The following comes from an April 16 posting on the Diocese of San Jose website.
As young adults, we have questions about the faith. Things we just don’t understand. And some of these things keep us away from church. That’s normal. To truly understand our faith and make an educated decision about what we believe, we need to deconstruct it. Take it apart. Then put it back together in a way that makes sense.
Join as we deconstruct the faith. No pressure. No judgment. Just good dialogue about big faith issues, while we partake in good food and good drink.
Visit the Diocese of San Jose Young Adult Ministry on Facebook for more information our our events.
DTF – Central
April 16 @ 8:00pm
Topic: ChristiUnity: Which Denomination Did Jesus Die For?
Facilitator: TBA
Location: Vu/Ripa Residence (check our FB page for the address)
DTF – West
Teaming up with Queen of Apostles Young Adult Ministry, we are launching Deconstructing the Faith – West!
April 18 @ 7:30pm
Topic: If Women Can Nurture Their Families, Could Women Priests Nurture the Church?
Facilitator: TBA
Location: Tony Roma’s Restaurant – 4233 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose
RSVP on Facebook
To see original posting on diocese website, click here.
How about we just deconstruct liberalism and instead of putting it back together we stomp on it until its a fine paste and then throw in the closest sewer….
Wow, what a very Christian Catholic response, Canisius!
Canisius is never mealy-mouthed Ruthann…but he is Catholic. I personally would love to see every liberal converted, that their eyes be opened to the the real truth and beauty of Christ’s teachings and that they would all deeply regret their sick and depraved understanding of what they ‘thought’ Jesus taught, and would spend the rest of their lives in repentence, good works and deep contemplation…witnesses to the glory of redemption and salvation. How I would have loved to have heard Ted Kennedy, Gov. Cuomo, Kathleen Sibelius or Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden et al, say publicly, “I deeply regret all those I’ve led astray. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me for causing the deaths of untold thousands of innocent babies, the breakup of black families from interfering welfare regulations, and for the shame I brought to my beloved Church and countless other liberal heresies. God have mercy on my soul.”
Liberalism is an outgrowth of modernism…
I was reading the mission statement of this web site and am appalled at the name-calling and disrespect in some of the posts here. Perhaps, before posting you should read and reflect on this beautiful mission statement and show some ‘unconditional respect’ towards those with whom we do not agree – or those who we think believe the way we do: “The Christian communicator in particular has a prophetic task, a vocation: to speak out against the false gods and idols of the day — materialism, hedonism, consumerism, narrow nationalism, and the rest — holding up for all to see a body of moral truth based on human dignity and rights, the preferential option for the poor, the universal destination of goods, love of enemies, and unconditional respect for all human life from conception to natural death; and seeking the more perfect realization of the Kingdom in this world while remaining aware that, at the end of time, Jesus will restore all things and return them to the Father.”
Ruthann, Canisius was abused by his mother’s lesbian lover when he was younger and his father committed suicide. Please take that into consideration when you castigate him and give him time.
What seems so odd about this discussion is that Canisius’ suggestion comes maybe 60 years after the post-moderns themselves deconstructed liberalism. Since you still apparently don’t believe that modernism (whether as defined by Merriam-Webster or Pius X) is NOT the same thing as post-modernism, why not have a look at “The Deconstruction of The Liberal mind” in the Daily Kos blog. Hardly a place you’d find traditionalist thinking, yet the entry leads (and very correctly, I would add) with: “The main weakness of the mind of a Liberal is its inability to deal effectively with inconsistencies, absurdities, chaos, irrationality, and evil (immorality),…”
Did anybody notice the picture in Catholic San Francisco, showing Patti Smith and Pope Francis? She’s not what you’d call a traditionalist nor even Catholic, but somehow she’s willing to go to great lengths to meet Francis.
I understand that traditionalists are nowhere near likely to embrace post-modern values, but it would help to at least comprehend that the difference between the modern and the post-modern worlds is real. There are a lot of post-modern atheists, to be sure. There are also a lot of people who are very serious about their faith, look nothing like traditional, and aren’t anti-traditional either. Understanding this difference would make some sense of why the people who put DTF together, the current pope and pope emeritus don’t really fit the liberal-conservative or reform-traditionalist dichotomy.
