Friday, October 28, 2016

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY WOULD BE SO TRUTHFUL AND IN THE PROCESS BE SO UNECUMENICAL--JUST GUESS! WHOEVER WROTE THIS IS DARN GOOD, I MEAN DARN GOOD!

Excerpt:"Luther was viewed as a heretic. Calvin, moreover, as a schismatic. Let me explain myself. Heresy - to use Chesteron’s definition - is a good idea gone mad. When the Church cannot heal its madness, then heresy turns into schism. Schism implies rupture, division, separation, independent consolidation; it progresses by subsequent stages until it gains its autonomy. Saint Ignatius and his successors would fight against schismatic heresy."

Luther: a “crazy idea” developed in heresy and schism
by ???????

Many times Saint Ignatius has been called the bastion of the Counter-Reformation. There is truth in this, but [. . .] the Jesuits were more worried about Calvin than about Luther. [. . .] They had shrewdly grasped that the true danger for the Church lay there.

Calvin was the great thinker of the Protestant Reformation, the one who organized it and brought it to the level of culture, society, and the Church; he shaped an organization that Luther had not envisioned. He, the impetuous German who probably had planned at the most to give life to a national Church, was reinterpreted and reorganized by that cold Frenchman, a Latin genius versed in jurisprudence, who was Calvin.

Luther was viewed as a heretic. Calvin, moreover, as a schismatic. Let me explain myself. Heresy - to use Chesteron’s definition - is a good idea gone mad. When the Church cannot heal its madness, then heresy turns into schism. Schism implies rupture, division, separation, independent consolidation; it progresses by subsequent stages until it gains its autonomy. Saint Ignatius and his successors would fight against schismatic heresy.

And what is the Calvinist schism that would bring about the struggle of Ignatius and the first Jesuits? It is a schism that touches upon three areas: man, society, and the Church. [. . .]

In man, Calvinism would provoke the schism between reason and emotion. It separates reason from the heart. On the emotional level the man of that century, and under the Lutheran influence, would live out the anguish over his own salvation. And, according to Calvin, that anguish was nothing to worry about. All that mattered was attending to the questions of intellect and will.

This is the origin of Calvinist wretchedness: a rigid discipline with a great distrust in that which is vital, the foundation of which is faith in the total corruption of human nature, which can be put into order only by the superstructure of human activity. Calvin effects a schism within man: between reason and the heart.

Moreover, within the faculty of reason itself, Calvin provokes another schism: between positive knowledge and speculative knowledge. This is the scientism that shatters metaphysical unity and provokes a schism in the intellective process of man. Every scientific object is taken as absolute. The most sure science is geometry. Geometric theorems will be a sure reference guide for thought. This schism, having taken place within human reason itself, strikes at the whole speculative tradition of the Church and the whole humanistic tradition.

The Calvinist schism then strikes at society. This will remain divided by it. As the bearers of salvation, Calvin privileges the middle classes. [. . .] This implies and involves a revolutionary disrespect for the people. There is no longer people nor nation, and what instead takes shape is an international association of the bourgeoisie.

With an anachronism we could apply here the formula of Marx: “Bourgeoisie of the whole world, unite,” despising anything that might signify the nobility of the people. With this attitude Calvin is the true father of liberalism, which was a political strike at the heart of the people, at their way of being and expressing themselves, at their culture, at their way of being civic, political, artistic, and religious.

On the social level, this is probably most noticeable first in the elaboration of Hobbes (according to whom men had to brought to live together by means of deception and force, while the state, the “modern Leviathan,” existed simply to keep egoism at bay and avoid anarchy, legitimizing a logic of authority, since there was no natural law) and then of Locke, much more sophisticated but no less cruel.

Hobbes asserts a heartless “power,” with an absolutist and rationalist justification. Locke dresses all of this in “civil composure” and seeks to redefine society while excluding the people.

Locke’s position is the following: he begins from the admission of a certain natural law and wields the slogan “reason teaches that. . .” in order to then draw - as if by magic - conclusions that justify that social schism: man - because he transcends his natural corruption through activism - can possess the fruit of his work as long as that fruit is not corruptible. This leads to money and the money-focused character of liberalism.

Moreover, reason teaches that man has the right to buy work; and this gives rise to two kinds of workers: those who possess incorruptible goods and those who do not possess them. The state has the function of keeping order between these two categories of workers, preventing the rebellion of the latter against the former. At bottom, Calvinist-schismatic-liberal thought is claiming for the second group of workers the power of rebellion, what we would call today the rebellion of the proletariat. In the end, Marxism is the inevitable child of liberalism. [. . .]

In the third place, the Calvinist schism wounds the Church. [. . .] It supplants the universality of the people of God with the internationalism of the bourgeoisie. [. . .] It decapitates the people of God from unity with the Father. It decapitates all the professional confraternities, depriving them of the saints. And, by suppressing the Mass, it deprives the people of God of mediation in Christ really present. [. . .]

