Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 1st Mansion Tenant on June 19, 2014, 11:35:48 AM

Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on June 19, 2014, 11:35:48 AM
Fr Hewko speaks of a recent seminarian who states that neo-SSPX seminarians are being taught Bultmann in a positive light. This includes the belief that Christ did not actually perform miracles.

From app 16:00 min mark to around 22:00 or so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/r1ESt-lTR84[/youtube]

was trying to post video here. Evidently I'm not doing it right. Maybe somebody else can.
 :ape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ESt-lTR84
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: MonteiroM on June 19, 2014, 02:13:48 PM
Can you tell me who is the seminarian?

I am from the south of Brazil, visited the seminary of La Reja a couple of times and know all the people there.

Thank you
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: untitled on June 19, 2014, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from http://./thread/2654/sspx-seminary-teaching-which-condemned?page=4

Cristera: A priest of the Resistance who knows Fr. Pagliariani and studied at La Reja told me: "There is 99% chance of a serious misunderstanding on this affaire"...
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: MonteiroM on June 19, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
I found the page you linked.

It would be good to clarify this episode...
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: claudel on June 19, 2014, 10:11:26 PM
So even more sewage from the ABL forum—aka the We Hate Matthew forum—spills across the road and pollutes CI!

Does anyone here disagree with the proposition that every priest (with the possible exception of completely cloistered contemplative monks), whatever the specific duties of his particular priestly situation may be, is a primary bearer of the Great Commission: to preach the Faith?

Does anyone here disagree with the proposition that every priest, even one whose duties do not routinely include close biblical study and interpretation (i.e., exegetics), ought to have done formal study of the Bible long enough to know a good deal about it and how it has been read and interpreted by reliable and fully sanctioned Catholic authorities, at the very least? Surely no one thinks that those authoritative Catholic commentaries were written by saints and scholars who learned about the views they were answering and rebutting by hearsay! (Think about it. What would you think of a priest who told a sola scriptura Protestant with a serious interest in our Faith that he should go bug someone else with his questions because he, the priest, didn't know enough about exegetics generally and about how leading Protestant scholars have influenced both mainstream and offbeat approaches to Bible study to give him an informed answer to even an entry-level question—at any rate an answer beyond "Bultmann is bad bad bad! Come back and see me when that fact sinks in to your thick skull, and then we'll talk"?)

Put another way, does anyone here disagree with the proposition that even an ordinary SSPX priest ought to know rather more about these matters than a typical commenting layman at CI who has moved on to this thread because he's grown tired of looking at pictures of Michelle Obama's manly butt?

Here are a few hard sayings. Like them or not, I don't give a tinker's dam. If you want to be an expert on baseball, you have to learn as much about other teams as you do about your own. (You don’t just say, “It’s evil to look at the Yankees! Watching them will poison your soul.”) If you want to be an architect, you have to learn enough about the properties of materials to realize why it’s a bad idea even to think about building a skyscraper out of clarinet reeds and scotch tape. (Saying “Well, everyone knows you can’t do that!” tends to win very little applause from a potential client’s review committee.) If you are going to teach the history of the drama at even a Trad-oriented Catholic college (if there is such a place nowadays), you have to have heard of Seneca, you have to know he was acclaimed for his plays for 1,700 years, and (if I’m doing the hiring!) you have to have read some of them and be able to tell which plots of his Shakespeare recycled. (Mutatis mutandis with the architect story, “everyone knows his stuff is crap” is not a sufficient answer.)

So too for a priest who studies the Bible—that is, every priest, in a properly ordered world. Bultmann was about as big a deal in Protestant exegesis as the twentieth century has to show. If a priest can say nothing but “he’s bad bad bad!” about Bultmann without having a mastery of the specifics, it won’t be long before he says even less substantive things about Melanchthon and Luther.

Why does this stuff even need explaining? Why do born-yesterday laymen commenters who’ve never spent even a day studying Latin in preparation for close reading of Jerome or Augustine get to decide what should or shouldn’t be taught in a seminary to young men who will be held to account, not by Matthew, Mater, or even a true genius like Telesphorus (SARCASM ALERT!), but by God Himself for his success or failure in being ready to preach the Faith to all those who need it preached to them, even educated Protestants?

Does Father Hewko pray thus at night: “Heavenly Father, thanks for exempting me from defending the Faith to Protestants. That Bultmann stuff is really bad news!”
____________________________________________

Addendum: If Father Hewko genuinely thinks that “hermeneutics” began with or was popularized by Bultmann, he deserves to be lightly mocked. If he has any Greek, I suggest he start by looking at the writings of another B-initialed guy: Bessarion.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 21, 2014, 10:19:42 AM
.

