Author Topic: Riverrun on Modernism according to the Magisterium  (Read 370 times)

Offline Kephapaulos

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1091
  • Thanked: 642 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Riverrun on Modernism according to the Magisterium
« on: November 30, 2021, 03:46:53 AM »

I have some misgivings about this because can not someone be considered a modernist in a sense if he holds to any of the criteria that constitutes modernism? Even if not all of the criteria laid out by St. Pius X?

Riverrun makes a distinction between phenomenology that is aggressively atheistic and phenomenology that is indifferent, i.e. of John Paul II. Can we make any proper use of phenomenology though? Or any modern philosophy at all?
 

Offline Kephapaulos

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1091
  • Thanked: 642 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Riverrun on Modernism according to the Magisterium
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2022, 10:29:46 PM »
Did anyone get to see this video?

It appears to be splitting hairs where it is meant that a modernist has to meet every single aspect as described by St. Pius X in Pascendi, but it is also mentioned that according to Fr. Ripperger, the term "modernist" can be used loosely to refer to those who have been in positions to change things in the Church for the worse in regard to doctrine and practice since the time of St. Pius X and Vatican II.
 
The following users thanked this post: Elizabeth.2

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
  • Thanked: 4701 times
Re: Riverrun on Modernism according to the Magisterium
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2022, 05:00:09 PM »
Did anyone get to see this video?

At first I didn't want to sit through an hour-long video, even though the question you posed is something of great interest to me. I found, however, that the video was quite good, and I watched the whole thing.

Even though I don't agree with the person on a number of issues, I found that he was quite intelligent and capable of presenting ideas clearly. He offers straightforward definitions and valid distinctions.

Riverrun makes a distinction between phenomenology that is aggressively atheistic and phenomenology that is indifferent, i.e. of John Paul II. Can we make any proper use of phenomenology though? Or any modern philosophy at all?

I found the video a bit frustrating because I was hoping that he was going to address this issue directly, but instead it was handled indirectly. Clearly he is a fan of JPII, but he never got to the point of defining his form of phenomenology.

My own answer to your question is "No. There is no good use for phenomenology or other modern philosophies." None of them can or do contribute anything to one's faith. On the contrary, they are terribly destructive.

The "personalism" of JPII, although it may appear to be less incompatible with the Catholic Faith, is in fact a "weapon of mass destruction" which has annihilated Catholic teaching on marriage and family and sexuality.

One time many years ago I met Fr. Rutler when he was giving a talk. After the talk I asked him, "Fr. Rutler, I watched your EWTN TV show about how phenomenology is such a destructive philosophy. JPII is a phenomenologist. Does that mean he is bad?"

This was a real question and not a rhetorical question. It was a new and frightening idea for myself at the time while I was still a neo-Catholic.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson