This is conjecture on my part. The Vatileaks scandal is multifaceted. But who hates Pope Benedict the most? The progressives in the Church of course, those who disdained his revival of the "imperium" of the papacy, the lace, the fannon, the Baroque chasuble. The progressives hated Pope Benedict for his "reform of the reform" make no mistake about it.
They hated Pope Benedict for Liturgiam Authenticum and for the revision of the vernacular Mass translations.
The progressives especially hated Pope Benedict for Pontificum Summorum, hated him for it, let me emphasize, hated him for that!
They hated Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. Let's face it, the progressives hated Pope Ratzinger and their calumny was and is demonic and under Pope Francis they are going to have the "come to Jesus moment" under Pope Francis, no one's fool!
The progressives also hated him for the investigation into religious life and seminaries and especially into the post-Catholic religious organization called the LCWR who say they represent 57,000 Women Religious, but many of those sisters resent the LCWR to no end for their post-Catholic ethos. It will come to an end by attrition or papal fiat!
Now Pope Francis' homilies start to make sense as he deals with the calumny in the Church and especially directed to Pope Benedict and his heroic efforts to undo the progressive's charge to remake the Church according to a post-Catholic models symbolized most by the LCWR and their minions.
Listen to Pope Francis' homily on Sunday at the Basilica of St. Paul:
Radio Vatican summarizes the Holy Father's homily and I emphasize the most important:
Proclamation, witness, and worship were the three key ideas on which Pope Francis focused in his homily, with especial emphasis on those who suffer for their witness to the Faith. “There are the saints of every day,” said Pope Francis, “the ‘hidden’ saints, a sort of ‘middle class of holiness’ to which we can all belong.”In many parts of the world, however, “[T]here are also those who suffer, like Peter and the Apostles, on account of the Gospel; there are those who give their lives in order to remain faithful to Christ by means of a witness marked by the shedding of their blood.”
Pope Francis called on all the faithful to remember that one cannot proclaim the Gospel of Jesus without the tangible witness of one’s life. He said, “Those who listen to us and observe us must be able to see in our actions what they hear from our lips, and so give glory to God!” He went on to say, “Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the Church’s credibility.”
Pope Francis then turned to the theme of worship. “What does it mean, then, to worship God?” he asked, answering, “[w]orshipping the Lord means giving him the place that he must have; worshipping the Lord means stating, believing – not only by our words – that he alone truly guides our lives; worshipping the Lord means that we are convinced before him that he is the only God, the God of our lives, the God of our history.”“Dear brothers and sisters,” concluded Pope Francis, “each day the Lord calls us to follow him with courage and fidelity; he has made us the great gift of choosing us as his disciples; he sends us to proclaim him with joy as the Risen one, but he asks us to do so by word and by the witness of our lives, in daily life. The Lord is the only God of our lives, and he invites us to strip ourselves of our many idols and to worship him alone. May the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Paul help us on this journey and intercede for us.”
MY COMMENTS: Calumny is of hatred and thus of Satan, the Holy Father said in today's homily from his Motel 6 place of residence.
The Holy Father is going to focus on the reform of the clergy and Religious life and make sure that we are faithful to our promises, our vows and to the Magisterium of the Church. There cannot be pro-choice priests and nuns. Nuns and priests cannot be disobedient to their vows and promises, first their baptismal vows and later their vows of ordination or consecration. They cannot re-imagine these vows in a post-Christian, post-Catholic way try as they have!
Then he is going to focus on the laity and make sure they know they must be obedient to their baptismal promises especially in their everyday lives where they are to witness to Christ and His Church, in other words they are to be Catholic.
Folks, the simple style of the Holy Father and his humble vesture and Mass and in his daily exercise of his papal magisterium is all about the austerity this pope has that enables him to live in the bunkers and reform the people of the Church. Repair my Church Francis!
WOW! what an exciting time to be a Catholic! Thank you Pope Francis and thank you Pope Benedict for bringing to light the corruption and filth in the Church. Pope Francis will conclude what you uncovered and didn't have the strength to conclude.
Pope Benedict will be a saint one day too, mark my word!
47 comments:
Progressives did not "hate" Pope Benedict. You characterization is uncalled for and dangerously extreme. It is entirely possible to disagree with a pope or a pastor without "hating" him.