This topic is also discussed in another thread:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Hewko-Whit-Saturday

As for the curious mish-mosh from claudel, above, there is a certain priority of material that is appropriate for seminary.   Also, there is a commonplace approach to the education of every human creature that is INAPPROPIRIATE, and that goes for inside the seminary as well as for outside the seminary.  

If you listen to this excellent sermon of Fr. Hewko and you are familiar with the rudimentary wisdom of first-things-first, you won't have any problem with recognizing the utter danger of teaching the likes of Bultmann in the first two years of any seminary, anywhere in the world.  Apparently claudel is ignorant of this basic wisdom.  

.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: holysoulsacademy on June 21, 2014, 11:08:01 AM
We only have a finite time on earth and a finite amount of capabilities to hold thought and intellect.  One ought to spend as much of it as they can with all that is of God as that is the best offense to any arguments of heretics.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: PerEvangelicaDicta on June 21, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote
recognizing the utter danger of teaching the likes of Bultmann in the first two years of any seminary, anywhere in the world.


That must be the point then?  Hand in hand with many other insidious changes it seems.  What better way to strike at the heart than undermining the Faith of seminarians?  A smashing success in the novus ordo.

Any man will know that Bultmann is "bad, bad, bad"  by studying the Faith, correct?  A well formed priest can easily combat any heresy without a special concentration in a specific heretic, right?  (not "heresies", but heretic)
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: claudel on June 21, 2014, 01:12:20 PM
I am delighted to see that Neil Obstat calls me ignorant. It's one of the best merit badges available hereabouts. It also confirms the idiocy and indecency of allowing know-it-all airheads to decide what future priests need to be taught to properly equip them for their God-ordained mission.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: ancien regime on June 21, 2014, 02:02:37 PM
One key thing in this to me is what the seminarian reported as Fr. Pagliariani's response to his comment/question.

If Fr. P. were merely using Bultmann as an example of erroneous teaching on scripture exegesis and biblical studies, his response would have been one of telling the young man to calm down and wait for the rest of the lecture, or possibly tell him to meet with him after class.

It is very telling to me that instead Fr. P. threw the young man out of the seminary! on the spot!

Why such a strong reaction to a somewhat private question (the question was delivered in Italian in a Spanish speaking group)? This extreme reaction speaks volumes. Why would Fr. P. throw the young man out of the seminary if he weren't using Bultmann as what he considered to be a legitimate source of biblical scholarship methods?

I have studied exegesis in a conservative Novus Ordo masters degree program and we never used Bultmann's methods. We went over some of the modern day controversies, and the historical critical method, etc., but we never questioned the miracles or the authorship of the Gospels. But if you are trying to "modernize" your teaching, if you want the modernists to approve of your methods, if you really want to be "au courant," if you really want to impress the Protestants and the "Catholic" universities, then Bultmann is the ticket.

This is a very, very serious sign that the rot has more than just begun, but has progressed to a high level. It is a sign that the SSPX of Abp. Lefebvre is indeed dead.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: untitled on June 21, 2014, 02:29:28 PM
"As for fr Pagliarani, all that I can gather points to his innocence on the issue of modernism. If Paolo can retract and amend, it would be a good sign for him. The situation is sufficiently bad as it is for us to exagerate, and we must be capable to retract, since it is precisely what we request from others." Fr. Chazal.

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.mx/2014/06/abbe-chazal-nouvelles-dasie-au-20-juin.html

Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on June 21, 2014, 05:49:02 PM
 The issue in question  is not that the seminarians were being taught about Bultmann; but that Bultmann's heretical ideas were being taught to them in a positive light. I think it is telling that the seminarian was given his walking papers the same day.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: claudel on June 21, 2014, 06:38:21 PM
Quote from: untitled
"As for fr Pagliarani, all that I can gather points to his innocence on the issue of modernism. If Paolo can retract and amend, it would be a good sign for him. The situation is sufficiently bad as it is for us to exagerate, and we must be capable to retract, since it is precisely what we request from others." Fr. Chazal.

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.mx/2014/06/abbe-chazal-nouvelles-dasie-au-20-juin.html


I thank you sincerely for adding these remarks.

