Saturday, February 24, 2018

Why do some Traditionalists pretend John Paul II and Benedict are Total Relativists like Francis?

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 blindspot 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, 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?

Is Francis a total relativist?

In my opinion, the evidence points to Francis being an apparent total relativist. Please read the following posts:

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/evidence-francis-is-modernist-who.html?m=1

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-pope-francis-nihilist-who-doesnt.html

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.






8 comments:

MEwbank said...

Your contrast of Bergoglio with John Paul ii and Benedict xvi concerning devotion to the Eucharist as patently real and true for the latter two seems difficult to argue with.

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 Sch├╝tz, 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.


"

JJ said...

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

JJ said...

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.

Michael Dowd said...

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.

JJ said...

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

Fred Martinez said...

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.

Fred Martinez said...

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

Sendero said...

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



Ratzinger