So the Holy Father Francis was wrong to speak of calumny being hatred and of Satan? Take your head out of the sand PI.
The Holy Father in his succinct way made a number of points about gossip, a pastime which we all love to do.
He noted that today, for example, the aspect of "meekness in the community," is a somewhat ‘forgotten virtue’.
Meekness is stigmatized, it has "many enemies”, the first of which is gossip.
Pope Francis further developed this reflection.
“When we prefer to gossip, gossip about others, criticise others- these are everyday things that happen to everyone, including me – these are the temptations of the evil one who does not want the Spirit to come to us and bring about peace and meekness in the Christian community".
If, Good Father, you are looking for calumny, you need read no further than some of those here whose postings your approve.
And your "They hated Benedict" rant is nothing more than gossip.
So, Ignotus/Kavanaugh, how would you characterize those who attempted to undermine Benedict's papacy and those who are enemies of the Church?
If they are, indeed, of Satan then they are not due any charity or anything else.
You see, it is modernists like yourself who use this meekness and charity schtick in an attempt to shame traditionalists and believers into a trepidated approach when dealing with those like yourself. All the while, under a self-righteous and condescending cloud of guile, you engage in subversive and divisive behaviors while whining and moaning ...."Ewww...mean, uncharitable...ewww, ewwww." More and more of us refuse to be fooled by this moralistic charade and that scares the Hell out of you.
LA was JPII's, not BXVI's.
Trust me LA was Ratzinger's
Pin/Gene - I engage in no subversive or divisive behaviour.
I don't try to shame traditionalists. I disagree with them and am not averse, as you know, to saying so.
I am not scared by anything you say or do, and that is what gripes you. You can't bully me and that drives you to distraction. You give yourself WAY too much credit.
It's pretty divisive to use the unnecessary "u" when writing words like "behavior".
Liturgiam authenticam
ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES
IN THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
...
"After the preparation of this Instruction by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in virtue of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff transmitted in a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State dated 1 February 1997 (Prot. n. 408.304), the same Supreme Pontiff, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on 20 March 2001, approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority, ordering that it be published, and that it enter into force on the 25th day of April of the same year.
From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 28 March, the year 2001.
Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect
Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary"
2001, Father. JPII, not BXVI.
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
But Marc, how much more divisive it is to call that little u “unnecessary.” That is the unkindest cut of all!
Remember, too, Marc, our host's Canadian heritage. The u in colour, favour and behaviour is in current use north of the border.
See... Divisive.
Thank you all for proving my point.
Pater Ignotus:
The knee-jerk negative reaction of Catholic progressives (for whom you seem to be carrying the standard) was certainly not love. When a pope is mis-characterized in the press as aloof and dictatorial, that is not love. When priests openly lament about the new translation of the Mass and then cheer the new pope as "caring", as if to imply the last pope was not, that's not love. When a pope clearly teaches that the Extraordinary Form is not to be denied to the faithful who request it and his own priests who demand "tolerance" and "diversity" deny it to their parishioners (you out to know about that) that's not love. When the progressive rags like U.S. Catholic and the National Catholic Reporter denounce every initiative of a pope and express hope for some sort of new "renaissance" when he finally goes, that's not love.
O.K.. You want to say progressives don't "hate" Pope Benedict? Then at least admit that their (and your) respect is grudging at best and cooperation is minimal. it doesn't take a genius to see when the troops resent their leader. We know what we see Father.
Now, how did I know you were going to say that, Marc? I guess I'm becoming clairvoyant too. =)
I thought we could try to discuss grammar and spelling for a bit. Our discussions of liturgics and doctrine aren't really getting us anywhere.
I also thought injecting a little humor (or humour) into the discussion would be a nice change of pace. Thanks for humoring (humouring) me Anonymous 2!
:-)
William and Marc - and Saviour, too!
Anon 9:03 - I openly lament the new translation not because I "hate" anyone, but because I find it lamentable. I don't hate B16, the translators, or anyone else who gave us this semi-literate, linguistic mish-mash.
No, my respect for Benedict was not grudging; it was and is sincere. What you and Good Father McDonald seem to lack is an understanding of how it is entirely possible to disagree with a person, yet maintain high respect for that individual.
Parties whose views differ can "achieve disagreement" which maintains respect (and not merely tolerance) for "the other." They do not approach areas of disagreement with a "zero sum" mentality.
You know what you WANT to see - and what you want to see disobedience, dissention, and disrespect. You will find it everywhere you look, even when it plainly does not exist.
Fr. Kavanaugh;
"Progressives did not "hate" Pope Benedict. You characterization is uncalled for and dangerously extreme. It is entirely possible to disagree with a pope or a pastor without "hating" him."
Thank you so much for saying this. I really do appreciate your thoughts on that matter, because as a pastor, I absolutely disagree with you, but I don't "hate" you, just the theological ideals you stand behind. I find them to be calumnious and mean-spirited. That is not gossip, that is said out in front.
'-or' as opposed to '-our' has the advantage of being closer to Latin and was used in England in the 19th century. It is only the preference of lexicographers which has led to the difference in spelling between British and American English. For the record, I prefer 'maneuver' to 'manoeuvre' - we're not French after all - although the English 'kerb' when applied to the edge of the road is preferable to 'curb'.
It's not American spelling that's the problem, it's American pronunciation, particularly as it infects received English pronunciation. Usually the accent is pushed forward (tempoRARily and necessARily have almost universally supplanted the correct TEMporarily and NECessarily); 'secretary' is given four syllables rather than three and 'covert' is pronounced 'coe-vert'. We have not yet adopted the bizarre American habit of regressing the main accent to the preceding word as in PEAnut butter, Happy NOO Year, or ROBin Hood, but don't hold your breath.
Perhaps even more worrying is the adoption by young people of grammatical errors common in American colloquial speech, the most obvious being the non-use of the adverb, surely the result of German immigration to the US. "How are you?" will elicit the reply "I'm good". The obvious rejoinder is "I was enquiring after your health, not your moral state". Italian immigrants are responsible for the double negative; 'non so niente' is correct, but 'I don't know nothing' isn't.
Still, we don't rhyme 'missile' with 'missal' or pronounce 'futile' to sound like 'feudal'. Amd we still distinguish between 'marry', 'Mary' and 'merry'.
Andy - You do not disagree with me as much as you want to think. I bet we share the same theological ideals. It is not mean-spirited nor calumnious to express those ideals.
John - Do you use an UM-brell-a or an um-BRELL-a? Or a 'brolly? You know . . the thing that keeps you dry in the rain that you keep in the boot of your car.....
What I just don't understand is how priests like Pater Ignotus are so devoted to ignoring the obvious.
We have story after story of parishes across the country where the church was set to close or was at least rotting in some ghetto neighborhood and a young priest or FSSP comes in, un-renovates the church building, starts offering the TLM and everything turns around. Reclaiming all the lost traditions and "trappings" draws more to the parish, the money situation changes, everything changes and a new vibrant parish life is created. Yet if priests like P.I. and others are sent to a dying parish and someone suggests this game plan to them, they react as if they would rather let the parish die than adapt the "preconciliar" model.
Why is it that death and failure are preferable to what has worked for 2000 years?
I'll grant that maybe P.I. doesn't hate Pope Benedict, but I can name some priests in this diocese who clearly do.
"I openly lament the new translation not because I "hate" anyone, but because I find it lamentable. I don't hate B16, the translators, or anyone else who gave us this semi-literate, linguistic mish-mash."
Perhaps Pater Ignotus can explain what is "lamentable" about the new translation and give us some concrete reasoning as to what makes it "semi-literate." Otherwise, we'll just have to assume that Pater Ignotus maintains a "deep respect" for a pope that he is convinced has in inferior understanding of linguistics and liturgy to his own. After all, it's very hard to be patient when you know more than everyone else.
Anon 12:26 - And in the ten years Good Father McDonald has been pastor at St. Joseph doing many of the things that you suggest bring about a turn-around in a parish, the attendance, by his own reported numbers, has dropped right at 30%.
It would seem obvious that your formula is not universally successful.
I agree that the mispronunciations can be rough, John. But we don't want to row about it, do we? We must be flexible -- bend the bow and the bough a little and bow before customary usage.