What they tell me, loud and clear, is this: Father Chazal regards rash judgment as a sin—a grievous sin. Alas, the usual CI response to someone who thinks and speaks as Father Chazal does is to give him a spanking and send him off to bed without dinner! I, on the other hand, will be glad to sneak this honest priest some cookies and milk when the fanatics aren't looking.

Lack of evidence—or as here, indeed, of reliable information of any sort—ought to act as a brake on mindless speculation and sinful slander and/or detraction. Hereabouts, however, it only ever acts as a spur. Shame on all you pharisees!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The issue in question is … that Bultmann's heretical ideas were being taught to them in a positive light.


There is no hard evidence in support of this claim. Ergo, it is not properly describable as an issue. Most of the commenters on this distasteful thread are using what little grey matter they possess in the service of sinful rash judgment, which for present purposes they have mendaciously renamed Logic.

Lasciami un po' ridere!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
I think it is telling that the seminarian was given his walking papers the same day.


I think it is far more telling that you are so ready to join others in thinking and speaking ill of a priest on the basis of third-hand hearsay. Perhaps you should read what Father Chazal wrote and think better.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on June 21, 2014, 07:56:08 PM
Father Hewko is a good and holy priest. I don't think he would have brought up the subject if he had any doubts about the truth behind such a serious accusation.

Fr Chazal is also a good and holy priest. His statement shows charity towards the neo-SSPX in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Until something more substantial surfaces in this matter, I think the subject should be dropped and the thread closed.  

 
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Nickolas on June 21, 2014, 08:26:23 PM
I do not believe the thread should be closed.  This is an important matter. and just shutting peoples mouths so to speak does nothing.  

I have never before taken information from another forum and pasted it on another, but I believe this matter to be important enough to take chances.  This is a posting from a man who supposedly acted as an interpreter with the seminarian who confronted the rector at La Reja, telling his account to Fr. Hewko during a lunch time meal:



"Lol. I'm the guy who real time translated the South American Seminarian's talk with Father Dave during everybody's lunch time in the Refrectory, or whatever you call the cafeteria.

I think it was Saturday evening when I wondered at the student if Father Dave would mention him in a Sermon.

I recall Father being really really interested and paying attention to the details. He asked a lot of questions.

The student was there in La Reja from Winter 2011 to Winter 2012. He spent time before and after with Fr Faure for years and then for one with Dom Tomas.

The rector was some priest with a Italian last name - Parrani.

One day in class Fr Parrani was lecturing on Historical Textual Criticism. The student noticied the rector insinuating good things about the heresy.

The student went back to his dorm room and then went back to class with a book authored by what's his face, some guy that was head of a pontifical biblical commission before the council. The student spoke to the rector in Italian so that none of the students would understand. The student said that this here lecture was heresy and was condemned. The rector told the student to meet with him after class in his office.

This was around noon time. When the student entered the office the rector handed him a plane ticket for 2pm~ to return to his neighboring south american country.

At the time the District Superior of South America was Christian Bouchancourt, a Frog, who today heads the French District. The student said at that day's lunch that Fr Bouchancourt denied the Jєωιѕн role in the Deicide. And also that he shunned the priest who lead the Rosary sit in at the Basilica in Buenos Aires that was a interfaith Jєωιѕн Catholic religious service commemerating the (?) 1938 Kristalnacht.

Father Dave was pointing out to the present seminarians that that stuff being taught in favor of Modernism in La Reja was exactly the stuff being taught in favor against of in Boston.

Any questions? The student is due back today after spending a whole week in Berlitz intensive English courses, thanks to your generous love offerings($$$).


A few posts later, the interpreter said this:

"Yes, it was lunch time, the main meal of the day, around 12:30pm. Sext is at around 12:15pm~. Father Joe wasn't around but Fr Richie Voigt was, I think, and so was Father Dave Hewko.

Father Hewko was sitting at the priests table while I and the seminarians were sitting at another table. I sat next to Paulo. He has the minor orders. He is an 7-8 year student. He is 1985 while I am 1986. He should already be a priest. We all know this. 2 years La Reja. 5 years Fr Faure. 1 year Fr Tomas Aquino in Brazil with the monks. He speaks Greek Hebrew Latin Italian Brazilian Spanish. Fr Joe sent him to a week long intensive English course with the global language company, Berlitz.  




This does not appear to be an account of an immature seminarian or troublemaker and any comment made by Fr Chazal or any other priest discounting what Fr. Hewko has said about the whole matter may have been made before all facts were known.  It seems Fr. Hewko was face to face with the seminarian and learned the information through an interpreter.  I believe there will be more to come on this.  Don't you?  
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: AJNC on June 22, 2014, 12:26:36 AM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
Father Hewko is a good and holy priest. I don't think he would have brought up the subject if he had any doubts about the truth behind such a serious accusation.

