All that is modern is not modernism. Reflections on modernism: modernists and traditionalists

ALL THAT IS NOT MODERN MODERNISM. REFLECTIONS ON traditionalism: Modernists and traditionalists

.

The most urgent and important dialogue that today we need to promote is not the dialogue with Protestants, with the Orthodox, with Jews, with Muslims or with non-believers, and all useful things to do; what is urgent is the intra-ecclesial dialogue, the dialogue between Catholics, because there are in us and among us of the doctrinal and moral divisions very serious and intolerable.

.

.

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli, OP

.

PDF format Print article

.

The Fathers de The island of Patmos They remained bitter about the case of the priest Palermo Alessandro Minutella [see WHO], so they decided to dedicate two different writings: John Cavalcoli, an indirect reflection but to him valuable due to the fact that all that is modern is not modernism; Ariel S. Levi Gualdo, more directly, also he considered it in the consciousness of having to recall the duties of his priestly vows.

.

.

Video image Minutella
by poor theology and spiritual formation for the priesthood, It can rise to the idea totally wrong that what is modern is in itself Modernist. the priest Alessandro Palermo Minutella has unfortunately given test. To open the video click on the image

The most urgent dialogue and important that today we need to promote is not the dialogue with Protestants, with the Orthodox, with Jews, with Muslims or with non-believers, and all useful things to do; what is urgent is the intra-ecclesial dialogue, the dialogue between Catholics, because there are in us and among us of the doctrinal and moral divisions very serious and intolerable.

.

It no longer knows what it means to be Catholic, because everyone puts this title what he pleases, and then the strangest ideas, extraneous and contradictory. You go to the supermarket of religions, you choose what you prefer, It passes by the bishop to the cashier to pay, and then home, with purchased products, it organizes the menu of the week and invite friends.

.

It is therefore urgent that we all gather around the Pope, Teacher of the Faith and supreme guardian and promoter in the ground unit, reconciliation and peace in the Church, all attentive and faithful to the fundamental lines of his pastoral service, without bothering to argue for some of its contingent choices, occasionally they are and remain questionable with filial freedom of thought, but giving up at the same time every foolish adulation and criticism malevolent.

.

.

To read the entire article click below:

02.04.2017 John Cavalcoli, OP - EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT MODERN MODERNISM. REFLECTIONS ON traditionalism: Modernists and traditionalists

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Avatar

About isoladipatmos

6 thoughts on "All that is modern is not modernism. Reflections on modernism: modernists and traditionalists

  1. Rev.do father,
    thank you very much for these lines really “lighting”!
    Reading them I realized that's what I need in these dramatic times confusion in the Church to make a “true” discernment of spirits, between the Truth and the Lie, as he wanted originally S. Ignazio (and not as some of his false disciples today!)!

    Let me ask you again – as already suggested earlier - for careful examination of the "philosophical foundations" underlying the "four postulates" present in Evangelii Gaudium, because it seems to me that, depth in the light of specific analyzes such as those of Dom Meiattini and p. John Scalese, most are resting on a historicist thought and immanentist mold "Hegelian" rather than on proper Thomistic approach ... and this would be enough to understand the reasons for so much confusion today in the same church, because adopting Hegel as the premise of thinking is inevitable that forming two "sides" of "right" and "left" (if we may say!) as history has shown us in other areas ... in which case reconciliation that she hopes (and to which I add my!) between "opposites" would be very…

  2. Rev.do father,

    thank you very much for this very enlightening lines !
    Reading them I realized that's what I need in these dramatic times confusion in the Church to make a "real" discernment of spirits, between the Truth and the Lie, as he wanted originally S. Ignazio (and not as some of his false disciples today!)!

    I would like to ask - as suggested earlier - for careful examination of the "philosophical foundations" underlying the "four postulates" present in The gospel of joy, because it seems to me that, depth analysis in the light of those inquiries as Dom Meiattini and Father John Scalese, most are resting on a historicist thought and immanentist mold "Hegelian" rather than on proper Thomistic approach ... and this would be enough to understand the reasons for so much confusion today in the same church, because adopting Hegel as the premise of thinking is inevitable that forming two "sides" of "right" and "left" (if we may say!) as history has shown us in other areas ... in which case reconciliation that she hopes (and to which I add my!) between "opposites" would be very difficult unfortunately…

    Thank you very much for your important work and remembrance in prayer!

    Matteo

    1. Matthew Dear,

      the Pope should correct not only the first, but also the second (eg. Bianchi, Melloni, Kasper, Ravasi, Soda, Straw, Strong, Galantino, etc.), showing to both parties as a tradition and progress, fidelity and renewal, dogma and history, Second Vatican Council and the Council of Trent, Mass the old order and Mass new world order not opposed nor mutually exclusive, but on the contrary they are mutually complementary.

      Only dogma and heresy, hate and love, grace and sin, Christ with Belial do not get along with each other.

      the conviction that the philosophical foundations of The gospel of joy “most are resting on a historicist thought and immanentist of 'Hegelian’ rather than on proper Thomistic approach” It has no foundation, beyond certain the Pope's expressions that can give rise to misunderstandings.

      I too have carefully examined the encyclical and, as a philosopher and theologian scholar of Hegel is that of St. Thomas by 50 year old, I can guarantee that the Pope, although it uses a modern language does not Thomist, It can not be suspected of Hegelianism, which it is a form of historicist idealism and pantheistic repeatedly condemned by the Church since the XIX century, a philosophy, that, beyond certain positive aspects, imcompatibile is with the Catholic faith. Whereby, accuse the Pope of being Hegel is like him heretic, which is not permissible.

      The thing that I noticed rather encyclical is a realistic profession, where the Pope supports the primacy of reality on the ideal.

      Even the controversy against the Pope “gnosticismo” – something completely new and that appropriate nl Papal Magisterium – It is certainly a polemic against Hegel, Maritain that already characterized as a Gnostic in his moral philosophy.

      And right on Papa Francesco realism I published the magazine PATH, the Pontifical Academy of Theology, to which belong, my study on: “The dependence of the idea from reality in Evangelii Gaudium” Pope Francis, 2, 2014, pp.287-316.

      A theologian infected hegelismo, as is known, It is quite the Rahner. What therefore by Catholic theologians time expected by the Holy See is the condemnation of errors rahneriani, that constitute modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II, which he has caused so much damage and injurious to Catholic culture and consequently to good morals, without disregard the merits of the work Rahner.

      If anything, the fact that you can make to the Pope is a certain lack of fairness and impartiality in judging the tough and scandalous dispute between Lefebvre and modernists: too severe with the first, too lenient with the second. And’ a mercy one-way.

      1. Father Rev.do,

        thank you very much for your response that helps me a lot to make things clear! By a “simple faithful” like me who has only minimal cultural basics to understand the bare essentials I assure you that this climate of confusion between priests, theology, scholars in which everyone “says his” It is really tremendous…in my small way I continue to only obey the voice of the Magisterium and to trust in prayer to the Father because I always guard from error, on the other hand, however, he is talking to many priests and other faithful friends for us “sheep” the scandal that is gone because of the multiple interpretations of the same texts (by writing to the documents of the Magisterium since the Council of Trent to today!) It is enormous!

        Also because while many of you (as she, p. Scalese or p. Livi) despite the differences, however, you are motivated by the search for the Truth, many of the names that she has made are motivated by pride and the pursuit of power and prestige…but they have a lot more media coverage!

        Anyway thank you again for your attention and, trusting in his remembrance before the Lord, I assure you of my prayers.

  3. I follow more frequently your site with interest. Congratulations to all.
    The argument I have just one question about the juxtaposition between Lefebvre and modernists. I wonder if there is a logic and a measure to assert that the former are so far away from Christ and the Church than are the second. If the former have a concept of tradition to be reviewed,The latter seems to me that not only commit the same mistake of the first in several ways,but also deny basic truths of faith. I am wrong, but I keep seeing more irregularities in those who deny the divinity of Mary than Lefebvre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters remaining

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.