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:

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"...

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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!

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!

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.

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?