See what you've started. Marc. Thanks =)
Me thinks, dear PI that you continue to promote half truths about St. Joseph of which you have very little knowledge or truth. I would suspect you'd be much better off speaking about your own parish, its growth and the number of people you brought into the Church at the Easter Vigil which was 0! 0!, Please explain, your parish to us dear Father PI.
Also, dear father, it would be most helpful for us to understand why the only suburban parish in town continues to be the smallest in town while the one downtown and the other in mid town thrive and are growing and have more parishioners than you.
And yes, Father, tell us of your one Mass on Sunday--how the church still has seating for more, and only one Mass on Sunday compared to the two others in town that have multiple Masses. Please explain dear PI to our readership.
"Anon 12:26 - And in the ten years Good Father McDonald has been pastor at St. Joseph doing many of the things that you suggest bring about a turn-around in a parish, the attendance, by his own reported numbers, has dropped right at 30%.
"It would seem obvious that your formula is not universally successful."
In all fairness to Fr. McDonald, he has not followed the formula I have mentioned. St. Joseph's (a fine parish run by an excellent pastor) is using a different model, call it the "gradual reintroduction" model. Fr. McDonald, obviously has concerns that the members of his parish might go into hardcore shock if he completely transformed his parish into a Traditional Latin Mass parish. Having the Extraordinary Form once a month at an odd hour of the afternoon is hardly the model I spoke of.
It should also be noted that the older neighborhoods in Macon, according to the 2011 Census, are losing population.
It is also a bit harder to implement the plan in an area that is as overwhelmingly Protestant and, dare I say, hostile to Catholics as the Deep South. However, there is an up side to the same problem. Converts from Protestantism are far more drawn to a style of Catholicism that clearly delineates the differences between Protestantism and the Catholic Church. They don't join to be Methodists with a Communion added.
Perhaps PI can tell us also how many people drive across the state just to attend one of his enlightened Novus Ordo Masses.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
I'd be willing to bet our theological divide is as vast as the chasm between Lazarus and his master, when he was in the bosom of Abraham.
My philosophy is thoroughly Thomistic (not neo-Thomistic) and my theology is based upon the whole of 2000 years of Catholic thought. I don't limit myself to the contemporary theologies which have dominated since the close of the Council.
This is most apparent in my disdain for the utter and complete abuse of the Mass and the Council Fathers, but it also extends to the ecclesiology of the Church, the views on religious freedom v. religious tolerance (including ecumenism), and the Magisterium of the Council itself since the close of Vatican Council II.
I don't think you and I are even on the same planet. But if you'd like to discuss further...I'm game.
Good Father - I have simply reported the number of attendees YOU have provided to the Diocesan Stewardship Office from your October pew count. Have I erred in reporting those numbers, or is the decline in attendance at St. Joseph in the last 10 years 29.9%?
The only "knowledge" I have is what you, Good Father, reported.
Our Sunday mass is usually rather full. And I would suggest you are now presuming knowledge about Holy Spirit, as you did when you claimed - falsely - that a communion service is offered here on the pastor's day off.
Dan - I do not think that Pope Benedict has an understanding of linguistics and liturgy that is inferior to mine. I am, however, quite sure that I am a far, far better speaker of and communicator in English than Pope Benedict.
The translation philosophy given in Liturgiam Authenticam is the problem. LA begins with using the original language, Latin, to control the receiving language, English. This results in a syntax, word order, and phrase order than is foreign to the English spoken by most of the English speaking world. And it is unnecessarily foreign.
LA assumes that word and phrase order are of secondary or tertiary importance as long as the English translation is as close as humanly possible to the original Latin. (Many simple errors have been noted, however, in the work of the translators. Also, in many places the "rules" set down in LA have been ignored.) I think this is a mistaken understanding of the liturgical purpose of spoken/prayed word which should encourage understanding of the spoken/prayed text. (LA says it wants the texts understood, but then leads us on the path of occluded understanding.)
LA maintains that the poetry found in the original latin is going to be poetic in the literal English translations. It is not.
And on and on. There are many places where you can find objections to LA. I add my few here to give you a sense of why i find the new translation of the Roman Missal wanting.
Lyle - I know of no one who drives across the state to attend mass here. We do, however, have numerous visitors from the I-475 corridor and they are most complimentary of the people and the priest of our little parish.