Fr Chazal is also a good and holy priest. His statement shows charity towards the neo-SSPX in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Until something more substantial surfaces in this matter, I think the subject should be dropped and the thread closed.  


Holiness (in others and ourselves), like beauty, often exists in only in the mind of the beholder.
Behold the holiness of JPII and JXXIII!
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2014, 12:10:57 AM
Quote from: claudel
Quote from: untitled
"As for fr Pagliarani, all that I can gather points to his innocence on the issue of modernism. If Paolo can retract and amend, it would be a good sign for him. The situation is sufficiently bad as it is for us to exagerate, and we must be capable to retract, since it is precisely what we request from others." Fr. Chazal.

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.mx/2014/06/abbe-chazal-nouvelles-dasie-au-20-juin.html


I thank you sincerely for adding these remarks.

What they tell me, loud and clear, is this: Father Chazal regards rash judgment as a sin—a grievous sin. Alas, the usual CI response to someone who thinks and speaks as Father Chazal does is to give him a spanking and send him off to bed without dinner! I, on the other hand, will be glad to sneak this honest priest some cookies and milk when the fanatics aren't looking.

Lack of evidence—or as here, indeed, of reliable information of any sort—ought to act as a brake on mindless speculation and sinful slander and/or detraction. Hereabouts, however, it only ever acts as a spur. Shame on all you pharisees!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The issue in question is … that Bultmann's heretical ideas were being taught to them in a positive light.


There is no hard evidence in support of this claim. Ergo, it is not properly describable as an issue. Most of the commenters on this distasteful thread are using what little grey matter they possess in the service of sinful rash judgment, which for present purposes they have mendaciously renamed Logic.

Lasciami un po' ridere!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
I think it is telling that the seminarian was given his walking papers the same day.


I think it is far more telling that you are so ready to join others in thinking and speaking ill of a priest on the basis of third-hand hearsay. Perhaps you should read what Father Chazal wrote and think better.



The question here is, claudel, why is this such a hot item of interest to you?  What is your dog in this race?  Are you a family member of the Rector or are you a minion of +Fellay?  

It seems you're totally committed to spreading it on a bit thick that there is no doctrinal weakness going on in the SSPX seminaries.  So, why then are the new priests of a different breed than the priests of the "Old SSPX" as the great Fr. Girouard is wont to say?  

If +F or Fr. Pfluger or Fr. Nely were writing your posts I can hardly imagine them being much different.  

So what's up?  What's the big deal?  

Are you aware, claudel, that all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann for the world to see?   What's so difficult about that?  Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  Perhaps he isn't really all that much convinced of the errors of Bultman, no?  Well, if that's not true, why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

Do you have a reason for that, or, which is more likely, are you going to reply (if at all) with calumny, ad hominem and cheap shots?

Try sticking to the principles involved that is, if you're capable.

.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2014, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: AJNC
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Father Hewko is a good and holy priest. I don't think he would have brought up the subject if he had any doubts about the truth behind such a serious accusation.

Fr Chazal is also a good and holy priest. His statement shows charity towards the neo-SSPX in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Until something more substantial surfaces in this matter, I think the subject should be dropped and the thread closed.  

Holiness (in others and ourselves), like beauty, often exists in only in the mind of the beholder.
Behold the holiness of JPII and JXXIII!


The problem with your screed, AJNC, is that beauty does not exist in the eye of the beholder.  That is a lie.  But if you go around believing lies, you end up confused, ergo, you're confused.  But you're posting nonetheless.  Holiness, like beauty, is not true if it doesn't exist in the mind of God.

The fact is, Fr. Hewko would not have made this part of a RECORDED sermon without knowledge of the facts.  He met the seminarian, he saw the background.  He reviewed the details.  Maybe he did some research.  He even knows where the seminarian has now sought refuge, but nobody seems to care.  It's possible that the priest who now is finishing this seminarian's formation may well become one of the new Resistance bishops, and he could then ordain this seminarian.  

Wouldn't that just make your skin crawl, AJNC?  

There are a lot of ignorant comments going around in this topic.  Too many people are voicing pugnacious opinions who dare to question the motives of Fr. Hewko.  Are you aware he might be one of the episcopal candidates?  

I think we're just about to see some pretty amazing things happen.  

