-leave-the-church-in-record-numbers]
The attacks on the Open Letter appear to show that most conservative [Semi-Modernist] Catholics, not all, are Modernists and appear to slowly be losing their faith in the same way they say a frog will boil to death if the heat in the stove under the pot is heated up slowly.
Open Letter signer Peter Kwasniewski said it best:
"Just a few short years ago, everyone who considered himself a conservative was up in arms about Amoris Laetitia and skeptical of the elaborate rabbinical apparatus that attempted to square it with the Church’s perennial teaching. Now it’s as if they’ve given up; they shrug their shoulders and say, “I’m sure it’ll all be fine someday. It’ll come out in the wash. Put credentialed theologians and canonists on the case, and everything Francis says and does can be justified.” We strain the canonical gnats and swallow the doctrinal camel."
"It seems that many simply do not wish to confront the weighty and ever mounting evidence of the pope’s errors and reprehensible actions, of which the letter provided only a sample sufficient to make the case. This is not to say that Francis altogether lacks true words and admirable actions. It would be nearly impossible for someone to say false things or do bad things all the time. That is beside the point. It is enough for a pope to assert a doctrinal error only once or twice in a pontifical document, or to perform really bad acts (or omissions) of governance a few times, in order to merit rebuke from the College of Cardinals or the body of bishops, sharers in the same apostolic ministry. With Francis, however, there is a lengthy catalogue, with no sign of coming to an end. If this does not galvanize the conservatives into concerted action, one has to wonder — what would? Do they have a line in the sand? Or has papal loyalism dethroned faith and neutered reason?"
"Things that made everyone anxious just a few years ago are now taken in stride: now we all just live in a post-Bergoglian Catholic Church, where you can make exceptions about formerly exceptionless moral norms, give Communion to those living in adultery, and say God wills many religions as He wills two sexes, or — a point not addressed in the Open Letter — dismiss the witness of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (trifecta!) on the death penalty. The frogs have grown accustomed to floating in ever hotter water and have decided to call it a spa."
[https://onepeterfive.com/normalcy-bias-chaotic-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]
Sadly, it appears that most conservative Catholics are Semi-Modernists who seem to be slowly becoming total Modernist heretics?
Fr. George Rutler in his 2017 Crisis article said Fr. Antonio Spadaro, and by implication Francis since both he and Spadaro are liberal Jesuits, "grew up in a theological atmosphere of... Transcendental Thomism [which] was Karl Rahner's attempt to wed Thomistic realism with Kantian idealism. Father Stanley Kaki, theologian and physicist, called this stillborn hybrid 'Aquikantianism.'"
(Crisis, "The Mathematical Innovations of Father Spadaro," February 22, 2017)
Both the liberal Jesuits: Spadaro and Francis it appears are total relativists, as are most Jesuits and all liberal theologians.
Rahner's "Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook" says:
"The German Jesuit Karl Rahner (1904-1984) remains one of most influential theologians of the twentieth century."
(Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook, https://booksgoogle.com>books)
Rahner was a disciple of Kant as Rutler said. Jaki, also, makes this clear in his books on Aquikantists.
Kant taught that one could only know the phenomena of the mind or ideas and not know reality. Jaki wrote:
"Kant, who begins with ideas and, as all the history of modern philosophy shows, never gets to reality."
(Chesterton: A Seer of Science, page 19)
Kant and those who follow him thought God was only a thought. Jaki quotes Kant and explains the citation:
"'God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.'"
"That man was his own God, if he needed one, was evidently Kant's conclusion."
(Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)
Rahner's Kantian philosophy lead him to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM, Cap., wrote:
"In 1966 the late Fr. Karl Rahner stated that 'one can no longer maintain today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Council (of Trent) obviously thought it was'.[12] [Theological Investigations, page 307] For Rahner the 'substance' of a thing did not include its < material and physical> reality, but the 'meaning and purpose' of the thing. [13] [Karl Rahner, S.J.., p.307; Engelbert Gutwenger, "Transubstantiation," page 1754, pp. 34-35] So, according to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation meant that, after the consecration of the Mass, the physical bread remained physical bread but it now had a new 'meaning' of spiritual food because it was now a "symbol" of Jesus Christ.[14] [Engelbert Gutwenger, pp. 1754-1755]"
"Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx agreed with Fr. Karl Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a 'sign' of Christ.[15] In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated bread and wine, but the < 'assembled community'>.[16]"
(Modern Misconceptions About The Eucharist, PDF, St. Patrick's Basilica > 2016/10, https://Basilica.ca, Provided courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network)
Jaki thought the "archetype" figure of this type of philosophy which Rahner professed was "Lucifer":
"Kant who once wrote of himself: 'I am an Archangel!' and went on to state repeatedly: 'I am God.' The archetype for this self-enrichment was none other than Lucifer. If one looks for the source of the pride, the self-sufficiency... one merely has to look in the direction of the camp that still breeds Aquikantists... Aquikantists were overjoyed when the invocation of Saint Michael was dropped as a first step towards the new liturgy."
