Tribute to Dr. Raphael Waters

Excerpt:

As early as 1950, keen Thomists such as Father David Greenstock warned against this new development: “We are asked to accept, in exchange for this solid foundation [of Thomism], the fluid concepts of a new philosophy, destined to change with time – we are told – like everything else in this fluid world. This, to our way of thinking, is not merely unreasonable, but also very dangerous.”

This new approach lacked the clarity and precision of Thomistic philosophy and introduced much mischief. It also cut the Catholic from his past, making the centuries-old Catholic language of scholasticism a foreign language to him.

This new approach was also the basis for progressive bishops and theologians at Vatican II to insist that Council docuмents be drafted in so-called pastoral (ambiguous) language. For example, the Decree on Ecuмenism never defines ecuмenism. The Council lays stress on “human dignity”, but never defines human dignity, etc.

Even Father Joseph Ratzinger, a young progressive theologian at Vatican II who was an adherent of the New Theology, rejoiced that the Council docuмents would not be drafted in scholastic terminology, as has been docuмented in past issues of Catholic Family News.

This lack of precision of Vatican II docuмents was alluded to by Bishop Thomas Morrow, a prelate who attended the Council. Catholic World News reported Bishop Morrow’s statement, “I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated, and I would have regarded the Council docuмents as tentative and liable to be reformed.”

The chaos resulting from these docuмents is well attested by the present ruinous state of the Church throughout the world. The very fact it is commonly held that Vatican II docuмents can have both a liberal interpretation and a conservative interpretation (the hermeneutic of discontinuity/hermeneutic of continuity dichotomy) testifies to the want of scholastic precision in the docuмents themselves. No one even pretends the Decrees of Trent or Vatican I can be interpreted in any other manner than the precise language in which they are written.

The wholesale abandonment of scholasticism quickly spread throughout Catholic universities, where the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas was ignored, and a confused modern approach put in its place.

The Science of philosophy is replaced with the “History of Philosophy”, which introduces the student to hundreds of conflicting thinkers, but never teaches the student how to think. This results in the belief that philosophy is nothing more than a contradictory jumble of personal ideas and ideals.

“The ‘History of Philosophy’ is the worst way to teach or study philosophy”, insisted Dr. Waters. A History of Philosophy course has its place for students who already have years of solid philosophical instruction, and whose minds are trained in the true science that gives them the ability to recognize errors of deceptive systems.





This particular excerpt is worth thinking about because it has a lot to do with the
current SSPX difficulties, since +Fellay et. al. are attempting to make some kind
of appeasement to Rome. But in a broader sense, this applies to all Catholics, not
merely members of the SSPX. It is most applicable to our age, post Vatican II, the
postConciliar age.

It is a clever move for the Conciliar activists to use the word, "pastoral" in place of
"ambiguous." As an exercise, when you read some commentary that mentions the
pastoral nature of Vat II, just substitute ambiguous and see how the sentence
becomes much more meaningful.

It is also very telling that it was widely publicized at the time that there would be
no dogmatic definitions at Vat. II, nor would there be any definitive condemnations
of error. Any proposition regarding faith or morals once condemned by the Pope is
condemned for all time, and is irreformable.

It is a dangerous idea for a college student today to take a class in the "history
of philosophy" because it's not only a waste of time, it can ruin his life by destroying
his faith.

I came across "the True Story of the Vatican Council, by Cardinal Manning in archives.  It is very good reading.  The Council defined Infallibility. Definition is 1 hour and 50 minutes .  It was so important to define this dogma.

I found it strange that all dogmas are not so much defined, but explained.  Goes to show how much we really know, or our minds think we know. Without definitions there is trouble of opinions, destruction to the dogmas.  Those who helped to put this much needed Council together, Pius IX, was just incredible to see how God works.  

There was mention of thunderstorms and lightning during the Council.