.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2014, 12:32:42 AM
Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The issue in question  is not that the seminarians were being taught about Bultmann; but that Bultmann's heretical ideas were being taught to them in a positive light. I think it is telling that the seminarian was given his walking papers the same day.


You're going a bit far afield, 1MT, saying they were being taught that way.  It would seem they were not being taught that way, but that wouldn't be necessary.

It wouldn't have to even be in a positive light.  All it would have to be is like,

"Here is the work of Rudolf Bultmann on the exegesis of Scripture, the source of Matthew's Gospel, the miracles of Jesus."
 

No inference, no value judgment, no cotton, no condemnation.  None is necessary.

It's enough to make any Freemason right proud.

Think of it this way:  show pornography for sex ed class and don't say it's good or bad, but just, "There they are, the photographs of Wile E. Coyote."



Dear caludel, please note:  nobody said that someone specific is a Freemason.
 
.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: claudel on June 24, 2014, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
The question here is, claudel, why is this such a hot item of interest to you? What is your dog in this race? What's the big deal?


This is rich. You have no evidence for the calumnies you propagate, and so you try turning the tables by demanding that yours truly, who has been so impolite as to notice the stupid and evil conduct you promote, prove that he's not just shilling for Fellay, your private perennial devil figure.

So are you still beating your rent boy, Neil?

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Try sticking to the principles involved[note the missing semicolon here] that is, if you're capable.


First things first: you wouldn't recognize a principle if it bit you in the butt.

Now shut up and eat your plankton, like a good krill, before it gets stale, dear. Leave moral discourse to critters who understand that cutting and pasting aren't equivalent to thinking.

Work on your spelling and grammar, too. Being the conformist you are, you should understand that these are areas in life where conformity serves a genuine purpose.

The bottom line is that in this matter, I stand with Father Chazal, whereas you stand with Telesphorus and dmarie. Keep that disinfectant handy.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Graham on June 24, 2014, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: claudel
Quote from: Neil Obstat
The question here is, claudel, why is this such a hot item of interest to you? What is your dog in this race? What's the big deal?


This is rich. You have no evidence for the calumnies you propagate, and so you try turning the tables by demanding that yours truly, who has been so impolite as to notice the stupid and evil conduct you promote, prove that he's not just shilling for Fellay, your private perennial devil figure.

So are you still beating your rent boy, Neil?

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Try sticking to the principles involved[note the missing semicolon here] that is, if you're capable.


First things first: you wouldn't recognize a principle if it bit you in the butt.

Now shut up and eat your plankton, like a good krill, before it gets stale, dear. Leave moral discourse to critters who understand that cutting and pasting aren't equivalent to thinking.

Work on your spelling and grammar, too. Being the conformist you are, you should understand that these are areas in life where conformity serves a genuine purpose.

The bottom line is that in this matter, I stand with Father Chazal, whereas you stand with Telesphorus and dmarie. Keep that disinfectant handy.


Tele's position is that the claim should be investigated so far as possible, but that there is no reason to treat a neo-SSPX priest's claim to a thoroughly anti-modernist reputation as greater than a Resistance seminarian's testimony about his experience under that priest. It is certainly a solid point, provided one can admit that the SSPX has liberalized, as such credible people as +Williamson, Dom Aquinas, and the Dominicans of Avrille assert; granted that the testimony does indicate a degree of modernism in the priest that we would all rather not admit. The consequence would be that while Fr. Chazal in requesting a retraction went too far, at the same time nobody in the Resistance should exaggerate the force of this testimony.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: claudel on June 24, 2014, 09:45:14 PM
Morally speaking, I don't think that Tele's position passes the smell test. Legally speaking, I know it doesn't. Not even a minimal evidentiary standard for public airing of the matter has been met. The accuser—even were it retrospectively to be shown that he has been as pure as the driven snow in his motives and allegations—has no present entitlement to be considered legally or morally credible. He is an interested party in this affair, as literally everyone knows. Indeed, he is an aggrieved party, in that he appears to have been expelled from the seminary by the very priest he accuses of effectively subverting the Faith. (Yet even as to that, hard facts are as scarce as hen's teeth.)

Had a similar situation arisen in Spain in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, the Inquisition would have told him what someone ought to tell Telesphorus and Neil and all too many others: "Since you are not a disinterested party in this matter, your charges require corroboration before any proceeding can be initiated, at the very least to prevent the appearance of a retaliatory prosecution. In the meantime, you make yourself liable to an action for slander or worse if you attempt to publicly blacken the reputation of a man solely because you allege that he has done you an injustice."