(Newman's Challenge, pages 76-77)
Remember Aquikantists, specifically Rahner, have totally influenced all liberal theologians and many, maybe most, conservative ones.
Rahner's influence even reached to the papacy of Pope John Paul II who believed in the Eucharist and objective morality unlike Francis who apparently may not believe in the Eucharist or objective morality.
John Paul because of philosophical inadequacies had a relativist inter-religious dialogue blind spot such as in the Assisi scandalous episode unlike Pope Benedict XVI. Scholar Fr. John Coleman S. J. wrote:
"John Hick's pluralist model is based on a Kantian epistemology that undermines, at the outset, any notion of a normative revelation of God in history... In Danielou's theology, the grace of Christ may mysteriously touch individuals outside Christianity but the other religions, their scriptures and rituals, remain purely human customs... Rahner did not make such a strict distinction... John Paul was closer to Rahner... Whereas Ratzinger had warned of the dangers of relativism in inter-religious dialogue." (Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-Mine, PFD Australian Catholic University>au)
Rahner's influence has effected Francis as well as his inner circle, Catholic colleges, schools and children as well as youth catechism teaching books and their teachers who prepare them for the Sacraments.
Since all liberal Catholics and many conservative ones, knowingly or unknowingly, have been deeply influenced by Rahner's Kantian "theology," is it possible that the crisis in the Church, in large extent, is due to their unconscious and in some cases conscious disbelief in objective reality as well as objective "normative" revelation which leads to disbelief in the Eucharist and God.
Does this explain Francis's panicked reaction against Cardinal Robert Sarah's call for reverence at the Mass and the Holy Eucharist and his desire to explain away and in many cases openly reject God's Ten Commandments?
It appears that Francis isn't just a moral relativist and Modernist, but apparently may not believe in the Eucharist.
Why do some traditionalists, recently, want to pretend that the Amoris laetitia total relativist Francis is exactly the same as Benedict and John Paul who both believed in the Eucharist and objective morality despite both having major philosophical inadequacies and apparently are Semi-Modernists?
Next, Larson quote from page 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information and considerations for this chapter:
Cardinal John Henry Newman in his historical research into the Arian heresy showed that the Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius was careful to make the distinction between the full fledged Arian heretic and the "weak" Semi-Arian:
"Some... assembled [Council] prelates advocated... harsh measures towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers... Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion... Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox [Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)
'Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the {300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers [Note 7]; considering that, however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large, that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note 8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians [Note 9]."
[ http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html]
- Cardinal John Henry Newman
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis is a full fledged Modernist. He apparently doesn't care about being loyal to the total body of infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a total Modernist (See: //catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-evidence-that-pope-francis-is.html?m=1):
-"[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics... If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?"
- Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
"Between [Modernist Maurice] Blondel's philosophy of action and Pope Francis' pastoral action, there are significant coincidence."
- Pope Francis's close longtime theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone
( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III /www.laciviltaca
Francis's closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
"The Second Vatican Council... meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism... Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person."
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, "The Council's 'Unfinished Business,' The Church's 'Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" - A Southern Weekend with Francis' 'Discovery Channel,'" October 28, 2013)
The homosexual journalist conservative Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos in his book "Diabolical" reported:
"Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding together the conservative [Semi-Modernist] and liberal [Modernist heretic] factions that emerged in its wake."
Why were the conservative Vatican II popes, John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI and why are almost all the conservative present day bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the Modernist heretic faction?
Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?
If Francis is a Modernist then was Pope John Paul II and is Pope Benedict XVI a Semi-Modernists?
Remember what Cardinal Newman said:
"Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion."
