Thursday, August 21, 2008

Conciliar (post-Vatican II) Popes Embraced Modern Philosophy

Perhaps the most troublesome feature of the Progressivism which the Conciliar Popes have embraced is the fundamental underlying assumption upon which it is constructed. That is to say, Progressivism--from a philosophical perspective--repudiates classical "first principles of being" for example the law of non-contradiction. The later first came under fire with Descartes's "turn to the subject" in which he inverted the traditional metaphysics (I think therefore I am) where being comes before thinking. Later Emanuel Kant totally eviscerated the classical notion of metaphysics as did the modern philosophers who followed him--many of whom Progressivist's admire and upon which their Novelle-Theologie is based.

The so-called perennial philosophy as articulated by the Scholastic's who produced the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis--was rejected at the second Vatican Council in favor of a philosophical construct that was grounded in the modern philosophical currents of Existentialism and Phenomenology--totally devoid of metaphysics in the traditional sense. Therefore, the Conciliar "new-theology" is perfectly comfortable embracing concepts which are contradictory and otherwise mutually exclusive. Dogmas either no longer exist or come to mean whatever enlightened Progressivist theologians contend they mean--at a given time in history. This explains the false Historicism which Cardinal Ottaviani warned against and which Progressivist's employ to de-legitimize traditional Roman Catholic teaching.

It was always difficult for me to understand how Pope John Paul II could be so effusive in his praise of modern philosophy and modernism per se. When one learns that he was intellectually enamored by the teaching of multiple continental idealists including Edmond Husserl (Phenomenology) and his pupil Max Scheler (philosophy of personality and values), Frederick Schleiermacher (religious idealism where sentiment alone is the foundation of religion), and Frederick von Schelling (objective idealism) it all becomes clear. He embraced modern philosophical concepts, rejected classical/traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics and appears to have attempted a synthesis between Traditional Roman Catholicism and Modern Philosophy/Theology--an impossible task as the two are fundamentally irreconcilable given that after Kant and Hegel, metaphysics in any traditional sense no longer exists.

Pope Benedict has followed in Pope John Paul II's footsteps. He has been a proponent of the New Theology since before the Council--based as it is in modern philosophy, and has never repudiated it. This no doubt explains why he has not corrected the likes of Hans Kung or applied any sanctions whatsoever to dissident Theologians. In the Nouvelle Theologie there really is no such thing as heresy, dogma in the traditional sense or apostasy. Rather than discipline for wayward Theologians--Pope John XXIII normalized Dialogue with those who disagree meaning no corrective/punitive action was from then-on to be taken. That approach has prevailed ever since. Tragically, Traditional Catholics should not look to the present Pope for a return to orthodoxy in belief or practice (barring Divine intervention of course) since it would require a total rejection of his life-long investment in the New Theology and the Modern Philosophy upon which it is based. Recall that Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is unimpressed with Scholasticism!

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

No comments:

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.