Andy - My philosophy is thoroughly Catholic, learned mostly from one abbot and one priest. My theology is also based on 2000 years of Catholic Tradition. As you know, however, I tend not to confuse Tradition with tradition.
We are most definitely on the same planet.
Dear PI, when I came here in 2004 there were two Sunday Masses at Holy Spirit and both rather full, in addition to the one on Saturday. Now you have a half full one on Saturday and only one on Sunday and not completely full. How odd, that you don't tell us about this nor tell us of your RCIA. Enclosed circle?
Good Father - Look at the October pew count numbers. "Both rather full" and "half full one" and "not completely full" are a little too subjective, methinks.
Accd to the October pew count, while the decline at St. Joseph in the last 10 years has been 29.9%, the decline at Holy Spirit has been 1.6%.
Pater Ignotus
It's odd that in our rainy islands we choose to name the essential brolly after a sunshade; the French (parapluie) and Germans (Regenschirm) more accurately describe its function.
I haven't got a horse in the Macon liturgy steeplechase, but I can't understand your antipathy to the current ICEL translation. The vernacular prayers I learned as a child rendered elegant Latin into memorable, even poetic English which conveyed both the sense and the rhythm of the original - for example "Hail Holy Queen", "Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord", "Holy Michael, Archangel" and so on. The 1973 ICEL preces, with their barbarous chopped-up sentences and failure to convey any subtlety of meaning (and in many cases actually changing the meaning) were simply not good enough.
I was always more familiar with the Latin of the Novus Ordo than with the vernacular (I tried to avoid the latter) and when I first heard the Roman Canon prayed in the new translation many of my previous objections to the vernacular were allayed; at last it seemed that the English Mass had come of age. It also struck me that those with no knowledge and experience of Latin liturgy were actually hearing the Mass of Paul VI for the first time.
PI you continue to wantonly repeat half truths about our pew count and no truths about your parish, which you should know better than me.
Our counts are reduced because people who live in Houston County and were never registered here, but were registered at either Sacred Heart or Saint Patrick's were coming here before their larger churches were built--so please please tell the truth Father.
Up until about four years ago, our parish census, which is the official census on our books is that we had about 1,100 families, today that is almost 1,400. Could you give us your census and the names of those you brought into the Church this Easter and last.
Good Father - The only facts I present are the pew count numbers you have reported. Have I erred in reporting your numbers? Nope.
Pew counts are not about who is registered where.
Pew counts aren't about bigger churches being built.
Pew counts aren't about how many families are registered in parishes, but about the number who attend on the weekends of October.
The argument is made that the EF and the style of liturgy you celebrate increases the number of people in the pews. That "strategy" has worked in some places, to be sure. Has it worked at St Joseph? In 2003 St Joseph reported 1759; in 2012 St Joseph reported 1233. In 2003 Holy Spirit reported 319; in 2012 Holy Spirit reported 314.
The number of Sunday morning masses at Holy Spirit was reduced from two to one not because the numbers attending here fell, but because the church was enlarged. Everyone fits into one mass, with little room to spare, I might add.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
"Andy - My philosophy is thoroughly Catholic, learned mostly from one abbot and one priest. My theology is also based on 2000 years of Catholic Tradition. As you know, however, I tend not to confuse Tradition with tradition.
We are most definitely on the same planet."
A big difference between you and I, Father is that I don't ignore tradition in favor of modernism (not the heresy, but the practice). Interesting that you limit your theology to one abbot and one priest. That is a little bit sad, I must say. There are hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of great theologians in the history of the Church to draw from, bishops, priests, religious, and yes, even some laymen that we can draw from. Certainly we all have our favorites, but by and large, as a matter of practice, I don't limit myself to just my favorites or to my mentor (the great man that he was), but that is due to his influence. My mentor demanded that I know and be able to infuse many different theologies from the whole of Catholic history.
If we are on the same planet, then we are on different continents, because my good Father.
Andy - Read again: "I learned my PHILOSOPHY from one abbot and one priest." My theology teachers were far more numerous. I don't limit myself to a few favorites or my mentors, either. So there is nothing "a little bit sad" about my philosophical/theological formation.
No, we are on the same planet, the same continent, and, much to your consternation, we are in the same Church.
Wonderful, but I didn't know that philosophy was Catholic? That is an interesting innovation, Fr. Kavanaugh.
