Posted on 01/20/2014 3:38:40 AM PST by markomalley
Very true. All of which is why I abandoned my research because it became apparent to me that the modern world view of life itself is, on the one hand so pervasive, and on the other so corrupted that its pointless to address the problem from a philosophical perspective.
The worst part of all of this is that in abandoning Thomism, modern, (19th Century/20th Century) philosophers have entirely negated the existence of the human soul. The irony in this is that on the one hand, they attempt to explain human existence as “experience” while on the other, they indirectly deny the existence of the human soul which means that they have an essentially flawed understanding of what it is to be fully human. Its kinda like trying to explain the existence and life of the chicken all the while denying the existence of the egg.
All quite true.
As I’ve read your post 3 times over, the idea came to me that in a sense, what you’ve described may lie at the core of my discomfort with Pope Francis. Francis seems to be coming from an entirely different angle and the problem with Francis is that it’s near impossible to decode his philosophical underpinnings which appear to be rooted in some convoluted South American experience which isn’t well documented in English.
OK. Just wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same concept while using different terms. The immediate end to such a philosophy is pantheism...where we all are our little gods...and, of course, if we all are our own little gods then the ultimate end is that nothing is God.
And therein lies the path to chaos.
I agree with you 100%. The problem IMO would be most effectively addressed by a return to the scriptural understanding of the nature of man (God's metaphor of sheep) and a pragmatic approach encompassing the clear and succinct style of pre-VII teaching along with a re-integration of some of the pre-VII spiritual practices. How are people to know the truth if the shepherds deliberately avoid eschatological discussions? References to the eternal consequences of sin have become verboten. Human nature responds best to a combination of carrot and stick. And we sheep need structure as well as training. Since VII, many of the spiritual aids and guideposts that kept us walking toward the narrow gate (family rosary, novenas, saints, processions, litanies, devotions, etc.) are no longer actively encouraged, are viewed as anachronisms, and are sometimes even treated with contempt (Pope Francis: I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: "Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries." Why don't they say, 'we pray for you, we ask...', but this thing of counting... And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through - not you, because you are not old - to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today...").
Disparagement of the structures and prayers and reverent liturgy in the form of the TLM by spiritual elitists post VII who possess a naive view of human nature and who thus do not believe that an authentic relationship with God is served by the traditional practices that have produced countless saints has contributed to the unfortunate post-VII results ( e.g. loss of belief in the Real Presence, the empty confessional, the rejection of authority, shrinking attendance...).
I agree but I don’t have any answers as to how to get this thing back on track other than to note that I’ve encountered several anecdotal reports to the effect that in Parishes where they’ve reintroduced the TLM they’ve seen a large uptick in attendance.
It may be the case that the Laity leads the Sheppard back to the true path.
It was as if Trent had been highjacked by Calvinists, and we did get a hint of what might have happened in that case in the Jansenist heresy. But what happened after the Council was that there was a rebellion in the Church by the lower clergy and by many orders of nuns, pretty much as there during the Reformation. But it didnt start with the Council, it was that the council, like the Council of 1512, did not go its job. Did not contain a rebellion that was already, under the surface, already begun.
The reforms went against human nature. One does not suddenly tell people that the way they have worshipped all their lives, the way that their parents and grandparents had worshipped all their lives, was now to be disregarded. It was like Jacobinism, a devaluation of the past rather than building on it. A lot of lay people thought that if even the priests and nuns did not think it mattered, then to hell with it. So they stopped coming to mass, old and young alike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.