Semi-Arians were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in schism with the total Arian heretics.
So today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the Semi-Arians have tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.
Newman said that during the Arian Heresy Crisis 80% of the bishops were heretics which is probably similar to the number of bishops who today have fallen into Modernism or Semi-Modernism.
Columnist Chris Jackson writes that the Semi-Modernist whom he says have the Neo-Modernist faith by simple statistics show that their Modernism has led to the collapse of the Catholic faith in America and the world:
"It is a shame that the [Semi-Modernist] Neo-Catholics interviewed simply cannot make the obvious connection so many Traditionalists have made before them. That far from protecting the faith of Catholics against modern errors and temptations and helping to spread the Faith, Vatican II and its reforms opened the Church up to the modern errors and temptations and fed Her sheep to the wolves."
"... In order to be meaningful to anyone, the Faith being offered must have meaning to begin with. And Neo-Modernist faith does not. In fact, it is not faith at all. The Neo-Modernist faith ascribes to a mythical god who is not just, who punishes no sin, no matter how egregious, who works no real supernatural miracles, who is merely a representation or allegory of vague concepts, and who is to be used as a mascot to help attach religious significance to merely naturalist and humanistic concerns. Those who were poisoned by this 'faith' were right to leave it. Their only mistake was not replacing it with the true Faith it is obscuring. The answer to this exodus is not some desperate attempt to be even 'more relevant' by infusing more of the same poison, but to make these people aware of the true Catholic Faith that most of them have never even experienced despite growing up as Catholics in the modern era."
"... Sadly, the answer is no. What do they blame the mass exodus from the Church since Vatican II on [is not Vatican II] ? You guessed it. [They blame]Traditional Catholicism (aka Catholicism itself)."
[https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4465-the-victims-of-vatican-ii-american-catholics-leave-the-church-in-record-numbers]
The attacks on the Open Letter appear to show that most conservative [Semi-Modernist] Catholics, not all, are Modernists and appear to slowly be losing their faith in the same way they say a frog will boil to death if the heat in the stove under the pot is heated up slowly.
Open Letter signer Peter Kwasniewski said it best:
"Just a few short years ago, everyone who considered himself a conservative was up in arms about Amoris Laetitia and skeptical of the elaborate rabbinical apparatus that attempted to square it with the Church’s perennial teaching. Now it’s as if they’ve given up; they shrug their shoulders and say, “I’m sure it’ll all be fine someday. It’ll come out in the wash. Put credentialed theologians and canonists on the case, and everything Francis says and does can be justified.” We strain the canonical gnats and swallow the doctrinal camel."
"It seems that many simply do not wish to confront the weighty and ever mounting evidence of the pope’s errors and reprehensible actions, of which the letter provided only a sample sufficient to make the case. This is not to say that Francis altogether lacks true words and admirable actions. It would be nearly impossible for someone to say false things or do bad things all the time. That is beside the point. It is enough for a pope to assert a doctrinal error only once or twice in a pontifical document, or to perform really bad acts (or omissions) of governance a few times, in order to merit rebuke from the College of Cardinals or the body of bishops, sharers in the same apostolic ministry. With Francis, however, there is a lengthy catalogue, with no sign of coming to an end. If this does not galvanize the conservatives into concerted action, one has to wonder — what would? Do they have a line in the sand? Or has papal loyalism dethroned faith and neutered reason?"
"Things that made everyone anxious just a few years ago are now taken in stride: now we all just live in a post-Bergoglian Catholic Church, where you can make exceptions about formerly exceptionless moral norms, give Communion to those living in adultery, and say God wills many religions as He wills two sexes, or — a point not addressed in the Open Letter — dismiss the witness of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (trifecta!) on the death penalty. The frogs have grown accustomed to floating in ever hotter water and have decided to call it a spa."
[https://onepeterfive.com/normalcy-bias-chaotic-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]
Sadly, it appears that most conservative Catholics are Semi-Modernists who seem to be slowly becoming total Modernist heretics?
Fr. George Rutler in his 2017 Crisis article said Fr. Antonio Spadaro, and by implication Francis since both he and Spadaro are liberal Jesuits, "grew up in a theological atmosphere of... Transcendental Thomism [which] was Karl Rahner's attempt to wed Thomistic realism with Kantian idealism. Father Stanley Kaki, theologian and physicist, called this stillborn hybrid 'Aquikantianism.'"
