Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ultima ratio
This is the essence of Modernism--to believe our age is qualitatively different, that because we advance by means of technology, our wisdom also advances.

I did not suggest that our wisdom advanced. I suggested that our response might be more pronounced, were the church to adopt a less achronistic approach. You are removing the Holy Spirit from the equation every time you rely on the political explanation. Are not Protestants part of God's plan. Is it a bad thing to want to attract them to the sacraments? Was Ecclesia Dei really about politics? Could it have not been a sincere desire to retain unity in the church and bring about correction and amendment on the sinner? You always like to thicken the plot. Faith in God's church and in Jesus need not be so complicated.

285 posted on 05/04/2003 9:32:55 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]


To: St.Chuck
Nonsense. Ecclesia Dei was political primarily. How do I know? Because traditionalists had been clamoring for an Indult for years and their pleas fell on deaf ears. The Indult only came about after the refusal of Archbishop Lefebvre to destroy the traditional priesthood--which brought about a crisis with Rome. It was only then the Pope had a sudden epiphany and extended a limited indult in order to split the movement. But it was grudging and very qualified.

As for the Church's adopting a "less anachronistic" approach, this cry is the height of modernist gall as well as stupidity. Why do modernists always want to be treated as special? This is the case in the arts as well and it has resulted in an elitist class of connoisseurs cut off from the ordinary people--exactly as with modernist liturgists. The modernist mind always demands a huge break with the past, whether it be in art or architecture or theology. The change with what went before and had organically evolved must be abrupt and radical--to highlight the specialness of the modernists themselves.

Why do you imagine the Church needed the kind of radical break with the past that transpired after Vatican II? Was this not the height of arrogance? And what has the trade-off with modernity been except a huge loss of faith and endless scandals?
289 posted on 05/04/2003 10:09:50 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson