Beware! Watchwords of Modernists

Catholic Insight ^ | Mario Derksen

[Stubborn]

The following list of words and phrases are typically used by modernist theologians and lay people, in reference to Catholic theology/practice/attitude/concepts. Most of them are inherently vague and for that very reason are used by the modernists -- it is not clear just what they mean or when their meaning applies.

[sinkspur]

The point I am trying to make is to non-theologians, so I am mixing terms.

Are you a theologian? And, who the hell cares if one term is more "positive" than another term if they both express the same reality? Oh, I guess the guy who wants to view Protestants as evil people use the term "heretic."

"Sacrament of Reconciliation" is the name for that sacrament now used by the Church.

Positive people are not unrealistic; they can often see solutions where the pessimist simply gives up.

For instance, in the example you use, a positive person would be shoving the child out of the path of the car, whereas the negative person just stands there and yells at the kid, as you did in your example.

Get it?

[sinkspur]

You won't answer them because, to do so, would prove that you're a bit of a hypocrite. LOL!!

[pascendi]

"You won't answer them because, to do so, would prove that you're a bit of a hypocrite. LOL!!"

Of course I am. I'm an idiot, too, and a jerk. But that's all beside the point.

There's always the truth to deal with. See, Mother Teresa's above statement is inconsistent with Catholic theology. Nothing's going to change the truth of this.

[sinkspur]

See, Mother Teresa's above statement is inconsistent with Catholic theology.

Actually, it's not. The Church does not canonize as a saint anyone who was in doctrinal error.

[Mershon]

Screaming loudly and continuously at a 2-year-old for no good reason could get your child taken away from you by the State.

However, in a different set of circumstances, what is normally understood as being "negative" is actually the "positive" and charitable thing to do. In fact, as the parent, you would have an OBLIGATION or DUTY to GET HIS ATTENTION--in other cases, someone might call you a child abuser--which is negative. Get it?

[pascendi]

"The Church does not canonize as a saint anyone who was in doctrinal error"

Actually, not true. It's happened. Of course, no Saint has been canonized who had been in obstinate denial of doctrine knowingly, no. But canonized Saints have made plenty of theological errors.

[sinkspur]

Of course, no Saint has been canonized who had been in obstinate denial of doctrine knowingly, no. But canonized Saints have made plenty of theological errors.

Was Mother Teresa in obstinate denial of doctrine?

And, if she wasn't, doesn't your objection fall apart?

[sinkspur]

Oh, and perhaps you could give us, say, three examples of saints who were in theological error at the time of their deaths?

[Mershon]

<Are you a theologian?

None of your damned business. Understand that theological term?

<And, who the hell cares if one term is more "positive" than another term if they both express the same reality?

Because the use of the different term doesn't change the reality. They are heretics.

<Oh, I guess the guy who wants to view Protestants as evil people use the term "heretic."

Once again, adding your own qualifiers. Please point out any posts where I said Protestants were "evil people." The silence is deafening, Mr. "put words in others' mouths."

<"Sacrament of Reconciliation" is the name for that sacrament now used by the Church.

Really, I just re-read the new Catechism today. It looks like the term "sacrament of Penance" is used almost exclusively. What church do you go to? Does it start with "Am"?

<Positive people are not unrealistic; they can often see solutions where the pessimist simply gives up.

Sinky, we could all be dreaming right now. We are to work to unify ourselves with God. Most of the saints were joyful, but suffered a great deal, and certainly would not be called or considered "positive people" in today's sense of the term. "Positive people" often live in a fantasy land and despise anyone who tries to bring them out of it? Ring a bell?

<For instance, in the example you use, a positive person would be shoving the child out of the path of the car, whereas the negative person just stands there and yells at the kid, as you did in your example.

Unless of course, you were 50 yards away, while the car was 10 ft. away from your child. An overly "positive" person would say, "Oh well, I didn't want to yell at Timmy, but now he is dead. Perhaps it was God's will for whatever reason..."

Get it?

[gbcdoj]

Yes, there is also an unorthodox use of "active participation", just as the Sabellians used the word "consubstantial" to denote their particular heresy.

But if the Church also uses these words in an orthodox way, one cannot say that their use alone can identify a neo-Modernist, especially since that leads to the conclusion of Derksen that the Church has become heretical and defected.

[sinkspur]

Most of the saints were joyful, but suffered a great deal, and certainly would not be called or considered "positive people" in today's sense of the term.

How do you know this? You don't. It's your pessimistic view of the world that brings you to this bit of wishful thinking.

"Positive people" often live in a fantasy land and despise anyone who tries to bring them out of it? Ring a bell?

No, it doesn't.

You don't seem to know the first thing about "positive people."

[pascendi]

"Was Mother Teresa in obstinate denial of doctrine? And, if she wasn't, doesn't your objection fall apart?"

No and no.

As to the first question, I would presume not, because she was dished up the modernist new theology from the conciliar Church. Maybe she wasn't even aware of the implications of her words when measured against hard perennial doctrine. Who knows.

No, the objection doesn't fall apart, of course not. We have Catholic doctrine, we have access to the sources of Catholic doctrine. It doesn't change. What Mother Teresa said does not square with Catholic doctrine.

We get our doctrine from the Church, not from Mother Teresa. There have been no new doctrines for 2,000 years.

[gbcdoj]

Oh, and perhaps you could give us, say, three examples of saints who were in theological error at the time of their deaths?

Photios, Symeon of Thessalonika, and Mark of Ephesus. The last two died Eastern Orthodox and Photios attempted to depose the Pope. Look at CCC 1690 and Symeon is accorded the title of Saint when he is quoted on the matter of funerals. He also had this to say:

Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter ... and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself. But if he is not the inheritor of the faith of the saints, then he will not be the inheritor of the Chair of Peter either.

[sinkspur]

Well, I knew you'd find three, but I must say I've never heard of any of them.

[pascendi]

"Oh, and perhaps you could give us, say, three examples of saints who were in theological error at the time of their deaths?"

St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine.

All three are among my favorites. They made theological errors from time to time. It's no big deal.

[Mershon]

"one cannot say that their use alone can identify a neo-Modernist"

I do not believe that was the intention of the post. It was offered as a more light-hearted or "be on the ball" sort of approach for the misuse of these terms, rather than a complete theological treatise on modernism. However, I agree with your statement as offered. The modernists overuse and misuse these terms. Of course, it doesn't matter what the author's opinion about the current Church is, as we are to seek "elements of truth" from all. This would keep us all "positive," as Sinky supposedly enjoys--but I haven't seen much of it from him. Perhaps he is reserving it for other "positive" people so they can all be "positive" together.

Lights out...

[pascendi]

M: "Most of the saints were joyful, but suffered a great deal, and certainly would not be called or considered "positive people" in today's sense of the term..."

S: "How do you know this? You don't."

It can be determined by reading the works of the Saints themselves. Their works, for the most part, uphold the truth of this statement.

[sinkspur]

It can be determined by reading the works of the Saints themselves. Their works, for the most part, uphold the truth of this statement.

Not the ones I read.

But, then, people see what they want to see, so there will be no resolution to this question.

[pascendi]

"But, then, people see what they want to see, so there will be no resolution to this question."

This we can agree on.