Progressives push the envelope in making the Catholic Church into a post-Catholic institution. I think we can rightly blame them for the malaise in the Church and the indifference so many have toward the Church. The Last Judgement will reveal all their folly.
One of the most influential and destructive progressives in the Church, Father Hans Kung, has revealed that he has Parkinson's Disease and is considering assisted suicide because of it.
I can understand someone who is chronically sick desiring death. But Hans Kung knows his status as a liberal superstar in the Church and in his final days is using it to continue to promote his post-Catholic ideology. This is arrogance and mortal sin.
But with that said, I ask for your prayers for him, for his conversion and for his willingness to model soon-to-be Saint Pope John Paul II in terms of his heroic witness to suffering and the redemptive value of it.
Pray for Hans Kung that he experience an abundance of the Holy Spirit to help him to carry the cross.
I will pray that his death is QUICK and painless...will his coffin be asbestos lined?
If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16:24).
"Above all,accept and bear with submission the suffering which the Lord will send you."
-the Angel of Portugal to the three children of Fatima
Romans 8:17: “We are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory”.
We are only human beings, so how can our suffering have any purpose,good effect, or
Our suffering is like currency which is given value by the merits of Christ suffering and death.
Accept your crosses, when they come, in the spirit of Christ. Offer them up. They have great value because God, Who has the Power to do so has given them this great value.
This does not mean we should not alleviate suffering, but it is part of our human existence
and so it is something we all experience as human beings. There are many who suffer who for some reason or another cannot accept it in a spirit of expiation. Accepting suffering in the spirit
of Christ is not something everyone can do and so it is for those who can. For those who can
accept and offer up suffering in this way, it can produce great benefit for ourselves and others.
We cannot accept just those things that are pleasant to us. Even those without faith accept those things that are pleasant. God has transformed suffering, which is something we would consider evil, into something good and useful for our salvation.
the Church teaches that human suffering, when accepted and offered up in union with the Passion of
Jesus, can remit the just punishment for one's sins or for the sins of another.
Long live the sacred cross: long live suffering!"
Saint Veronica Giulani
George, That would all be considered nonsense by Kung and his ilk.
Back to another topic:
I recently shared two very excellent videos with my pastor about altar serving. The first one is called What it means to be an altar server" and was filmed at Incarnation Catholic Church in Tampa, Fl. It shows the EF Mass and the boys talk about how it has affected them spiritually. It is good evidence of the fruits of the EF.
The second video is from Sugarland, TX, and is entitled "The Altar Server." It shows an ad orientem English OF Mass with a young man talking about the proper attitude, etc. for serving Mass. Both are very good and made this year. Watch them both!
I must be careful that I am not judgmental of him, even in my prayers. Was he used by God to highlight the proper teachings of the Church bu contrast? Or was he used by Satan to help lead souls astray? Perhaps we can pray for all the souls in purgatory and hope he is counted among those led there by false teachings.
I would like to know what Pater Ignotus thinks of this (and also the liberal "anonymous" that often comments), since he is also from the liberal wing of Catholicism. Does he support Kung, or does he think Kung has finally crossed the line and gone too far?
Unfortunately, your right Gene. The fact that the Vatican rescinded his authority to
teach Catholic theology says a lot. It would be interesting to get some insight into
why he believes the way he does. I've never read anything he wrote other than something
that I ran across on the Internet. I read enough about him to know some of his
positions were not things I could agree with so I had no desire to read any books written by him.
I have never considered myself a "liberal" or "progressive" type Catholic but I thought parts, repeat parts, of Kung's "on being a Christian" were quite good.
Kung's books," The Church" and "On Being A Christian" were required reading for a course on "The Church and the Modern World" that was required of all first year students in theology grad school. This was at a protestant divinity school, and Kung was hailed as a "bridge between Catholicism and protestantism." We also used the COCU (Committee on Church Union) manifesto, which was the enthusiastic prot response to Vat II. The thrust of the course was that Catholicism was shedding its "archaic and medieval skin" (a quote from the professor) and moving toward a "more nuanced understanding of the intersection of human need and kerygma" (from my notes). Even then, I considered this to be complete garbage...the professor was in his fifties and had hippie long hair and wore Hendrix and Beatle's t-shirts to class. One day he was talking about the presence of the kingdom as reflected in human expression...he went on about dance as a sign of the presence of the kingdom. I raised my hand and asked, "Would you, then, consider it to have been the presence of the kingdom when the Israelites danced around the golden calf they made?" The class burst into laughter and the prof asked me to leave the class...no kidding.
Kung's writings were highly thought of at one time; his 'Structures of the Church' had a 'nihil obstat'. His Missio Canonica was withdrawn in 1979 by John Paul II (Cardinal Seper was CDF Prefect at the time) but it didn't affect him a bit, since the University of Tubingen gave him a chair independent of the church. He was haughtily dismissive of his erstwhile colleague Joseph Ratzinger when the latter proferred an olive branch on his election as Pope. Yet he remains a priest in good standing.
As far as I am concerned, he is a man consumed by pride whose considerable intellectual gifts have been perverted to the service of his own ego. Of course he has many sycophants of the "spirit of Vatican II" school. I only hope Pope Francis is not one of them.
Gene: I don’t know because I wasn’t there, but is it possible that your professor had “sacred dance” and the Old Testament instances of sacred dancing (David, etc) in mind? Here is a piece making the distinctions between types of dancing and discussing the somewhat more circumspect attitude towards dancing among the early Christians:
Again I wasn’t there, so I don’t know the context, but even if this was not an isolated comment by you, being instead the latest in a series of “smart alecky” comments by a “student provocateur,” I don’t think your professor responded appropriately. I have had such students before and welcome them as providing an opportunity for exploration. In contrast to some others, I always try to integrate them into the class discussion in constructive ways, while setting appropriate boundaries. Perhaps I do this because I was such a student myself once. =)
No, Anon 2, the professor had human self-expression in mind. He used to make statements like, "the beauty of the ballet and the profundity of classical music composition are sacred to us." This was a course that elevated human creativity and self-expression. You are way off course..and yes, as a student of Biblical theology for many years I am very much aware of the concept of sacred dance in the history of Israel.
BTW, this was early in the course and my first sarcastic remark (there were many more to come). Like most of the lib profs there, this guy was thin-skinned, unprofessional, and had no sense of humor.
Thank you for the clarification, Gene. As I said, I don’t think your professor acted appropriately.
On the substantive question, is it in fact so wrong to see appropriate artistic expression as partaking of the sacred? Isn’t a sense of beauty yet another gift from God? Wasn’t there a time when the world was “enchanted” and partook of the sacred, despite our fallen natures? Weren’t there then more opportunities to “glimpse eternity.”
And hasn’t that sensibility been greatly diminished or even destroyed by modernism? And doesn’t that, in turn, suggest that Christians would do well to seek the “re-enchantment” of the world, recognizing that this does not glorify humans but enables us to realize more of the glory of God? So, ultimately, then, even though God may enlist us as “co-creators,” isn’t the real question whether we humbly acknowledge these artistic gifts of God or pridefully assert out own autonomous accomplishments?
Anon 2, I do not subscribe to the notion that human artistic expression partakes of the sacred. That is to elevate human effort and creativity to the level of God's creativity...blasphemy of the highest degree. This does in no way diminish the beauty and richness of human art viewed as a gift from God.
"Enchantment" is a magical term more appropriate for Tolkien or perhaps the Arthur Legends.
There are, indeed, many and profound theological discussions and arguments as to what degree, if any, the world partook of the sacred after the Fall. I am sort of a minimalist regarding that issue, perhaps due to my vestigial Calvinism...the Creation remains good after the Fall because it is by God's hand, however, man's works and efforts are forever tainted by sin and pride and can never "partake of the sacred."
There are schools of thought that wish to give as much glory to man's creations as possible. I believe the Catholic Church has been very generous in this area without crossing the line of sacralizing man's efforts. The Church properly sees these works as the result of God's grace and His gift to man of talent and creativity. Indeed, many of our greatest medieval and Renaissance cathedrals, sculptures, and art masterpieces were done to the "Glory of God" and to honor Him (with the occasional self-portrait of the artist among the disciples or saints, or perhaps a favorite mistress as Mary LOL).
I emphatically do not like the term "co-creator" spoken in relation of man to God. That is truly dangerous theological ground. Man's pride is irrepressible and his drive to be autonomous is relentless.
I agree with the dangers you note, which is why I asked the final question.
On enchantment: Sadly, your relegation of the idea of enchantment to Tolkien or the Arthurian Legends reveals how much you are a prisoner, as are we all, of modern rationality. I suspect that Tolkien, who famously was Catholic, would not agree with you. As I have said before, I believe that the essential malaise of modern man is metaphysical.
On co-creation: I don’t want to argue semantics. What I was trying to get at is well stated in CCC section 307:
“To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of ‘subduing’ the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers, and their sufferings. They then fully become ‘God’s fellow workers’ and co-workers for his kingdom.”
No, Anon 2, you've got me wrong. I love tales of enchantment and mystery. I've read Tolkien twice, all the Arthur I can find, etc. I just make a big distinction between them and theology. There are those who speak of theology as "dealing with the supernatural," or who relegate it to that realm. Rudolph Otto's, "The Idea of the Holy," (at one time a very influential book) with all his talk of the "numinous" seems to identify theology with the irrational or the supernatural. Kant (the strongest philosophical ally of protestantism), in effect, does the same thing in his rejection of "metaphysics." This is bad because it implies that our access to God's presence, or any experience of Him must come through mysticism or some non-rational means.
Actually, revealed theology and worship have a very consistent logic and rationality of their own. The Catholic faith is, given God's initial act of creation and Incarnation, a very rational belief system. Eucharistic theology, Church doctrine and dogma have an internal logic that is compelling and which has been hammered out and refined for centuries by many scholars and through much tribulation.
I am certainly not implying that you are denying this but, having fought these battles in the haloed halls of protestant theology schools, I have become wary of mixing terms or of the casual use of loaded words
that we see so much of in today's so-called theology.
Christ comes to us wonderfully, silently, and powerfully in the Eucharist and in the Sacraments of the Church. There is a theo-logic in this that is neither supernatural nor irrational because God is the author of our intellect and blesses our efforts to understand his Incarnation and seek access to Him through the Magisterium of the Church.
The protestant doctrine of Total Depravity, in effect, denies this, diminishes human intellect even when it is applied to seeking Him, and scorns God's Presence in the Eucharist.
Post a Comment