Everyone who has been braying about this matter has in effect been claiming the same exemption from moral norms: namely, "This is Fellay's SSPX we're talking about! What need have we of witnesses!" No one who claims such an exemption merits anything but the selfsame contempt that we Christians have accorded Caiphas for two millennia.

Note, too, that the "witness" to the accuser's grief—a snarky wiseass with zero credibility in my book—also expects everyone to buy the story on his unverified say-so. As the stench of dishonesty and dishonor grows almost by the hour, the number of people ready to deep-six the rudiments of commutative justice in order to get at someone who hasn't yet abandoned +Fellay is truly nauseating. Were any of these people to be condemned without corroboration by an accuser with a similar ax to grind, they'd make Abe Foxman look like Patience on a monument smiling at Grief!

Father Chazal's expressed position in this affair is, as I see it, literally the only morally licit one. What is more—I say this for the record—should it turn out (against the odds) that the accuser  is right and the priest at the seminary is as bad as his accuser claims, I shall not have even the slightest regret at having taken the position I take. The end never justifies the means, and the means being taken to condemn the accused stink to high heaven.
________________________________

In closing, at the risk of introducing a bit of reality to this mess, I'd be curious to know the answers to several questions:

(1) Who amongst those who know better than the rector of the seminary what seminarians should be taught had ever heard of Rudolf Bultmann prior to June 10?

(2) Whatever the answer to (1), who has read anything actually written by Bultmann (minimum word count = 250)?

(3) Of those answering (2) affirmatively, who has read anything by Bultmann between the pages of a book; that is, in a medium not as inherently falsifiable as a website?

(4) Of those answering (3) affirmatively, who can provide a title, a publisher, and a summary of what he has read—specifically, a summary demonstrating at least a modicuм of understanding?

(5) Finally, of those answering (4) affirmatively, who can provide a reasoned argument why a priest-in-training should not be taught how to read this famous and articulate opponent of traditional Catholic exegesis in such a manner as to be equipped to refute or contest his claims in the interest of the salvation of souls?
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 27, 2014, 07:52:45 AM
.

Oh, look:   I touched a nerve!   :farmer:


Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: claudel
Quote from: untitled
"As for fr Pagliarani, all that I can gather points to his innocence on the issue of modernism. If Paolo can retract and amend, it would be a good sign for him. The situation is sufficiently bad as it is for us to exagerate, and we must be capable to retract, since it is precisely what we request from others." Fr. Chazal.

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.mx/2014/06/abbe-chazal-nouvelles-dasie-au-20-juin.html


I thank you sincerely for adding these remarks.

What they tell me, loud and clear, is this: Father Chazal regards rash judgment as a sin—a grievous sin. Alas, the usual CI response to someone who thinks and speaks as Father Chazal does is to give him a spanking and send him off to bed without dinner! I, on the other hand, will be glad to sneak this honest priest some cookies and milk when the fanatics aren't looking.

Lack of evidence—or as here, indeed, of reliable information of any sort—ought to act as a brake on mindless speculation and sinful slander and/or detraction. Hereabouts, however, it only ever acts as a spur. Shame on all you pharisees!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The issue in question is … that Bultmann's heretical ideas were being taught to them in a positive light.


There is no hard evidence in support of this claim. Ergo, it is not properly describable as an issue. Most of the commenters on this distasteful thread are using what little grey matter they possess in the service of sinful rash judgment, which for present purposes they have mendaciously renamed Logic.

Lasciami un po' ridere!

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
I think it is telling that the seminarian was given his walking papers the same day.


I think it is far more telling that you are so ready to join others in thinking and speaking ill of a priest on the basis of third-hand hearsay. Perhaps you should read what Father Chazal wrote and think better.



The question here is, claudel, why is this such a hot item of interest to you?  What is your dog in this race?  Are you a family member of the Rector or are you a minion of +Fellay?  


No answer, of course.

Quote
It seems you're totally committed to spreading it on a bit thick that there is no doctrinal weakness going on in the SSPX seminaries.  So, why then are the new priests of a different breed than the priests of the "Old SSPX" as the great Fr. Girouard is wont to say?  

If +F or Fr. Pfluger or Fr. Nely were writing your posts I can hardly imagine them being much different.  

So what's up?  What's the big deal?  


No answer, of course.