(Crisis, "The Mathematical Innovations of Father Spadaro," February 22, 2017)
Both the liberal Jesuits: Spadaro and Francis it appears are total relativists, as are most Jesuits and all liberal theologians.
Rahner's "Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook" says:
"The German Jesuit Karl Rahner (1904-1984) remains one of most influential theologians of the twentieth century."
(Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook, https://booksgoogle.com>books)
Rahner was a disciple of Kant as Rutler said. Jaki, also, makes this clear in his books on Aquikantists.
Kant taught that one could only know the phenomena of the mind or ideas and not know reality. Jaki wrote:
"Kant, who begins with ideas and, as all the history of modern philosophy shows, never gets to reality."
(Chesterton: A Seer of Science, page 19)
Kant and those who follow him thought God was only a thought. Jaki quotes Kant and explains the citation:
"'God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.'"
"That man was his own God, if he needed one, was evidently Kant's conclusion."
(Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)
Rahner's Kantian philosophy lead him to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM, Cap., wrote:
"In 1966 the late Fr. Karl Rahner stated that 'one can no longer maintain today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Council (of Trent) obviously thought it was'.[12] [Theological Investigations, page 307] For Rahner the 'substance' of a thing did not include its < material and physical> reality, but the 'meaning and purpose' of the thing. [13] [Karl Rahner, S.J.., p.307; Engelbert Gutwenger, "Transubstantiation," page 1754, pp. 34-35] So, according to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation meant that, after the consecration of the Mass, the physical bread remained physical bread but it now had a new 'meaning' of spiritual food because it was now a "symbol" of Jesus Christ.[14] [Engelbert Gutwenger, pp. 1754-1755]"
"Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx agreed with Fr. Karl Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a 'sign' of Christ.[15] In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated bread and wine, but the < 'assembled community'>.[16]"
(Modern Misconceptions About The Eucharist, PDF, St. Patrick's Basilica > 2016/10, https://Basilica.ca, Provided courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network)
Jaki thought the "archetype" figure of this type of philosophy which Rahner professed was "Lucifer":
"Kant who once wrote of himself: 'I am an Archangel!' and went on to state repeatedly: 'I am God.' The archetype for this self-enrichment was none other than Lucifer. If one looks for the source of the pride, the self-sufficiency... one merely has to look in the direction of the camp that still breeds Aquikantists... Aquikantists were overjoyed when the invocation of Saint Michael was dropped as a first step towards the new liturgy."
(Newman's Challenge, pages 76-77)
Remember Aquikantists, specifically Rahner, have totally influenced all liberal theologians and many, maybe most, conservative ones.
Rahner's influence even reached to the papacy of Pope John Paul II who believed in the Eucharist and objective morality unlike Francis who apparently may not believe in the Eucharist or objective morality.
John Paul because of philosophical inadequacies had a relativist inter-religious dialogue blind spot such as in the Assisi scandalous episode unlike Pope Benedict XVI. Scholar Fr. John Coleman S. J. wrote:
"John Hick's pluralist model is based on a Kantian epistemology that undermines, at the outset, any notion of a normative revelation of God in history... In Danielou's theology, the grace of Christ may mysteriously touch individuals outside Christianity but the other religions, their scriptures and rituals, remain purely human customs... Rahner did not make such a strict distinction... John Paul was closer to Rahner... Whereas Ratzinger had warned of the dangers of relativism in inter-religious dialogue." (Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-Mine, PFD Australian Catholic University>au)
Rahner's influence has effected Francis as well as his inner circle, Catholic colleges, schools and children as well as youth catechism teaching books and their teachers who prepare them for the Sacraments.
Since all liberal Catholics and many conservative ones, knowingly or unknowingly, have been deeply influenced by Rahner's Kantian "theology," is it possible that the crisis in the Church, in large extent, is due to their unconscious and in some cases conscious disbelief in objective reality as well as objective "normative" revelation which leads to disbelief in the Eucharist and God.
Does this explain Francis's panicked reaction against Cardinal Robert Sarah's call for reverence at the Mass and the Holy Eucharist and his desire to explain away and in many cases openly reject God's Ten Commandments?
It appears that Francis isn't just a moral relativist and Modernist, but apparently may not believe in the Eucharist.