The Church has never ascribed to one philosophy over another, at least at my last reckoning. Theology on the other hand, is an entirely different issue.
So, whilst I ascribe to one school of philosophy, which is absolutely in line with the whole of Catholic thought, my theology is a melding of many. It is mainly shaped by three major schools though. I am heavily influenced by Opus Dei (shocking, I know), I am heavily influenced by the great Benedictine Fathers, and finally, I am from the school taught by the von Hildebrand's (I've had the great pleasure of meeting Alice on several occasions). But I've had many other influences in my life, depending on which discipline of theology we're speaking.
As it is, I'm at a loss, I would love for you to expand on the notion of Catholic philosophy and which one the Church ascribes to.
Thanks in advance.
Asking Ignotus to discuss theology and philosophy is like asking Templar to talk about brain surgery...LOL! But, Templar probably knows more about brain surgery than Ignotus knows about philosophy and theology...
Andy - I did not say that philosophy was Catholic. I said "My philosophy is thoroughly Catholic." Nor did I say that the Catholic Church ascribes to one philosophical system (Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris notwithstanding) while eschewing all others. To do so would present an epistemological problem of biblical proportions.
Certainly there are philosophical systems that reflect Catholic/Gospel values. And there are some that are, more or less, antithetical to Gospel values.
Borrowing from Alasdair MacIntyre's book "God, Philosophy, Universities" we could say that "Catholic philosophy" would have as fundamental tenets:
1.God is the key to the unity of the universe and the nature and destiny of man within that universe; and
2.Philosophy is for asking and answering the most fundamental human questions and for organizing all of the human sciences in the service of a cohesive and holistic vision of man in the universe.
You're welcome.
Maybe it's because I wasn't around when the old translation was used, or maybe it's because I grew up only hearing the 1599 Geneva Bible, but I don't see the problems of which Pater Ignotus speaks.
I generally never read the printed words in the missalettes, so I only ever hear them, and nothing comes across as particularly hard to understand. Nothing makes me think "what did he say?".
Ignotus, Here is the "epistemological problem:" Philosophy of religion is an oxymoron when applied to Christian theology or Catholic theology. Faith based upon revealed truth is anathema to the philosopher. Philosophy can only be used analogically, as Augustine and Aquinas used it, in an attempt to understand revealed truth. Your's and/or MacIntyre's premises sound like something out of Alfred North Whitehead...
Pin/gene - Nowhere did I mention a "philosophy of religion." Once again, your bias has led you to attack something I did not say or suggest.
The points taken from MacIntyre refer to any philosophical system that wants to be in step with the Catholic understanding of reality.
Faith is based on revealed truth, indeed. That revelation can come in several ways, as the Scriprures attest. Grace builds on nature, and philosophy is part of our nature.
Ignotus, MacIntyre is a moral philosopher and a philosopher of religion. I have read some of his books. The tenets you list are the fundamental tenets of any philosophy of religion. I was only trying to remain in your frame of reference. Neither tenet implies or necessitates any Christian or Catholic truth or any theological corollary. Philosophy is part of our fallen nature...man's effort to get to God without God. It is Reason untempered by Revelation. There is a very good discussion of this in a book by H. Richard Neibuhr which you may want to read. It is called,"Reason and revelation."
Pin/Gene - Neither tenet implies any Christian or Catholic truth because the tenets are not tenets of Christian or Catholic philosophy. They are used by MacIntyre to describe a system that we, as Catholics, could find useful. IF a system has these basic tenets, it could be useful to a Catholic. If not, they cannot be useful to us.
If a philosophical system includes these basic tenets, it is not "untempered by revelation" but is including revealtion.
Ignotus, I agree that these two tenets are necessary for any Catholic theology, but they are not sufficient. You cannot get from them to any Christological theology.
Pin/Gene - No, they are not sufficient - I never said they were. I never said or suggested that you could get from them to a Christological theology.
They are, as stated clearly, BASIC TENETS of a philosophical system that could be comp[atible with Catholic thinking.
You may understand that, and I may understand it, but it is the methodology of liberal theology to begin with human experience..."religious experience"...and try to build a theology from it. Essentially, God is human religious experience writ large. Eschatology is existential self-renewal.
Post a Comment