Quote
Are you aware, claudel, that all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann for the world to see?   What's so difficult about that?  Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  Perhaps he isn't really all that much convinced of the errors of Bultman, no?  Well, if that's not true, why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?


No answer, of course.

Quote

Do you have a reason for that, or, which is more likely, are you going to reply (if at all) with calumny, ad hominem and cheap shots?



Bull's eye:  calumny, ad hominem and cheap shots, as expected.

Surprise, surprise!   :clown:


Quote


Try sticking to the principles involved

that is, if you're capable.


.


NOT capable.  (IOW, incapable)

.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 27, 2014, 08:06:25 AM
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  

Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be, he's not really all that much convinced of the errors of Bultmann?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

or perhaps, produce a reasoned refutation of some of his errors for all to see,

but instead, will go on mentioning them in his curriculum,

and other heresies and proximate heresies like them,

just as business as usual,

as if this did not happen?



.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: hollingsworth on June 27, 2014, 11:46:00 AM
Claudel:
Quote
The bottom line is that in this matter, I stand with Father Chazal, whereas you stand with Telesphorus and dmarie. Keep that disinfectant handy.


I have no particular interest in this thread.  Liberalism, many of us will agree, has snuck into the neo-sspx.  Granted, whether or not Bultmann's ideas are taught actively or passively at La Reja has yet to be proven.  It's the rather snarly Claudel who interests me.  Claudel, Fr. Chazal, for the moment anyway, seems to pass your "smell test."  How about Fr. Hewko?  You've said nothing about him to my knowledge.  Does he pass your "smell test?"  He's the one who passed the story on initially, wasn't he?  Does Father wind up in your pile of calumnious, forum member rejects?  Just wondering.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 28, 2014, 11:04:08 AM
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: holysoulsacademy on June 28, 2014, 09:50:51 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


What kind of evidence would be sufficient to quell such accusations of calumny towards Fr. Hewko?  A video/audio recording of the lesson?  Any of those can be doctored quite professionally anyways. At the end of it all, it is the integrity of the person bringing testimony that matters.  If Fr. Hewko says it is so, I am inclined to believe him unless, proof otherwise is provided, such as denouncing Bultmann, that would be a good start.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: cathman7 on June 29, 2014, 05:47:10 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 30, 2014, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.



While I agree, burden of proof... should not have run,  NONETHELESS, the response of the Menzingen-denizens is sufficient.  Or, that is, lack of sufficiency thereof.  

EXAMPLE:
If what Fr. Hewko had said had been false?  Then, it would be an utterly simple thing to prove it as such, in one act:  all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is produce a denunciation of Bultmann's errors.  Simple.  Case closed.  And Fr. Hewko would jump at the chance to apologize and publicly eat his own words, I'm sure.  Everything would be settled!!

But he'll never get the chance to eat his words because Fr. Pagliarani isn't going to make any such denouncement of Bultmann.  That's not a criticism of Fr. Pagliarani, but rather a statement of fact, that is, a fact that some are unwilling to face.  

How do I know that's the truth?  

Well, the answer to that should be obvious. Question:  What's so 'obvious' about it?  



Hint:  Ask Bishop Fellay why this is obvious, and watch his response.  He won't have one.  He'll change topics.  


.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 30, 2014, 04:29:07 PM
.

Do you need a bigger hint?  

Regardless of whether Fr. Pagliarani would LIKE to denounce the errors of Bultmann in public -- that is a moot point, for I'm sure he WOULD like to do so (at least for his own sake, I should think he would like to do so).  The reason that he in fact will not do so is not because he's really hard on himself or practicing voluntary penance by not doing so, or that he thinks it's in the best interests of the Faith of Catholics for him to refrain from such condemnation of error as this.  There's another reason that is definitive.



This is an open question.  This is an open forum.  Anyone can answer.  

It's an open invitation  --  open to ALL CATHINFO MEMBERS!!  






.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: cathman7 on June 30, 2014, 05:30:46 PM
Thank you for the correcting my grammar. I am surprised I let that one slip my detection. It is very humbling.

Now that the priest has been accused of praising a modernist he is almost forced to defend his reputation or perhaps he thinks he will not one to engage his accusers. I don't know.

If it is found to be true then fine. But I never heard of accusing someone of such a serious thing before there is any concrete evidence. Your points about Bp. Fellay are irrelevant in this particular case. You have a gift for over-stating your case.

I have known of examples of SSPX clergy compromising with the world and such but I would never accuse a priest of promoting modernism without evidence.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.



