Author Topic: La Nouvelle Theologie (The New Theology) (Read 2255 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** October 15, 2006, 04:41:14 PM »

I started a thread on Fish Eaters forum in this similar manner dealing with the problem of the New Theology embodied in modernism:

I have a few questions concerning the New Theology which embodies modernism and has done much of the demolition we have seen in the Church in recent times.

1) How should we respond to those who would try to argue that the New Theology is a legitimate development in theological precision?

2) What if they do not buy basic logic?

3) How do we argue against historicism?

4) Were any modern philosophers aware that they were formulating hypotheses diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith (as opposed to the invincible ignorance of Plato and Aristotle)?

5) Why would modernist theologians just throw away St. Thomas Aquinas? What did they have against him? (I imagine it has to do with our fallen nature and wanting to be free from God and to not be held by fixed dogmatic definitions and formulas at the same time.)

6) Could the term "living Tradition" ever be redefined and made to be equivalent in meaning to "unchanging Tradition" in that we as Catholics live it throughout the ages?

Well, I know those are loaded questions, but thank you to whoever can answer them.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2006, 05:01:06 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

1) How should we respond to those who would try to argue that the New Theology is a legitimate development in theological precision?

Well, truth doesn't change. God is unchanging, and so is Truth. I'm not 100% sure what exactly New Theology claims, as I haven't studied it in particular. I have studied Modernism (and other modern errors), however.

2) What if they do not buy basic logic?

That one's easy -- "cuм negante principa, nequit disputar"
"It is impossible to discuss with anyone who denies principles"

If they deny objective truth, or are "ok" with holding two contradictory propositions at the same time, it is useless to argue. The whole point of arguing is to end up with a proposition that exposes a contradiction. If one denies the rules of logic, etc. then you must walk away.

For such a one, their mind has been destroyed -- they cannot think. You can pray for them, set a good example -- and that's about it.

3) How do we argue against historicism?

I haven't heard of this particular error -- but maybe I have, under a different name. What exactly is historicism?

4) Were any modern philosophers aware that they were formulating hypotheses diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith (as opposed to the invincible ignorance of Plato and Aristotle)?

To really answer this, we'd have to ask them :) However, many of them were not good devout Catholics. My professor once told me that "Germans have a tendency to lose all touch with reality". It seems to be true. They get off on a mental tangent, and don't know when to stop, even when they clash up against reality itself. Nothing against the Germans, they are a very gifted race.

5) Why would modernist theologians just throw away St. Thomas Aquinas? What did they have against him? (I imagine it has to do with our fallen nature and wanting to be free from God and to not be held by fixed dogmatic definitions and formulas at the same time.)

You hit the nail on the head there. In the 1950's, Thomism had made a sort of resurgence -- and everyone studied St. Thomas, but the students (including seminarians) were reading modern philosophers in their spare time -- and guess which one inspired them more? Unfortunately, the modern ones.

6) Could the term "living Tradition" ever be redefined and made to be equivalent in meaning to "unchanging Tradition" in that we as Catholics live it throughout the ages?

That is precisely the Catholic meaning given to the phrase. But Modernists (such as most churchmen today) apply to it a different meaning. They mean that whatever the Pope does IS tradition, the newest incarnation of it. But that's not the "traditional" meaning of Tradition!

Tradition is the body of truths handed down through the Teaching Church (which consists of the Pope and bishops, and the priests to a lesser degree, as helpers to the bishops), from one age to the next. It is the body of the Faith as received by the Apostles from Jesus Christ Himself. Since the Apostles did NOT write down everything they were taught, we ended up with this very important body of knowledge called Tradition.

That is why St. Paul talks about holding true to the Faith, "Whether by word or epistle..."

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2006, 06:06:26 PM »

Main Entry: his·tor·i·cism
Pronunciation: hi-'stor-&-"si-z&m, -'stär-
Function: noun
: a theory, doctrine, or style that emphasizes the importance of history : as a : a theory in which history is seen as a standard of value or as a determinant of events b : a style (as in architecture) characterized by the use of traditional forms and elements
- his·tor·i·cist /-sist/ adjective or noun

It seems historicism is in what many modernists believe at least partially. Not to mention the historical-method. It seems to operate from the basis that philosophy and theology depend on the historical context and are bound by it until the historical circuмstances change. Sadly, from what I could tell in hearing a recording of Bp. Fellay talking about his meetings in Rome last year, our Pope may still adhere to some sort of thinking related to historicism, I think. Bp. Fellay mentioned some of sort of disagreement concerning the relationship of the Church and the State and what the Church has taught about that relationship especially from the 4th century up to Vatican II.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2006, 08:34:04 PM »

For Gladius:

If you have time, Gladius, how would you answer each of my above questions? :detective: :bricks: :cheers: :reading: :reporter:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** October 26, 2006, 04:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

1) How should we respond to those who would try to argue that the New Theology is a legitimate development in theological precision?

Show them an example of where the new 'theology' contradicts previous statements of the magisterium (which, by the way, includes the common teachings of the theologians).

Quote from: K

2) What if they do not buy basic logic?

This makes it rather difficult, as one cannot usually give a crash course in logic to such people.

Quote from: K

3) How do we argue against historicism?

Historicism is basically relativism: it was true then, but not now, etc. Ask if 2+2 is true now, and if it has always been so, then move on to an explanation of how that which is true is always true - and that time has ZERO to do with it.

Quote from: K

4) Were any modern philosophers aware that they were formulating hypotheses diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith (as opposed to the invincible ignorance of Plato and Aristotle)?

Yes, but many of them were quite hostile to the Church already, such as Kant, Hegel, etc.

Quote from: K

5) Why would modernist theologians just throw away St. Thomas Aquinas? What did they have against him? (I imagine it has to do with our fallen nature and wanting to be free from God and to not be held by fixed dogmatic definitions and formulas at the same time.)

They HATE his precision. He always clearly defines his terms, and the modernist hates being so bound by terminology.

Quote from: K

6) Could the term "living Tradition" ever be redefined and made to be equivalent in meaning to "unchanging Tradition" in that we as Catholics live it throughout the ages?

Imo, it is not necessary, as what it means is that Tradition is the Living Voice of God (or rather, the Voice of the Living God) among men - He is always the same, and so is His voice. Those who hear it, listen.

The modern mind does not (and cannot) understand the definition, the converted mind does not need to have the definition changed.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2006, 04:04:45 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

Sadly, from what I could tell in hearing a recording of Bp. Fellay talking about his meetings in Rome last year, our Pope may still adhere to some sort of thinking related to historicism, I think.

BXVI is a COMPLETE relativist (historicist). What makes his charade more confusing for some is that he occasionally says things 'against' relativism - but do not be fooled, as this is par for the course for a modernist.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2006, 10:11:22 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: K
6) Could the term "living Tradition" ever be redefined and made to be equivalent in meaning to "unchanging Tradition" in that we as Catholics live it throughout the ages?

Imo, it is not necessary, as what it means is that Tradition is the Living Voice of God (or rather, the Voice of the Living God) among men - He is always the same, and so is His voice. Those who hear it, listen.

The modern mind does not (and cannot) understand the definition, the converted mind does not need to have the definition changed.

So, in other words, we are able to use the term "living Tradition" in an orthodox manner in that case then?

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2007, 12:03:31 AM »

I decided to bump this past thread since it is very important issue concerning the Church crisis and we have had new members join the forum since when I started it. It is at the root of the problems we experience today. The new theology embodies modernism which sprung from liberalism, both errors condemned in the past by popes. The new theology ended up infecting the seminaries first of course and the highest echelons of the hierarchy too. Then it all filtered down to the laity and religious. Thus many Catholics now experience the spiritual chastisement of today. The new theology really amounts it seems to going with the spirit of the world, which is something to which the Church has always been opposed.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2007, 10:55:52 PM »

One complaint I gather from it seems supporters of the new theology is that neoscholasticism was too "monolithic" and that it did not meet the needs of the twentieth century. In other words, they seem to say that neoscholasticism lost touch of reality. Nothing could be further from the truthy, IMHO. Rather it was the world that lost touch with reality that is taught by the Church. So it was also the modernist theologians who lost touch with reality. I have read some of an article so far defending the new theology. Somewhere in there it says something about the new theology as swimming against the current of the Church at the time. Now if that is the case that means it ends swimming the current of the spirit of the world, for the current of the Church goes against that current.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2007, 04:55:48 AM »

'2) What if they do not buy basic logic?

'That one's easy -- "cuм negante principa, nequit disputar"
"It is impossible to discuss with anyone who denies principles"

'If they deny objective truth, or are "ok" with holding two contradictory propositions at the same time, it is useless to argue. The whole point of arguing is to end up with a proposition that exposes a contradiction. If one denies the rules of logic, etc. then you must walk away.

'For such a one, their mind has been destroyed -- they cannot think. You can pray for them, set a good example -- and that's about it.'

Well said. This was what my catechist taught me about Modernists: they do not think logically, therefore it is impossible to have any sort of in-depth discourse with them. You will, apart from a miracle, be spinning your wheels.

'BXVI is a COMPLETE relativist (historicist). What makes his charade more confusing for some is that he occasionally says things 'against' relativism - but do not be fooled, as this is par for the course for a modernist.'

Yes, that appears to be the case. After all, when did the rumours begin about the so-called 'universal indult'? Is he just throwing the convervatives a bone to make them despair when they find out there's no meat on it?

Besides, if he actually goes through with it, that would further indicate that the Holy Father apparently thinks that two contradictory things (one true, one false) can exist side by side in harmony and both be considered true.