Francis, you’re getting to micro-analytical, minutia. Canisius is simply concerned with the important stuff. Why should the faithful delve into the articulations of faithless academics and religion twisters? It’s a waste of time and leads to nothing but sin.
Francis, so Patti Smith meets the Pope, big deal, if she does not convert to the Faith the meeting is irrelevant. She will still be singing terrible music and droning on about Leftist causes, none of which is benefit to the Faith
Is the San Jose Diocese Catholic?
Go with Canisius on this one.
“…we can say what God is not, we can speak of His attributes, but we cannot say what He is. That apophatic dimension, which reveals how I speak about God, is critical to our theology… I would classify as arrogant those theologies that do not only attempted to define with certainty and exactness God’s attributes, but also had the pretense of saying who He was.” — Pope Francis, speaking “On Atheists” in “On Heaven and Earth.”
WOW! Did you know that as Cardinal Archbishop, Holy Father Francis talked to people, looking them in the eye and speaking to their hearts and minds? I saw it on a station break on EWTN with English translation. As the forces of the enemy of Souls begin to realize who he is, you can expect them to attack him too, with subtle, nuanced arguments. But they know they have little time.
“Deconstructing the Faith?”
Sounds like “tearing down the Church.”
Yikes.
How about “understanding the Faith?” or “sharing the Faith?”
Deconstructing the faith does not mean destruction of the faith. Deconstruction is an exploration of how the faith is constructed – it is to look at the constitutional elements of the faith.
If I were to deconstruct the Catechism, for instance, then one would look at the variety of underlying sources, meanings, and values. I would look at the variety of ways people have interpreted the texts and how they have been used in a variety of cultures. If I were to deconstruct the Creation Accounts in Genesis, I might look at the use of Genders, the similarities and differences between the two accounts, and the manner in which it has been read by various groups of the millenia.
In effect, deconstructing the faith is simply one of many methods by which one might seek to understand the faith.
Faith is like a mustard seed, according to Jesus. But many people see faith as a set of rules or customs. Rules and customs are aspects of law, but faith is not. To find out more about faith and law, read what Jesus says. If you’re going to discuss “faith”, then find out the various ways the word is seen by people. Otherwise, you sound like you just fell off the back of a turnip truck.
If they have questions about the Catholic faith, they can find all the answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Curch, Second edition. I have also found answers about God and the Church by praying to the Holy Spirit. One also finds answers by associating with other prayerful Catholics in the Legion of Mary and similar organizations. I didn’t have to “deconstruct the faith.” It sounds to me as if the Diocese of San Jose is encouraging people to dissent from orthodoxy or to give themselves permission to not obey the Ten Commandments and Church laws that they find onerous or outdated.
Just how much more naked does the rank heresy and dissent in San Jose have to become before the “Lion” of San Francisco or Papal Nuncio get off their duffs and slap down that rank little diocese?
Keep waiting, its never going to happen Fr. Michael.
Yes, nothing will inspire the youth to come to the Catholic Church more than watering down her teachings and advocating women “priests”. But then again, what can be expected from a diocese headed by Bishop Patrick McGrath, he who denied the historical accuracy of the Gospels?
The posting indicates that the issue of women priest is a debatable issue. There will never never never be women priests in the Catholic Church. So why even bring up the issue ? This group would be better off spending their time before the Blessed Sacrament.
Typical Modernist pablum!
“Typical Modernist pablum!”
“Deconstruction” is a post-modern term. There’s nothing “modernist” about it.
That’s “WHY” he said it was modernism…post-modern… means modernism
No, post-modernism is not modernism any more than “classic rock,” for example, is classical music. That’s why it is called “post” modernism. From Merriam-Webster:
1: of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one -postmodern times- -a postmodern metropolis-
2 a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)
b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language such as -postmodern feminism-
Note that in definition 2b it is a radical reappraisal of MODERN assumptions. This doesn’t necessarily lead back to pure traditionalism, but at it demonstrates that the “modern” perspective is not the final culmination of all perceptive systems. If you read Pope Francis’s writing, and even more so if you read Benedict XVI’s more academic writing, they exemplify faith with a post-modern perspective.