While I agree, burden of proof... should not have run,  NONETHELESS, the response of the Menzingen-denizens is sufficient.  Or, that is, lack of sufficiency thereof.  

EXAMPLE:
If what Fr. Hewko had said had been false?  Then, it would be an utterly simple thing to prove it as such, in one act:  all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is produce a denunciation of Bultmann's errors.  Simple.  Case closed.  And Fr. Hewko would jump at the chance to apologize and publicly eat his own words, I'm sure.  Everything would be settled!!

But he'll never get the chance to eat his words because Fr. Pagliarani isn't going to make any such denouncement of Bultmann.  That's not a criticism of Fr. Pagliarani, but rather a statement of fact, that is, a fact that some are unwilling to face.  

How do I know that's the truth?  

Well, the answer to that should be obvious. Question:  What's so 'obvious' about it?  



Hint:  Ask Bishop Fellay why this is obvious, and watch his response.  He won't have one.  He'll change topics.  


.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: cathman7 on June 30, 2014, 05:38:43 PM
Corrections in bold.

Quote from: obscurus
Thank you for the correcting my grammar. I am surprised I let that one slip my detection. It is very humbling.

Now that the priest has been accused of praising a modernist he is almost forced to defend his reputation or perhaps he thinks it is pointless to engage his accusers. I don't know.

If it is found to be true then fine. But I never heard of accusing someone of such a serious thing before there is any concrete evidence. Your points about Bp. Fellay are irrelevant in this particular case. You have a gift for over-stating your case.

I have known of examples of SSPX clergy compromising with the world and such but I would never accuse a priest of promoting modernism without evidence.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.



While I agree, burden of proof... should not have run,  NONETHELESS, the response of the Menzingen-denizens is sufficient.  Or, that is, lack of sufficiency thereof.  

EXAMPLE:
If what Fr. Hewko had said had been false?  Then, it would be an utterly simple thing to prove it as such, in one act:  all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is produce a denunciation of Bultmann's errors.  Simple.  Case closed.  And Fr. Hewko would jump at the chance to apologize and publicly eat his own words, I'm sure.  Everything would be settled!!

But he'll never get the chance to eat his words because Fr. Pagliarani isn't going to make any such denouncement of Bultmann.  That's not a criticism of Fr. Pagliarani, but rather a statement of fact, that is, a fact that some are unwilling to face.  

How do I know that's the truth?  

Well, the answer to that should be obvious. Question:  What's so 'obvious' about it?  



Hint:  Ask Bishop Fellay why this is obvious, and watch his response.  He won't have one.  He'll change topics.  


.
Title: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann?
Post by: cathman7 on June 30, 2014, 06:05:11 PM
Quote from: obscurus
Corrections in bold.

Quote from: obscurus
Thank you for correcting my grammar. I am surprised I let that one slip my detection. It is very humbling.

Now that the priest has been accused of praising a modernist he is almost forced to defend his reputation or perhaps he thinks it is pointless to engage his accusers. I don't know.

If it is found to be true then fine. But I never heard of accusing someone of such a serious thing before there is any concrete evidence. Your points about Bp. Fellay are irrelevant in this particular case. You have a gift for over-stating your case.

I have known of examples of SSPX clergy compromising with the world and such but I would never accuse a priest of promoting modernism without evidence.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.




All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis

opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.

What's so difficult about that?  



Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?  

Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?  

If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?

.
.
.


The OBVIOUS Reason


What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,

that is,

Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?



Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,

as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,

as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,

IOW, just as business as usual,  

according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,

as if this had not happened?



.


The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.



While I agree, burden of proof... should not have run,  NONETHELESS, the response of the Menzingen-denizens is sufficient.  Or, that is, lack of sufficiency thereof.  

EXAMPLE:
If what Fr. Hewko had said had been false?  Then, it would be an utterly simple thing to prove it as such, in one act:  all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is produce a denunciation of Bultmann's errors.  Simple.  Case closed.  And Fr. Hewko would jump at the chance to apologize and publicly eat his own words, I'm sure.  Everything would be settled!!

But he'll never get the chance to eat his words because Fr. Pagliarani isn't going to make any such denouncement of Bultmann.  That's not a criticism of Fr. Pagliarani, but rather a statement of fact, that is, a fact that some are unwilling to face.  

How do I know that's the truth?  

Well, the answer to that should be obvious. Question:  What's so 'obvious' about it?  



Hint:  Ask Bishop Fellay why this is obvious, and watch his response.  He won't have one.  He'll change topics.  


.