Author Topic: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book? (Read 1400 times)

Smedley Butler · « **on:** February 06, 2018, 04:43:05 PM »

https://biblia.com/api/plugins/embeddedpreview?resourceName=LLS:SRCCATDOGMA&layout=minimal&historybuttons=false&navigationbox=false&sharebutton=false

Why did Fr. Karl Rahner, architect of Vatican II, decide in 1954 to revise a 100 year-old book on Catholic dogma written by German priest, Fr. Henri Denzinger?

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2018, 04:44:02 PM »

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2018, 04:45:13 PM »

Enchridion Symbolorum

Jaynek · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:04:04 PM »

Quote

The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since.

It is a collection of authoritative Catholic texts. These keep on being written so the collection is updated regularly to add in new ones. There have been many editors of it over its existence. Karl Rahner was one of the them.

The original edition was not a book written by Denzinger. He just did the collecting and arranging. That is what all of the editors did. Nobody ever rewrote it. I think the numbering system was revised at least once.

There are more details in the Wikipedia article

PG · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:20:00 PM »

The book is still worth owning, reading, and using as an authoritative reference. However, it fails to provide in its incorporation of casti connubii the most important sentence(s) of the entire docuмent concerning NFP. So, it is a fail in that sense. Other than that, it is pretty good, with some very useful and important footnotes.

happenby · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:27:06 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 06, 2018, 05:20:00 PM

The book is still worth owning, reading, and using as an authoritative reference. However, it fails to provide in its incorporation of casti connubii the most important sentence(s) of the entire docuмent concerning NFP. So, it is a fail in that sense. Other than that, it is pretty good, with some very useful and important footnotes.

This is true, it is good overall, but it doesn't answer the question. Should we accept a known Freemasonic hoodlum bent on destroying the Church free reign over Catholic docuмents? Why was he permitted to revise it without any concern from Catholics? Sure, more is known about him now, but the tide of unbelief swept the concern back then, away. Seems logical to avoid that version and go with the original. IMHO.

Jaynek · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:37:54 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 06, 2018, 05:27:06 PM

This is true, it is good overall, but it doesn't answer the question. Should we accept a known Freemasonic hoodlum bent on destroying the Church free reign over Catholic docuмents? Why was he permitted to revise it without any concern from Catholics? Sure, more is known about him now, but the tide of unbelief swept the concern back then, away. Seems logical to avoid that version and go with the original. IMHO.

There was concern from Catholics over Rahner around that time. Shortly after his time as editor he was put under "pre-censorship" by Rome. All his writings and speeches needed to be approved first. It seems likely to me that people would have seen editing the Enchirdion as something that would have kept him out of trouble because it did not involve him doing any original writing.

The editor job does not seem questionable, rather that he was called as a peritus to a Church Council.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:24:06 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 06, 2018, 05:37:54 PM

There was concern from Catholics over Rahner around that time. Shortly after his time as editor he was put under "pre-censorship" by Rome. All his writings and speeches needed to be approved first. It seems likely to me that people would have seen editing the Enchirdion as something that would have kept him out of trouble because it did not involve him doing any original writing.

The editor job does not seem questionable, rather that he was called as a peritus to a Church Council.

Not interested in your opinion since you did not even know who he was before today.
I'm speaking to the men who know Rahner's history of destruction of the Church very well.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:26:02 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 06, 2018, 05:20:00 PM

Quote from: PG on February 06, 2018, 05:20:00 PM

However, it fails to provide in its incorporation of casti connubii the most important sentence(s) of the entire docuмent concerning NFP. So, it is a fail in that sense.

Probably just a coincidence, right?

Jaynek · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:39:11 PM »

I have read works by Rahner and written papers on them. It was long before I was a trad and able to make a good judgement of his orthodoxy. I no longer remember any details and would need to do research before giving an opinion. I have known who he was for around 30 years.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:03:50 PM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on February 06, 2018, 04:43:05 PM

https://biblia.com/api/plugins/embeddedpreview?resourceName=LLS:SRCCATDOGMA&layout=minimal&historybuttons=false&navigationbox=false&sharebutton=false

Why did Fr. Karl Rahner, architect of Vatican II, decide in 1954 to revise a 100 year-old book on Catholic dogma written by German priest, Fr. Henri Denzinger?

Matthew-

Do you remember Fr. Iscara telling us about this (in Liturgy I)?

Answer:

Because the Denzinger was a chronological presentation of Catholic dogma, and therefore presented a stumbling block to the modernists (i.e., by showing how the sequential acts of the popes had developed doctrine over the centuries in a linear and concistent direction), Rahner went back and excised centuries of dogmatic teaching from the earlier editions of the Denginger in his revision, bringing teachings back to those of the primitive Church, in order to "re-develop" them in a modernist direction (i.e., "archaeologism" in the dogmatic domain).

A comparison of earlier and latter editions bears this out.

Essentially, Rahner wanted to pull a "1984," and flush centuries of Catholic teaching down the "memory hole."
This is the moral caliber of the modernist.I

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:50:51 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 06, 2018, 07:03:50 PM

Matthew-

Do you remember Fr. Iscara telling us about this (in Liturgy I)?

Answer:

Because the Denzinger was a chronological presentation of Catholic dogma, and therefore presented a stumbling block to the modernists (i.e., by showing how the sequential acts of the popes had developed doctrine over the centuries in a linear and concistent direction), Rahner went back and excised centuries of dogmatic teaching from the earlier editions of the Denginger in his revision, bringing teachings back to those of the primitive Church, in order to "re-develop" them in a modernist direction (i.e., "archaeologism" in the dogmatic domain).

A comparison of earlier and latter editions bears this out.

Essentially, Rahner wanted to pull a "1984," and flush centuries of Catholic teaching down the "memory hole."
This is the moral caliber of the modernist.I

DING DING DING! We have a winner!
Thank you, sir.

Incredulous · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:52:29 PM »

From an old Bp. Williamson lecture, there was evidence that Fr. Rhaner was mentally deranged.
His writings went on and on and even his brother Hugo admitted it would be hard to transcribe the volumes into coherent works.

Source

Explosive 1964 Karl Rahner Testimony
on Joseph Ratzinger, John XXIII, Paul VI

Vatican Council

Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. (left), with Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at the Second

Discovered in 2011, Karl Rahner Testimony from 1963-64 confirms Theological “Bloodbath” at Second Vatican Council (1962-65)

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A formerly hidden letter by Karl Rahner to his brother Fr. Hugo Rahner, dated Nov. 2, 1963, was exhibited at a Carmelite church in Munich, Germany, in 2012, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. (This letter had been in the possession of the son of Karl Rahner’s younger sister, Elisabeth Cremer [d. 2004], and was turned over to the official Karl Rahner Archive in 2011.) It contains some explosive testimony regarding the theological turmoil at the council.
In September 2012, the German Novus Ordo periodical Stimmen der Zeit published Rahner’s 1963 letter in its entirety, along with a supplementary commentary authored by Andreas R. Batlogg and Nikolaus Klein. This commentary also mentions a speech given by Rahner on Jan. 13, 1964 in Freiburg, which gives even more information about the bitter struggle between Catholics and Modernists that went on behind the scenes at Vatican II.[/font][/size]
[font={defaultattr}]
The salient points of the Rahner letter and the accompanying commentary are summarized below.
The Nov. 2, 1963 Letter by Karl Rahner to his brother Hugo reveals:[/font]

Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention of Oct. 21, 1962, though he didn’t mention names, was directed against Karl Rahner, S.J., Joseph Ratzinger, and Gustave Martelet, S.J.
Most Italian and Spanish bishops feared the First Vatican Council (1869-70) was being abolished by Vatican II
Conservative French bishops accused Joseph Ratzinger of being a “heretic who denies hell”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
The Jan. 13, 1964 Karl Rahner Speech in Freiburg reveals:[/font][/size]

French “Integralist” Bishops who “appeal to La Salette and Fatima” called John XXIII a “Precursor of the Antichrist” and
said Montini (later Paul VI) was “John XXIII’s Crown Prince”
An anonymous book at the council [probably Maurice Pinay’s The Plot against the Church (1962) –N.O.W.] warns of a Fifth Column of Jєωs and Freemasons that reaches all the way into the cardinalate
A little pamphlet that made its way into the halls of the council accuses Ratzinger and other German theologians of “Gallicanism, Modernism, and even worse heresies”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Sources:[/font][/size]

Andreas R. Batlogg and Nikolaus Klein, “Kollektive Wahrheitsfindung auf dem Zweiten Vatikanum: Zu einer Momentaufnahme von Karl Rahner SJ”, Stimmen der Zeit (Sep. 2012): 579-589.
[No Author Given.] “Benedikt galt als ‘Häretiker, der die Hölle leugnet'”, FOCUS Online, Oct. 6, 20

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2018, 08:48:11 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 06, 2018, 07:03:50 PM

Matthew-

Do you remember Fr. Iscara telling us about this (in Liturgy I)?

