Thank you for relaying this good and bracing counsel. I found Soloviev's short novel posted at Fr. Dave Nix's web site, https://padreperegrino.org/2021/05/soloviev/. Will add to my reading list.
I have also taken heart from Fr. Hunwicke's frequent posting,
"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote: 'After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything ... especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.'
And this is what Vatican I had defined: 'The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter's successors so that by its revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but, so that, by its assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, i.e. the deposit of Faith'."
Yes. Unfortunately, many Catholics who regard themselves as traditionalists think that the 1950s were some sort of traditional normative period. It really wasn't. They've been sold a sort of classic comics version of the faith, which is what so many reacted against. The problem is that people like Ratzinger tended to throw the baby--real Apostolic Tradition--out with the bathwater. They fixed on the late patristic period, heavily influenced by Platonic thought, as the new norm. Disastrous.
My view is that the Augustinian/Platonic tradition is the dominant tradition of the West, was the basis for the Reformation and modern philosophy that is at the root of liberalism. It is also at the root of the Church's current problems.
It's complicated for them. They were brought up on German philosophy--Kant, Hegel, Heidegger--and to despise Aquinas. Just read Ratzinger's autobio stuff. That's how their theological and philosophical identities were formed and they have a lot invested in that--it's very late in the day to rethink their whole intellectual makeup and admit they screwed up and were wrong. Plus, they were friends with people who kept going farther and farther out into left field, while they dragged their feet a bit. Finally, there's a lot of political stuff involved. It's most virulent in Europe, perhaps, but even in the US there's the fear of changing theological and philosophical positions because it could lead to changing politics, too. Again, so many of these guys like Ratzinger were ardent socialists in their youths. It's very tough for them, even when they mean well.
Do they understand Aquinas, or any of the Scholastics? Heidigger is pure Humpty Dumpty (Through the Looking Glass). Who is the master? Whatever man decides is fine. What you are, you are. Hitler was fine, for that matter.
Thank you. The confusion was driving me nuts!
Thank you for relaying this good and bracing counsel. I found Soloviev's short novel posted at Fr. Dave Nix's web site, https://padreperegrino.org/2021/05/soloviev/. Will add to my reading list.
I have also taken heart from Fr. Hunwicke's frequent posting,
"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote: 'After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything ... especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.'
And this is what Vatican I had defined: 'The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter's successors so that by its revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but, so that, by its assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, i.e. the deposit of Faith'."
https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/01/pope-or-tradition.html
Yes. Unfortunately, many Catholics who regard themselves as traditionalists think that the 1950s were some sort of traditional normative period. It really wasn't. They've been sold a sort of classic comics version of the faith, which is what so many reacted against. The problem is that people like Ratzinger tended to throw the baby--real Apostolic Tradition--out with the bathwater. They fixed on the late patristic period, heavily influenced by Platonic thought, as the new norm. Disastrous.
My view is that the Augustinian/Platonic tradition is the dominant tradition of the West, was the basis for the Reformation and modern philosophy that is at the root of liberalism. It is also at the root of the Church's current problems.
Can I repost your great post at The Catholic Monitor:
sure. i've recommended stuff from catholic monitor in the past.
It's complicated for them. They were brought up on German philosophy--Kant, Hegel, Heidegger--and to despise Aquinas. Just read Ratzinger's autobio stuff. That's how their theological and philosophical identities were formed and they have a lot invested in that--it's very late in the day to rethink their whole intellectual makeup and admit they screwed up and were wrong. Plus, they were friends with people who kept going farther and farther out into left field, while they dragged their feet a bit. Finally, there's a lot of political stuff involved. It's most virulent in Europe, perhaps, but even in the US there's the fear of changing theological and philosophical positions because it could lead to changing politics, too. Again, so many of these guys like Ratzinger were ardent socialists in their youths. It's very tough for them, even when they mean well.
Do they understand Aquinas, or any of the Scholastics? Heidigger is pure Humpty Dumpty (Through the Looking Glass). Who is the master? Whatever man decides is fine. What you are, you are. Hitler was fine, for that matter.