Sunday, May 12, 2019
Are all Liberals Modernist & are Most Conservative Catholics Semi-Modernist?
In my opinion, it is obvious that Pope Francis doesn’t have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a Modernist (See: http://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?”
– Neo-Modernist 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.laciviltacattolica.it )” [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]
Francis’s closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be Modernist 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 Milo Yiannopoulos in his book “Diabolical” reported:
“”Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding together the conservative [Catholic] and liberal [Modernist heretic] factions that emerged in its wake.”
Why were the conservative Vatican II popes and why are almost all the conservative present day bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the heretic faction?
Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Modernists and Semi-Modernists?
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.
So today, the conservative Catholics 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.
Cardinal John Henry 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 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 Neo-Catholics [conservative 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).”
The attacks on the Open Letter appear to show that most conservative Catholics, not all, are Semi-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.”