Merriam Webster is irrelevant. The Church’s definition is different! “Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies”…as stated by Pope Pius the X!…in fact for years, seminarians prior to ordination had to take an oath of being “anti-modernist”…modernism has been a blight within the Church prior to Vatican II…stemming all the way back to one of it’s founders a british Jesuit by the name of George Tyrell
Proud Rhodesian excellent comments….so hopefully those who now read that when we speak of modernism we are referring to how the church views it…..
Modernism is the summation of all heresies, as I recall reading by one of the XXth century popes.
“Deconstruction” is a tweek-speek term, used by sophists to confuse and conquer. These are the “loophole” people, who spend their lives conjuring up ways to avoid truth and salvation.
“To truly understand our faith and make an educated decision about what we believe, we need to deconstruct it. Take it apart.” Take it apart? Just what does that mean? Say it “isn’t so?” ” Then put it back together in a way that makes sense.” Makes sense to whom? Are we now going to trash the faith, lift our finger to test the cultural winds, and decide what “makes sense?” Looks like the Dictatorship of Relativism is alive and well in San Jose.
I know “deconstruction” sounds bad. But it’s not a term in common parlance. But I think Christ himself told us to do something similar when he said, “Do this, to re-member me.” Inotherwrods, to rejoin the members to the body (of Christ). The sacrament of unity is essentially the sacrament of putting back together a Church that has been dismembered or, in other words, deconstructed.
“Sacrament of unity”? Care to explain this one, YFC?
Communion, Skai.
Gosharooty, YFC, you finally said something right; however, you did not explain. You merely re-labled it. Care to explain?
YFC:
It would seem that the difficulty with engaging deconstruction is that it requires an even deeper faith than a mere promise to believe dogma. It requires an abiding conviction that God really is present through the hardest trial, the most painful betrayal and the darkest night, no matter what is being questioned.
“Deconstruct” is a word in common parlance, and its meaning is, except to YFC, quite clear. It is to take down an artifice, the existing structure of faith that exists in the believer, a faith that doesn’t really “make sense.” Then there is a new building, a reconstruction, of the foundation of faith, one that “makes sense.” On the deconstruction: How does the faith not “make sense”? A benign interpretation would be that the individual has lukewarm assent to truths but no personal investment in them. Nothing “makes sense” because the pull of the politically and sexually correct ideologies trumps any claim the Church might have on the individual’s heart and soul. To deconstruct this shallowness would require the individual to be confronted with the higher claim Christ has on the individual than anything else: Christ’s love for sinful humanity, the cross, his death, resurrection, to the point that there is a strong desire to confess one’s sin, delve deeply into the soul of the Church, into Christ himself, through the means of grace provided by God through the Church. Implied in all this is a conscious rejection on the part of the individual of the culture of death in all its forms. A not so benign interpretation would be that the Church’s teachings keep us away from the sacraments because they have not kept up with the times, are irrelevant to the needs of the sexually liberated, and in general run counter to the prevailing cultural winds (and which thereby ought to be set aside) and to “make sense” of things is to find ways for christian faith to make peace with the new orthodoxy. Thus one has to jettison one’s outdated beliefs at the door (the deconstruction) and come in for “good food and drink” and “good dialogue about big faith issues” that excludes judgment (the reconstruction). Things “make sense” when the new orthodoxy replaces Christian orthodoxy, which is precisely where many young adults are already. In this interpretation, youth doubts about the Church are validated, but since they are validated by the Church they no longer believe in, there is a new sense of attachment to the Church, and presumably, they will stick around for a while.
Dan, thank you for this comment!
No women can not be ordained a priest. Women are not called to do everything a man does. Celebrate being a women by being a women and stop dreaming of be in a mans shoes. The Virgin Mary was NOT a priest. Mary Magdalene was NOT a priest. Did they have a place in the Church? Yes they did. Find your place in the church. There are many places for women. If Jesus wanted women as priests, Jesus who is the second person in God, would have chosen them to do so. Your job in the church as a women is important. So stop putting you your eyes where they don’t belong. Remember when Peter took his eyes off the Lord, he started to go down in the water.
Women do much more to nurture the Church than men do. They do that while nurturing their families, including the previous generation(s), their siblings and their families, their children and their friends, their husbands or significant others, themselves, their friends, and often their co-workers as well, not to mention tending to the needs of society in their charity work, writing, and political contributions. Change the structure of the Church by allowing women priests, and the result will he more chaotic than that which we are presenting seeing in the homes of women who are expected to do all their grandmothers did and also go out and earn a living.