Why do some traditionalists, recently, want to pretend that the Amoris laetitia total relativist Francis is exactly the same as Benedict and John Paul who both believed in the Eucharist and objective morality despite both having major philosophical inadequacies and apparently are Semi-Modernists?
Next, Larson quote from page 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information and considerations for this chapter:
Lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin loosely translated as "the law of what
is to be prayed [is] the law of what is to be believed") is a motto in
Christian tradition, which means that prayer and belief are integral to
each other and that liturgy is not distinct from theology.
He cannot say the novus ordo mass have it not affect your faith for the worse
He cannot say the novus ordo mass have it not affect your faith for the worse
society of Pius X has vocation and large families what does Novus Ordo have?
The Ottaviani Intervention
One of the most important critiques ever made of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Background to the study
On September 25, 1969, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect-emeritus of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, sent a letter to Pope Paul VI. Accompanying the letter was a theological “Study of the New Order of the Mass” (Novus Ordo Missae), written by a group of Roman theologians. Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter was a plea to His Holiness “not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.” It was apparently in response to the Ottaviani Intervention that Pope Paul subsequently ordered a delay of two years in the deadline for mandatory implementation of the new Ordo.
A little known fact about the creation of this study was that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre chaired the working committee that drafted it. Historical details about this important event can be found in Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.[1]
As briefly related by Fr. Ramon Angles in his transcribed conference, “A Short History of the Society of St. Pius X”:[2]
On April 3, 1969, the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum presented a new order of the Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre gathered together a group of 12 theologians who wrote under his direction, "A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae" often called the "Ottaviani Intervention". Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote indeed an introduction and presented the study to Paul VI. Since no response came from the Vatican, the archbishop announces to his small group of seminarians, June 10, 1971, that he refuses to accept this new protestantized liturgy: 'How can I agree to abandon the Mass of All Time or to admit to place it at the same level as the Novus Ordo, created by Annibal Bugnini, with the participation of Protestants to make of it an equivocal supper that eliminates totally the Offertory, and touches the very words of the Consecration.'"
Translation notes
The document and accompanying letter which Cardinal Ottaviani submitted to the Holy Father, which has also been submitted to the bishops of Italy, is printed in the following pages. It is the work of a group of theologians and liturgists in Rome, of different nationalities and differing tendencies.
Because the document was submitted as evidence in support of points made in the cardinal’s letter, the Italian original has been faithfully translated, which explains why it is not entirely suited to the English language. It does however, raise so many questions of such profound importance, some of considerable complexity, that it would be wrong to depart from the Italian text.
The evidence is cumulative and does not stand or fall on any single part. A brief summary is however provided to direct the attention of the reader to what may be of particular interest to him.
The Ottaviani Intervention
One of the most important critiques ever made of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Background to the study
On September 25, 1969, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect-emeritus of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, sent a letter to Pope Paul VI. Accompanying the letter was a theological “Study of the New Order of the Mass” (Novus Ordo Missae), written by a group of Roman theologians. Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter was a plea to His Holiness “not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.” It was apparently in response to the Ottaviani Intervention that Pope Paul subsequently ordered a delay of two years in the deadline for mandatory implementation of the new Ordo.
A little known fact about the creation of this study was that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre chaired the working committee that drafted it. Historical details about this important event can be found in Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.[1]
As briefly related by Fr. Ramon Angles in his transcribed conference, “A Short History of the Society of St. Pius X”:[2]
On April 3, 1969, the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum presented a new order of the Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre gathered together a group of 12 theologians who wrote under his direction, "A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae" often called the "Ottaviani Intervention". Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote indeed an introduction and presented the study to Paul VI. Since no response came from the Vatican, the archbishop announces to his small group of seminarians, June 10, 1971, that he refuses to accept this new protestantized liturgy: 'How can I agree to abandon the Mass of All Time or to admit to place it at the same level as the Novus Ordo, created by Annibal Bugnini, with the participation of Protestants to make of it an equivocal supper that eliminates totally the Offertory, and touches the very words of the Consecration.'"
Translation notes
The document and accompanying letter which Cardinal Ottaviani submitted to the Holy Father, which has also been submitted to the bishops of Italy, is printed in the following pages. It is the work of a group of theologians and liturgists in Rome, of different nationalities and differing tendencies.