Answer:

Because the Denzinger was a chronological presentation of Catholic dogma, and therefore presented a stumbling block to the modernists (i.e., by showing how the sequential acts of the popes had developed doctrine over the centuries in a linear and concistent direction), Rahner went back and excised centuries of dogmatic teaching from the earlier editions of the Denginger in his revision, bringing teachings back to those of the primitive Church, in order to "re-develop" them in a modernist direction (i.e., "archaeologism" in the dogmatic domain).

A comparison of earlier and latter editions bears this out.

Essentially, Rahner wanted to pull a "1984," and flush centuries of Catholic teaching down the "memory hole."
This is the moral caliber of the modernist.I

As an aside, a similar trick is being done with Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote only the old, pre-1987 accord Archbishop (so as portray him as the eternal diplomat), and omit (or even deny!) he rejected the deal the next day, and forevermore required the conversion of Rome before considering any practical accord.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2018, 09:00:17 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on February 06, 2018, 07:52:29 PM

From an old Bp. Williamson lecture, there was evidence that Fr. Rhaner was mentally deranged.
His writings went on and on and even his brother Hugo admitted it would be hard to transcribe the volumes into coherent works.

Source

Explosive 1964 Karl Rahner Testimony
on Joseph Ratzinger, John XXIII, Paul VI
Vatican Council
Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. (left), with Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at the Second

Discovered in 2011, Karl Rahner Testimony from 1963-64 confirms Theological “Bloodbath” at Second Vatican Council (1962-65)
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A formerly hidden letter by Karl Rahner to his brother Fr. Hugo Rahner, dated Nov. 2, 1963, was exhibited at a Carmelite church in Munich, Germany, in 2012, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. (This letter had been in the possession of the son of Karl Rahner’s younger sister, Elisabeth Cremer [d. 2004], and was turned over to the official Karl Rahner Archive in 2011.) It contains some explosive testimony regarding the theological turmoil at the council.
In September 2012, the German Novus Ordo periodical Stimmen der Zeit published Rahner’s 1963 letter in its entirety, along with a supplementary commentary authored by Andreas R. Batlogg and Nikolaus Klein. This commentary also mentions a speech given by Rahner on Jan. 13, 1964 in Freiburg, which gives even more information about the bitter struggle between Catholics and Modernists that went on behind the scenes at Vatican II.[/font][/size]
[font={defaultattr}]
The salient points of the Rahner letter and the accompanying commentary are summarized below.
The Nov. 2, 1963 Letter by Karl Rahner to his brother Hugo reveals:[/font]

Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention of Oct. 21, 1962, though he didn’t mention names, was directed against Karl Rahner, S.J., Joseph Ratzinger, and Gustave Martelet, S.J.
Most Italian and Spanish bishops feared the First Vatican Council (1869-70) was being abolished by Vatican II
Conservative French bishops accused Joseph Ratzinger of being a “heretic who denies hell”
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
The Jan. 13, 1964 Karl Rahner Speech in Freiburg reveals:[/font][/size]

French “Integralist” Bishops who “appeal to La Salette and Fatima” called John XXIII a “Precursor of the Antichrist” and
said Montini (later Paul VI) was “John XXIII’s Crown Prince”
An anonymous book at the council [probably Maurice Pinay’s The Plot against the Church (1962) –N.O.W.] warns of a Fifth Column of Jєωs and Freemasons that reaches all the way into the cardinalate
A little pamphlet that made its way into the halls of the council accuses Ratzinger and other German theologians of “Gallicanism, Modernism, and even worse heresies”
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Sources:[/font][/size]
Andreas R. Batlogg and Nikolaus Klein, “Kollektive Wahrheitsfindung auf dem Zweiten Vatikanum: Zu einer Momentaufnahme von Karl Rahner SJ”, Stimmen der Zeit (Sep. 2012): 579-589.
[No Author Given.] “Benedikt galt als ‘Häretiker, der die Hölle leugnet'”, FOCUS Online, Oct. 6, 20

Thank you, sir.
I love Novus Ordo Watch.

Author Topic: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book? (Read 1400 times)

Smedley Butler

Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Jaynek

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

PG

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

happenby

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Jaynek

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Jaynek

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

SeanJohnson

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Incredulous

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

SeanJohnson

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?

Smedley Butler

Re: Why did Karl Rahner revise this book?