Exactly, Mary Ann Leonard. I would leave out the “signifcant Others”, though, if it means living with someone outside of marriage because that is just two people abusing one another, and usually it is the women getting the abuse — not always but mostly. A women needs to respect herself enough to demand that wedding band before she gets too intimate and gets her heart broken and no father for her children.
I meant significant others to include loved ones that a woman has not yet married. I realize that that can include people who choose to cohabit, with or without my approval or permission.
The term, “significant others,” does not imply a necessarily sinful state of affairs, so to speak. While I decry the practice of women allowing men to use them sexually outside of marriage, my comment had only to do with trying to list the major benefactors of women’s nurturing.
I happen to feel that when women and men cohabit, it is usually because the man does not want to marry her, and usually the woman spends most of her time trying to win the man over to herself. As she is essentially applying for a job in the constant presence of the interviewer, waking or sleeping, she is coming from a position therefore of great anxiety, and is not in the mode in which true nurturing is taking place of her significant other.
A woman in a more honorable relationship with a man is in a much more dignified position and is thus very likely to feel much more able to nurture such a man, especially if he is a good man, she respects and values him, and she sincerely wishes to help him manage the sometimes overwhelming feelings men can wrestle with regarding themselves. Just by treating him respectfully, she is in fact nurturing him to a great extent.
This kind of respectful relationship can lead to marriage and the creation of families, which we all celebrate, of course, including the Church.
Thank you for the clarification of your post, Maryanne.
Finally, some advantage to the fact that mass, popular media are evangelizing the culture while the Diocesan Dinosaurs are relevancing themselves to extinction–no one is listening to them in the first place! That much more likely that sincere seekers can evade the wolves in sheep’s clothing and find the truth tellers.
Maybe the young adults from San Jose should pray the Creed of the Apostles daily. It tells us what we believe. This creed is one of only three prayers every Catholic must know.
Only three prayers every Catholic must know? Wow things have changed.
The answer to your question Mr. Feeney is a simple no.! One day the Church will find it’s Catholicism once again, and that will start when The Traditional Latin Mass is returned to its proper place in all of our churches.
“Thank You Janek” finally someone comments the truth. God Bless you and yours.
Thank you – I have been saying that for years but major changes are need in personal and i do not see this happening any time in our lifetime –
Ecclesiastically, I am SOOOO glad to be in another (Arch)diocese. DTF (at least in 2012) functioned as a big “Question Authority!” bumper sticker under one father. However it did work as a forum for asking questions, fostering discussion, and hearing guidance from scripture under a DIFFERENT leader. No need to give names.
And this sort of endeavor worked out so well for the Protestant faiths… didn’t it? Yeaaaaah, right!
How soon will Bishop McGrath turn 75?
Does the bishop of San Jose not have any say on what goes on its website? What goes on in the diocese?
You could set up an event like this to ambush the liars, and expose their lies, or you could be part of the problem. I hope it’s an ambush, but I doubt it is.
Usually the Bishop is far away in his comfortable high end neighborhood enjoying fine wines in the evenings. Imagine if he could go to such events and teach catechism?
bwangi I agree with you with exposing their lies and such but I think that some may compare that to a Jerry Springer episode. It’s such a pity that we have come to this.
I enjoyed studying the times of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine….especially when they would confront with love and truth, those even from the faith who were heretical…they surly had a heavy and hard task. I don’t think they had political correctness but I’m sure they had their own errors that could cause people to back down and shut down. I admire these great saints and their wisdom. Christianity was still young. Today we should now better but we keep repeating history and how it offended God.
God have mercy on us all.
Why would someone want to drink wine when they could be drinking beer?
Skai red wine is good for you….
In general, if you don’t understand why women can’t be priest you simply do not understand the Mass. Think in terms of Bride and Bridegroom…..you can’t be both as Christ was not both. Instead of deconstruction you may want to consider studying the Faith as it is today and from whence it came – try the early Fathers for clarification.
Buen Camino – Cotton
You get that it isn’t a literal bride and a literal bridegroom, right? It’s an analogy. You get that, right?