Because the document was submitted as evidence in support of points made in the cardinal’s letter, the Italian original has been faithfully translated, which explains why it is not entirely suited to the English language. It does however, raise so many questions of such profound importance, some of considerable complexity, that it would be wrong to depart from the Italian text.
The evidence is cumulative and does not stand or fall on any single part. A brief summary is however provided to direct the attention of the reader to what may be of particular interest to him.
Rahner is considered the father of Vatican II which officially
incorporated subjectivist (Modernist) thinking into the Catholic Church.
As a result the Church has become largely Protestant in both the
beliefs and actions of clergy and laity.
Unless corrected the Church is on its way to paganism and atheism, becoming a tool of the New World Order. We must pray that this intolerable situation is soon made known to all by God.
Unless corrected the Church is on its way to paganism and atheism, becoming a tool of the New World Order. We must pray that this intolerable situation is soon made known to all by God.
JPII took the oath against modernism he new exactly what modernism was
He new the The Syllabus Of Errors
Pope BI. Pius IX - 1864
So did BXVI no excuse they sold us out
You sugar coat all you want we been played as a Church
by their fruits you know them
He new the The Syllabus Of Errors
Pope BI. Pius IX - 1864
So did BXVI no excuse they sold us out
You sugar coat all you want we been played as a Church
by their fruits you know them
You're right to a large extent. The closest example is the Arian crisis
when it appeared the apparent last defender of orthodoxy St. Athanasius
was about to be killed, but suddenly everything by God's providence
turned around. Never forget that God is in total control.
MEwbank,
Please, if possible contact me by email. You have a scholarly understanding of the present situation similar to my friend scholar James Larson on Benedict except he doesn't think Francis could be a antipope. I would like to get your take on this in more depth and on some other subjects.
Fred
Please, if possible contact me by email. You have a scholarly understanding of the present situation similar to my friend scholar James Larson on Benedict except he doesn't think Francis could be a antipope. I would like to get your take on this in more depth and on some other subjects.
Fred
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger charged her personally with the German version of
particularly sensitive documents, such as his response to the objections
of Protestant theologians to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification of 1999. It was also Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to
her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not
to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of
crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a
Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant
Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome]
throughout her life.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
Arguably, on the personal level and in their overall public stances they promoted such. However, neither did anything markedly decisive institutionally to promote and inculcate this profound truth.
Moreover, the ambivalences within the papacies of these two figures, however, are troubling.
Your reference to Fr. Coleman's essay reminded me that he was contacted by a Dr. David Schütz, who insisted on the following, and Coleman fully accepted what is said below.
"I think you would have gained a far more accurate idea of Ratzinger’s personal position if you had actually referred to his personal writings on the matter (which, not incidentally, are more clearly reflected in BXVI’s magisterium than is Dominus Iesus). I am thinking of the essays included in the collections “Truth and Tolerance” (published 2003), “Many religions, One Covenant” (pub 1999), and in particular his 1998 essay “Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations” (published in Communio in 1998). The latter especially, I think, shows Ratzinger to be much more open to interreligious dialogue than you portray him to be by taking Dominus Iesus as representative of his theology. The influence of Danielou, take note, is still very strong in these writings – yet Ratzinger goes much further than Danielou in the final analysis towards an acceptance of the value of Interreligious dialogue. In particular, I think Ratzinger would share with you the need to value dialogue in itself, and a desire to go beyond “overarching theories” based on soteriology. His discussion of the two major ways of being “religious” (mystical and theistic) is much more “pluralist” than Danielou’s theology."
Both John Paul ii and Benedict xvi, in their theological reflections and pastoral actions, obscured clarity of judgement (hence, markedly emphatic articulation of propositional certitudes)that one would typically have found in thinkers committed to, and inspired by, St. Thomas Aquinas.
At this stage of the game, it is distressing to face the fact that Bergoglio is almost certainly an anti-pope, due not only to likely violations of the conclave that elected him, but also due to unresolved ambiguities of Benedict's formal resignation. Finally, Bergoglio assuredly is an utterly shallow, and verifiably heterodox person.
But one wonders whether, even if it were and is possible to attain firm recognition of Benedict xvi as still being the Pope, would this alleviate our extreme difficulties and the current implosion of the Church's institutions?
After all, in spite of his comparative superiority, he is also the bearer of many nebulous and ambivalent tendencies.
Our situation is dire and seemingly unprecedented in history.
"