Modernist?

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 07:13 AM']The fact that you spent time and money going to college does not preclude you from criticism.  It is irrelevant to the 'discussion' at hand.  Many people with degees in theology are quite firmly entrenched in the modernist camp.  The fact that you have a degree, while fine and dandy, and certainly laudable, does not elevate you to some untouchable height.  Lots of people here have degrees.  Some are modernists, some orthodox, others traditionalists (though this is not necessarily distinct from from orthodox).  Grand.
So?  Consider the source and get over it.  Do you think the explanantion would even be worth reading?  Not likely.  Of course I could be wrong.  It could be immensely entertaining.
[right][snapback]785611[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, it isn't irrlevevent. I consider the fact that I spent a lot of time studying the Church and a lot of time studying it in a very liberal setting, a testament to orthodoxy.

I have never said that I am untouchable nor have I said that I am above criticism. That has been projected upon me by a number of people on this board.

I do know that Modernism can infiltrate Catholic education. I have been fighting it my entire adult life. However, when someone POINT BLANK calls me out, I am going to POINT BLANK pick up the gauntlet. If he (or anyone) who labels me as such refuses to elaborate on the challenge, that is cowardly. Especially so, when I invite the criticism.

[toledo_jesus]

well Cam, I don't think anybody seriously believes you to be a modernist. If they do, they probably misunderstand what modernism is. I'd say give it the attention it deserves. Scoff at the notion and move on.

We need a scoff smiley.

[popestpiusx]

Here we go. Let's settle it once and for all. I will pose a series of 65 questions. If you answer any of them incorrectly you are a modernist. If not, then we can let the matter rest and stop obsessing over the opinion of a random forum identity.

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:52 AM']Here we go.  Let's settle it once and for all.  I will pose a series of  65 questions.  If you answer any of them incorrectly you are a modernist.  If not, then we can let the matter rest and stop obsessing over the opinion of a random forum identity.
[right][snapback]785708[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And who is the judge of correctness? You? I doubt it. And where is the source?

[popestpiusx]

Section 1:
Do you accept any of the following ten propositions:


1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.

5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.

6. The "Church learning" and the "Church teaching" collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the "Church teaching" to sanction the opinions of the "Church learning."

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:52 AM']Here we go.  Let's settle it once and for all.  I will pose a series of  65 questions.  If you answer any of them incorrectly you are a modernist.  If not, then we can let the matter rest and stop obsessing over the opinion of a random forum identity.
[right][snapback]785708[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am not obsessing....I am calling people out. Big difference. Cowardace is rampant. I want it to stop on this board. Especially from the so-called "traditionalists."

They are, for the most part, a cowardly bunch, hiding behind the robes of a dead schismatic archbishop. Yes, let's settle this once and for all.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 11 2005, 11:54 AM']And who is the judge of correctness?  You?  I doubt it.
[right][snapback]785710[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As opposed to you?

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:57 AM']As opposed to you?
[right][snapback]785713[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As opposed to a compitent authority, who is loyal to Rome and unbiased.

[toledo_jesus]

I didn't know we had rubrics for pissing contests in the Church.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 11 2005, 11:56 AM']I am not obsessing....I am calling people out.  Big difference.  Cowardace is rampant.  I want it to stop on this board.  Especially from the so-called "traditionalists."

They are, for the most part, a cowardly bunch, hiding behind the robes of a dead schismatic archbishop.  Yes, let's settle this once and for all.
[right][snapback]785712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Others try to hide behind their diploma. Are you ready to settle this or not?

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:59 AM']Others try to hide behind their diploma.  Are you ready to settle this or not?
[right][snapback]785718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Post your questions......I will answer them when I have time. I do have to work today.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, that was a nice switch up with your reply there.

[Cam42]

whatever do you mean?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 11 2005, 12:00 PM']Post your questions......I will answer them when I have time.  I do have to work today.
[right][snapback]785719[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I already posted the first ten. I'll post the rest in a few minutes, as soon as we get this b.s. verbal sparring match out of the way.

[Cam42]

Why don't I just post:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/lament.htm"]LAMENTABILI SANE[/url]

and get this charade over with.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 11 2005, 12:01 PM']whatever do you mean?
[right][snapback]785721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You know very well what I mean.

My question:

[quote]As opposed to you?[/quote]

Your original reply:

[quote]Correct[/quote]

Replaced by what is, in your opinion, synonymous with the implication of your first reply:

[quote]As opposed to a competent authority, who is loyal to Rome and unbiased.[/quote]

In other words, In judging the answers, Cam is the only competent authority, loyal to Rome and unbiased. Very convenient indeed.

[dspen2005]

i think that you have read Cam42's posts you will see that he is orthodox -- i have been very impressed by his knowledge of the Truths of the Faith..... i think toledo is right -- this has become a pissing match between popestpiusx and cam42...

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 11 2005, 10:55 AM']Section 1:
Do you accept any of the following ten propositions:
1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.

5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.

6. The "Church learning" and the "Church teaching" collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the "Church teaching" to sanction the opinions of the "Church learning."

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.
[right][snapback]785711[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

All condemned and proscribed. As are the next 55 that you will post.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 11 2005, 12:07 PM']Why don't I just post:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/lament.htm"]LAMENTABILI SANE[/url]

and get this charade over with.
[right][snapback]785725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is exactly what I am doing, in sections of ten, so everyone can read it nice and slow.

[popestpiusx]

Next section:

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.

14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.

15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.

16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.

17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word lncarnate.

18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.

19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.

20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.