At bottom, Calvin had tried to save man, whom the Lutheran perspective had thrown into anguish. In Luther one encounters the intention of saving man from Renaissance paganism, but that intention had developed into a “crazy idea,” or heresy. Thus Calvin, with the legislative coldness that characterizes him, starts from the distressing Lutheran framework and progresses in this way: man is corrupt; therefore, discipline.

This leads to what we know as “Protestant rigor.” This proposes signs of salvation that are different from those of Catholics - the ones that we cited previously - and the sign is the work of accumulation. Almost as if one were to equate the fruits of work with the signs of salvation. We could simplify it in a caricatured form with this axiom: “You will be saved if you obtain the wealth that is obtained with work.” And so the middle class is formed.

Starting from the Lutheran position, if we are consistent, there remain only two possibilities from which to choose in the course of history: either man falls apart in his anguish, and he is no longer anything at all (and this is the conclusion of atheist existentialism), or man, basing himself on that same anguish and corruption, makes a leap in the void and declares himself superman (this is the option of Nietzsche).

At bottom Nietzsche regenerates Hobbes, in the sense that the “ultima ratio” of man is power. Authority is possible only in opposition to love, on the basis of the opposition within man between reason and heart. Such power, as the “ultima ratio,” implies the death of God. This is a paganism that, in the cases of Nazism and Marxism, would acquire organized forms in political systems.

The Lutheran perspective, since it is founded precisely on the divorce between faith and religion (it in fact conceives of faith as the only salvation and accuses religion - acts of religion, piety, and so on - of being a mere manipulation of God), generates divorce and schism; it entails all the forms of individualism that, on the social level, affirms their hegemony.

Any sort of hegemony, whether religious, political, social, or spiritual, has its origin here.

18 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

For a better understanding of the Catholic perspective on Luther and the Reformation:

FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

Henry said...

"For a better understanding of the Catholic perspective on Luther and the Reformation:"

Thanks, Father! A good belly laugh before noon is not a bad thing.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But any guesses on who wrote this????

Mark Thomas said...

The author is Father Jorge Bergoglio — His Holiness Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

James said...

I [...] get [...] the impression [...] that [...] this text [...] has been * very heavily [...] edited * by [...] someone with [...] an axe [...] to *

Typical Sandro M.

Mark Thomas said...

Just wait until His Holiness Pope Francis visits Lund...the hatred that the Catholic right-wing will unleash against Pope Francis will make their current hatred of him seem like a lovefest.

Just a few days ago, a leading right-wing "Catholic" blogger offered the following in regard to Pope Francis:

"O you, occasional reader who has stumbled on this site by some fortuitous circumstance, know this: the Pope sitting on the throne of Peter is a shameless heretic, a lewd enabler of trannies and other perverts, a hater of sanctity and purity, an enemy of the Church, possibly a homosexual, and certainly a man of limited intellect and boundless arrogance."

That will seem mild as compared to the hatred that will be unleashed shortly against our Holy Father when, in the minds of right-wingers, Pope Francis visits Lund to "canonize" Martin Luther.

I believe that legitimate, respectful criticism of Rome's upcoming ecumenical "commemoration" of the Protestant Revolt is warranted.

In a new interview, Pope Francis said of his trip to Sweden that he "wasn’t planning to celebrate a Mass for the Catholics on this trip. I wanted to insist on an ecumenical witness."

It is sad that Pope Francis did not wish originally to celebrate Mass as that would have interfered with ecumenism. That is the extent to which the Ecumenical Movement has influenced our Churchmen's thinking.

Fortunately, Pope Francis reconsidered his original plan in question. He said that he had "reflected well on my role as pastor of a flock of Catholics who will also come from other countries, like Norway and Denmark. So, responding to the fervent request of the Catholic community, I decided to celebrate a Mass, lengthening the trip by a day."

"In fact, I didn’t want the Mass celebrated on the same day and in the same place as the ecumenical encounter to avoid confusing plans. The ecumenical encounter is preserved in its profound significance according to a spirit of unity, that is my desire."

Again, I disagree respectfully with much that Rome has planned in regard to the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolt. In many ways, I understand the Catholic right-wing's displeasure with the "commemoration" of the Protestant Revolt.

However, the Catholic right-wing is about to spew an all-time record amount of venom at Pope Francis. They will not couch their criticisms and concerns in respectful fashion. Their hatred of Pope Francis will reach an all-time high level.

Therefore, we need to offer prayer after prayer for Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

T follow up please on my previous comment...

I disagree with much that Rome has planned in regard to the "commemoration" of the Protestant Revolt.

But I reiterate my love and respect for Pope Francis. He is a man of peace and good will. I believe that we can love and respect our separated Lutheran brethren without praying and worshiping them. There is the danger that we will confirm them in their error.

However, Pope Francis views things differently. I accept that he is following simply the path in regard to ecumenism that Rome has paved since the late 1940s, when Pope Venerable Pius XII plunged the Church into the Ecumenical Movement.

Although I disagree with much in regard to his approach, I accept that Pope Francis (as well as each Pope, beginning with Venerable Pius XII) has practiced ecumenism with good will in his heart.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dialogue said...

With the Holy Father's address to the Italian pastoral conference on Tuesday, and now his reorganization of Cardinal Sarah's office, I think the JPII/BXVI approach to VCII is now dead. The Holy Father is calling on the Church to let go of liturgical forms and moral doctrines, replacing these with contemplation of the face of Christ in the poor. This is the new Catholicism, the new Church. Divorce and contraception are to be "accompanied", while cosmetics and air-conditioning are to be denounced.

God help the destitute, who are to be the victims of this new religion, and the faithful remnant, who are to become sheep without a shepherd. Which is better, a wayward German monk who's dead and buried, or this living sadness we must now endure?

TJM said...

Dialogue,

Do not despair. What you are witnessing is the last gasp of the doubleknit dinosaurs before they go to their "reward." No faithful young Catholic, lay or cleric,takes their message seriously anymore because these folks are failures of the greatest magnitude, who through their actions, lost millions of souls for Christ.

Cletus Ordo said...

I read a quote the other day that is worth meditating on. It is a fine summary of Mortalium Animos, but far less wordy. The words come from St. Maximilian Kolbe:

"Ecumenism is the enemy of the Immaculata."

Go ahead and wave your banners and "celebrate" Luther and follow your bishops down whatever path they want to call this.

But if you want the truth, read what the saints who shed their blood have to say about ecumenism. Try to picture St. John Fisher and Thomas More being "ecumenical". Read about how ecumenical St. Josaphat Kuntsevych was when facing down Russian Orthodoxy.

I cannot wait for this deadly fad to run its course and go away once and for all.

Dialogue said...

Ecumenism has a rightful place in the Catholic hope for a restoration of communion between the Orthodox and the Chair of Peter. As far as Protestants are concerned, their communities are not churches and their clergy are not sacramentally ordained, so it's best that individual members simply join the Catholic Church. In the meantime, we can certainly cooperate with reasonable Protestant sects in performing some works of mercy.

Gene said...

Whoever wrote it does not understand Calvin and probably has never read his Institutes.

Anonymous said...

Diologue @ 7:05, as an Orthodox Christian myself I've always found the Catholic-Orthodox diologue to be one sided. The Catholics seem much more interested in it than the average clergy in the Orthodox Church. As for reuniting with the "Chair of Peter" given who currently holds that chair and the things he has said done, not to mention the shambles that post-VII Catholicism is in, I would not expect any meaningful diologue to occur soon. There is a much, much greater chance of us Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox reuniting before Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Common theology, common worship, rejection of both papal infallibility and papal supremacy. With Rome is just all fluffy talk


-Menas

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

There is, I believe, much more than "fluffy talk" in the dialogues between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.

To learn what's going one, check:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/index.cfm

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

If unity among Christians is something Christ Himself desires, then surely we must all work for it. It's true that the papacy has become schizophrenic lately, but it's also true that the determination of JPII is all that kept the post-Sixties Catholic Church from devolving into regional churches, with competing doctrines and secularized liturgies.

TJM said...

Orthodoxy and Catholicism re-uniting may become a reality, but that would be bad news for liberals in the Catholic Church because the Orthodox would never stand for their left-wing loonism. I would think liberal "catholics" would prefer Anglicanism aka the "Church of What's Happening Now and Near Death!"

Cogito said...


"This leads to what we know as “Protestant rigor.” This proposes signs of salvation that are different from those of Catholics - the ones that we cited previously - and the sign is the work of accumulation. Almost as if one were to equate the fruits of work with the signs of salvation. We could simplify it in a caricatured form with this axiom: “You will be saved if you obtain the wealth that is obtained with work.” And so the middle class is formed."

Yet, taken to its extreme we find the erosion of the 'middle class" as we have today. It was what powered John D. Rockefeller and very much what powers the political right wing, the Greed Is Good Crowd.

This brings us to the first three of the ten commandments and Matthew 22:34-38

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

38This is the first and greatest commandment.

and then Luke 16:13-15

13“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people va
lue highly is detestable in God’s sight.

Given the above, why do we not hear Catholics as outspoke about the worship of money as they are about abortion and homosexuality. Then the Pope says something about money worshipers and the poor and suddenly people in the church condemn the pope for speaking about money and the poor.

I live the way you write and thank you for being here,

pd
.




Dialogue said...

TJM,

If only it were so. But alas, they remain to undermine belief in, and spread of, the Gospel.