Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Modernist revisionism and the 'smoke of Satan'

Fr. Dwight Longenecker has an interesting post, entitled "The Smoke of Satan," which has been just published by Catholic Online (February 1, 2011):
There are many problems in the Catholic Church that might be thought to be the 'smoke of Satan' entering the church, but for my money one thing, above all others, has been the successful work of Satan, which has undermined the church, emasculated her ministry, sabotaged the aims of the Holy Spirit and captured a multitude of souls.

It is the modernist re-interpretation of the Catholic faith.

The reductionist results of modern Biblical scholarship and the infiltration of a modernist, rationalistic and materialistic mindset meant that the supernatural was assumed to be impossible, and therefore the Bible stories (and also any supernatural elements of the faith) had to be 'de-mythologized.' Everything supernatural within the Biblical account and within the lives of the saints and within the teaching of the church were assumed to be impossible and had to be 're-interpreted' so they would make sense to modern, scientifically minded people.

So the feeding of the five thousand wasn't a miracle. Instead the 'real miracle' was that everyone shared their lunch. Everything had to be questioned and 're-interpreted' in such a way that it could be accepted and understood by modern people. So when we call Jesus Christ "God Incarnate" what we really mean was that he was so fully human, and that as he reached his potential as a man that he shows us what divinity looks like. When we speak of the Blessed Virgin we mean she was 'a very good and holy Jewish young woman.' When we speak of the 'Real Presence' we mean that we see the 'Christ that is within each one of us."

I hate this crap.

It's the smoke of Satan, and it's virtually triumphant within the mainstream Protestant churches, and sadly, the modern Catholic Church in the USA is riddled through with the same noxious heresy. The reason it is so obnoxious and disgusting is because priests and clergy of all sorts still use all the traditional language of the liturgy, the Scriptures and the creeds, but they have changed the meaning of it altogether. They never actually stand up and say that they have changed the meaning, and that they no longer believe the faith once delivered to the saints. They don't discuss the fact that they have not only changed the meaning, but robbed it of meaning altogether. Instead they still stand up week by week and recite the creed as if they think it is true, but what they mean by 'true' is totally different from what their people mean.

So 'Father Flannel' stands up on Easter Day and says, "Alleluia! Today we rejoice in the glorious resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead." His people think he really believes that Jesus' dead body came back to life by the power of God and that he went on to live forever. In fact what Father Flannel really means is that "in some way the beautiful teachings of Jesus were remembered and continued by his followers long after his tragic death." The people don't know why Father Flannel's Catholic life is so lightweight and limp and they don't know why his style is so lacking in substance, and they go on in their muddled way thinking that he really does believe the Catholic faith when, in fact, he doesn't at all.

Consequently, Fr Flannel doesn't really have much of a message at all. He doesn't believe any of the gospel except as some sort of beautiful story which inspires people to be nicer to each other. All that is left of his priesthood, therefore, is to be a nice guy to entertain people with inspirational thoughts and get everyone to be nicer to one another and try to save the planet.

The poor faithful have swallowed this stuff for two or three generations now, and they don't even know what poison they're swallowing because the lies are all dressed up in the same traditional language the church has always used. It's like someone has put battery acid into a milk bottle and given it to a baby, and never imagined that there was anything wrong with doing so--indeed thought it was the best thing for baby.

The faithful don't know why their church has become like a cross between a Joan Baez concert and a political activism meeting. They don't understand why they never hear the need for confession or repentance or hear about old fashioned terms like 'the precious blood' or ' the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior" The fact of the matter is Father Flannel doesn't really think that sort of thing is 'helpful'.

This is why evangelization of the American Catholics in the pew is probably the most difficult task of all. They don't know what they don't know. For three generations now they have been given watered down milk and been told it was wine. They actually think that Catholic lite is what it's all about, and are astounded to think that there are some of us who think that they have actually been fed a version of Christianity that is scarcely Christianity at all.
[Hat tip to J.M.]

11 comments:

Roger said...

Father Flannel sounds like the “Professional Catholic” the Holy Father speaks of.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

Another thing that is "not helpful" is the concoction of a straw priest like "Father Flannel," to use as a sin eater. There are certainly enough Father Flannels around, but the question that ought to be asked is "where did they all come from?" Whence, this "smoke of Satan"? "Poor [that is to say, unfocused] catechesis" is the stock answer of Catholic "conservatives", but it is no more convincing than the rest of their stock answers. Poor catechesis does not make bad priests. Rather, it makes no priests at all. The problem is not "poor" catechesis, but ERRANT catechesis, stemming from errant theology.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like he has nothing to offer his new church except fundamentalism.

Sheldon said...

Ralph identifies the root of the problem: errant theology. When stock Catholic conservatives identify the problem as little or no catechesis, this isn't exactly false, but the root of the problem is errant theology that undermines belief in the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, and in the physical incarnation of the resurrected Christ in the Eucharist. Nearly all of the changes in the liturgy since the 1960s reflect this erosion -- the casual communion lines to receive the 'wafer' in sweaty palms, the removal of tabernacles, along with communion rails, the replacement of altars by tables over which priests stand surrounded by matrons preparing the celebratory snack, extraordinary ministers doing what priests formerly did alone, etc.

The next step, then, is to identify what brought about this errant theology.

Anonymous said...

Surely there is some tenable ground between the extremes of denial of the supernatural and fundamentalism.

Gerhard said...

We non-Catholics have been on a respirator because of Satan's smoke for so long that many become Catholics to try and get some pure air. Alas! God bless you for speaking the truth.

Anonymous said...

I used to say that the difference between Catholic and Protestant confusion is that the former has, beneath the chaos, at least a sound constitution (tradition of irreformably defined dogma) that is available for those willing to dig. Practically I'm not always so sure. While I do believe that, I concede that those searching for answers are just as apt to run into a great deal more confusion before they get to any clarity in some cases. Particularly since the 1920s or so, things have been getting progressively nutty in middle management.

Sheldon said...

"Surely there is some tenable ground between the extremes of denial of the supernatural and fundamentalism."

Depends how one defines 'fundamentalism'. Protestants see a gadzillion nuanced positions between varieties of 'fundamentalism' and 'evangelicalism'. Catholics see a gadzillion nuanced positions between frilly-dilly leftist nut cases like Joan Chittister and looney-tuney right-wing nut cases like William Richardson. I suppose each is a 'fundamentalist' in his or her own way. Chittister is a fundamentist of feminist dissent and Richardson a fundamentalist of holocaust-denying traditionalism.

Anonymous said...

William Richardson? I think you mean Bp Richard Williamson.Neither he nor Sr Joan have anything to do with fundamentalism, which means taking all the miracles of the Bible literally. What I would query is the claim that "Fr Flannel" is typical of American Catholic priests -- I suspect Fr Dwight is carrying on an old polemic against Protestant liberals of his youth.

Anonymous said...

If 'fundamentalist' has become just another derogatory word for extremist, it isn't a very useful term for rational discussion. Surely it should mean adherence to an objectivelty defined set of fundamentals. Otherwise only the user knows what it means.

Anonymous said...

"Fundamentalist" and "Extremist" are labels intended to arrest discussion, rather than promote it. "Errant" assumes that there is a proper form (which of course there is) and thus is an accurate term -- however much some folks don't want it to be. (See Fr. Zuhlsdorf's goings-on about the new confessional app for some Apple Gizmo or other...)

Ralph: without engaging the absent "conservative" Catholics, could you see an honest way in which "poor" catechesis could be a synonym for "errant" catechesis?

Chris