“Literal”?!? YFC, is your scheme of interpretation dependent on “literal” and “analogous” constructs? Is that what all this fulminating over “faith” is about? You certainly do not need any commentary by Jesus on “faith”, what with your analogy and literal and whatever else you’ve got up your sleeve to make religion into a kind of play dough time.
Skai, Not-YFC is a self identified homosexual living in a homosexual relationship. His entire presence on this website is to justify his choices and lead others into error. He is not Catholic and should be ignored.
It’s A Catechism Class for Young Adults!!!!!
‘How soon will Bishop McGrath turn 75’
2020, he was born June 11, 1945.
Perhaps we could deconstruct the San Jose Diocese and return it to its mother archdiocese, San Francisco?
I am for bringing our traditional, Orthodox Church back to frution and stop all of this nonsense sense Vatican11. We need our Tabernacle back on the altar and the Corpus back on the Crucifix as well as the statue of the Blessed Mother next to the altar and Saint Joseph with the baby Jesus on the other side of the altar.
These nuns are dreamers! It will never happen, and if it did they would destroy our Catholic Faith.
Vatican II is binding on the faithful. It’s not optional “nonsense” as you purport Sharon.
Vatican II was a pastoral council, its not a dogmatic council. Its got no effect on chuch believes. We do not have to do a single thing it said.
You do not beleive me? Go to an Institute of Christ the King Parish, totally pre-Vatican II, and the Holy See and their local Ordinary loooves em!!
Do you belong to SSPX or to the Roman Catholic Church? To say that none of Vatican II is binding is to write heresy.
Newsflash YFC the SSPX is very much in the Church,, and Vatican 2 was considered a Pastoral not a Dogmatic Council, sorry you lose….
All priests in the SSPX are suspended. They do not have ecclesiastical approval. They have rejected union with the Catholic Church.
Wrong Anon, wrong….excommunications were lifted….
The bishop’s excommunications were lifted per their request after the death of Bishop Lefebvre. All priests and bishops of the SSPX are still suspended. They can not licitly perform the sacraments.
No it’s not – Frankly, I do not think any one, religious or layman, has figured it out yet –
“Deconstruction” is a tweek-speek term, used by sophists to confuse and conquer. These are the “loophole” people, who spend their lives conjuring up ways to avoid truth and salvation.”
Excellent and insightful post Skai!! Thank you for accurately deconstructing that slick sounding package of baloney.
These nuns are more like nightmare producers than dreamers.
And none of that, Sharon, has anything to do with our FAITH! It has to do with tradition (not capital T tradition). Our faith is manifested in our belief in the saving grace of Christ and in our personal relationship with God. Although, we are saved by the crucifiction of our Lord. That is when he justifies us and freed us from our sins. If we would just all read and study the Nicene Creed, we would know our faith. The Chatechism for the most part is a deconstruction of the Creed. The Creed is what we believe, the rest of the things you list are not our faith.
Priestesses sacrifice what? A. unborn babies, B. virtue, C. sexual morality, D. all of the above?
Of all the parishes in the West Valley, Queen of Apostles is the least “Catholic” of them all. I am obliged to attend funeral masses there when someone passes away, or I would never set foot in this church. I once lived in that parish but attended mass at a nearby parish. I am not surprised that this goofball initiative originated at QofA.
I wonder how many of their parishioners even understand the concept of “deconstructionism” and what a disaster for our Western culture it has proven to be?
Question: “Deconstructionism – is it a valid way to interpret the Bible?”
Answer: Deconstructionism is a basically a theory of textual criticism or interpretation that denies there is any single correct meaning or interpretation of a passage or text. At the heart of the deconstructionist theory of interpretation are two primary ideas. First is the idea that no passage or text can possibly convey a single reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. The second is that the author who wrote the text is less responsible for the piece’s content than are the impersonal forces of culture such as language and their unconscious ideology. Therefore, the very basic tenets of deconstructionism are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 65:16; John 1:17-18; John 14:6; John 15:26-27; Galatians 2:5).
Sounds like deconstructionism is kin to relativism = there is no right or wrong.
Do we have a public statement about this from Bishop Patrick J. McGrath who heads up the San Jose Diocese?
Has anyone sent him this article?
So, when a Bible verse might say, “Give money to bishops”, it does not necessarily mean to give money to bishops? I see no problem with this theory at all.
Anton:
It is a great relief to read that you, at least, understand deconstruction, rather than jumping to hyperbole.
The Bible is meant to be interpreted by the way you live and act. As we move towards the Feast of Pentacost, we should become aware that it is the Holy Spirit who makes us all live in the Word of God. Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit is one or another interpretation has got some homework time to fulfill.
In addition to the usual thou-shalt remarks that one expects from a number of regulars on this site, I think that many of the comments are some of the most insightful I have read in some time. Deconstruction should not be taken as a negative in this sense. Programs like this are directed at youth, who learn differently than we did and expect more from their teachers than we did. But, and this is important, it is not tearing apart our faith, but building on it. It ask the important question: Why. It asks not only what you believe, but why. It also, I presume, tries to seperate religion from faith. One writer had a great idea, for example, that we all read the Creed on a regular basis. Well, that is a very good place to start. We “say” the Creed every time we attend Mass. But, do we believe it and why. Those are profound questions. “I believe in God!” Why? Where can I learn why? Where do I find that in the Bible? What did the great Church Fathers say about that? If you are a Paulist, read the Gospels to get another or same view point. Do the Acts and Revelation help answer the question? If you beleive that we should return to the old traditional Latin Mass, why? How does that make you a better believer? How does that improve your personal relationship with God? I remember attending Mass one time when the Priest asked each of us to turn to our neighbor and speak the Creed to them. When you look someone in the eye and tell them that you believe in God it puts a whole new meaning to the words, you are not just talking from memory. I think deconstruction and reconstruction might be a good thing.
Why return to the Latin Mass: Answer Bob One–because it gives worship and glory to God and His Majesty that he is due. Not a people centered community meal, that meal that takes the emphasis off Christ and His Cross and puts the emphasis on the “community”.
The priests at Latin Masses I’ve attended give excellent sermons; even some of those same priests saying the novus ordo give homilies that are not quite as fulfilling. How to explain this observation??
Bob One, go thou and turn to a random man on the street and recite the Creed while looking him straight in the eyes. Report back to us.
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies…Pope Pius the X
Well said Rhodesian…
The era of “nuns” in skirts, earrings, makeup, promoting lesbianism, abortion rights, saving the Rain forests, pretending to be priests “which will never never happen”, is coming to an end shortly, if you look at their websites these “nuns” and I use the term loosely are all in their late 70’s to late 80’s and will be meeting Our Lord to answer for their complete loss of faith since Vatican II. On a high note, look at the growing list of YOUNG women and packed convents such as the Nashville Dominicans, Mother Angelica’s good sisters, and The Benedictines of Mary Queen of the Apostles in Kansas City, under the guidance of our wonderful Bishop Robert Finn who is under attack for defending Roman Catholicism as ALL bishops are bound by oath to do. These are our future sisters, not the 60’s aging hippies that have dominated the scene since Vatican II. Pray for these lovely women who wish to serve the Holy Roman Church and Our Lord and pray for the return of The Traditional Latin Mass to all of our altars!!
Yes…indeed…these dissident, wayward, post Vatican II sisters, (I use that term loosely), are guilty of the “gravest” disobedience, which is rooted in pride…which is an outgrowth of “sin”…many of these “lesbian” nun’s, (although every nun is a sister, but not vice-versa, as nun’s take solemn vows, of which not all sister’s do) have been involved in all kinds of activity that has been condemned by the Church, not the least of which is “liberation theology”…another vile, marxist outgrowth of “modernism”…Praised be Jesus Christ
George Tyrell was a notorious British heretic and member of the Society of Jesus… before he was excommunicated for heresy!…He was an original fomenter of the heresy of “modernism”! “Modernism is the synthesis of “ALL” heresies”
But ‘Mordernist ‘ideas’ are ancient tools the Devil has used for ages on end.
Actually…the concept of modernism as a “true” heresy, has been blooming in the demonic garden since the close of the 19th century…the devil continues to create and contrive heresies throughout the centuries…in order to confuse, trick and drive a wedge between man, and the sacraments of Holy Mother Church… Protestantism is one of the devil’s “true” masterpieces, as it appeals to man’s sense of “rugged individualism”…modernism though, is promoted because man becomes bored and complacent…due to the dross of “original sin”…the heresy of modernism was devised to aid man in his desire for novelty and entertainment…it also appeals to his ego, through the filter of his intellect…most/many modernist’s are well educated…articulate and seemingly very spiritual, if not religious…a perfect “seed plot”, for the devil to plant the “seed’s” of modernism…
Modernism is an elastic concept. I myself place its beginning at the time of the “Enlightenment” which promoted the idea that man’s nature was ultimately perfectible. This was the first great heresy of the new age ushered in by modern, non-scholastic philosopy. The biblical concept of man has always been one that acknowledged original sin, and man’s constant struggle to free himself from his sinful human nature. Modernists believe that given the right circumstances and environmental conditions, a perfect society can be created. This idea lies at the core of Marxism, and all its spin-off utopian phantasies. It is heresy writ large, make no mistake. This new philosophy is so firmly anchored in our social sciences that after five decades of welfare spending our poor are as poor as ever.
Modernisn is indeed the triumph of hope over experiance.
I see what you’re saying, Anton, and you hit the essential points, but there is a subtlety that you could clarify better in some future post. This would have to account for the Bible verse where Jesus says, “Be perfect as you Heavenly Father is perfect”. I think the Beach Boys put in well in jargon, “Be true to your school”.
While I agree with Anton tying the Enlightenment to the emergence of modernism, I would counter that its general adoption has more to do with economic “success” through industrialization and creation of material wealth than any attempt to perfect society. Of the original “twin pillars of shipwreck,” it is difficult nowadays to take Marxism as a serious threat to anything, when capitalism and trans-national corporate ownership threaten to destroy entire economies and ecosystems. I wouldn’t say it is so much a “triumph of hope over experience” as a triumph of greed looking for easy gain.
No…it is an outgrowth of evil…a heresy, masterminded by the devil…in fact, the “synthesis of all heresies”…it is not an outgrowth of “enlightenment”…George Tyrrell was the “pawn” used to disseminate this “pollution”, to the faithful…ultimately he was recalcitrant, and died a heretic…and excommunicate, after his death he was denied burial in consecrated ground!…the wages of this poison fruit are excommunication…
Without Enlightenment philosophy, the age of science, technology, engineering and technology would not have accomplished nearly as much, perhaps not much at all. It is not Enlightenment nor is it Cartesian philosophy that is the problem. The problem is weak bishops.
In other words, why blame it on the devil instead of correcting the problem in house?
Yes Skai… these Bishops are the problem, due in large part because they are infected with the poison of “modernism”…
When the people at the top (such as bishops) are infected or sold out to heresy, eg modernism, then the rest of the people tend to head for the hills … which is why Jesus told His apostles that He’d pray that the shepherds do not let the sheep become scattered. Seems the shepherds envision the entire scope of where the sheep have run off to as the good pasteurs … This is so easy to reason about, but they don’t.
Vatican Council II was a deconstruction of faith. Now it seems they want to deconstruct Vatican II; however, would that be a deconstruction of faith? Is V2 a faith? On another level, if one has to deconstruct something, doesn’t that imply that they see it as messed up? Such implication further implicates all of Catholicism. The popes have not been calling for any deconstruction, but rather for getting rid of the “filth”, “becoming holy”, and “practicing what one preaches”. It is pretty much the sodomite faction that is always dabbling further and further into the bowels of empty words, empty phrases, empty ideologies, and the dark depths of emptiness itself. Jesus warns in two of the Seven Letters of the Apocalypse not to dive into the deep mysteries of faithless people. Rather He simply tells us to follow Him. No matter where you are, ie in what tangle, you have only to pick up your cross and follow Jesus … no need to dote on the undotable, mess with the mess your in, or wonk around like the blowhards who want to keep everyone from it by their stupid rants and deceptive caterwaulering.
Skai:
Since you asked,… “if one has to deconstruct something, doesn’t that imply that they see it as messed up?” No, as has been pointed out earlier, “deconstruct” does not mean “destroy.” It means they intend to understand that “something” more nearly as it really is, rather than just by what we call it or how we superficially think about it. I think Dan stated the problem very well above when he wrote “the individual has lukewarm assent to truths but no personal investment in them.” That’s why most of my younger friends no longer participate: They have been taught a faith which is mere “assent to truths” like “I believe this fact” rather than trust. Faith as an “assent to truths” is a characteristic of modernism.
Francis, how in the world do you go from my rhetorical question of why deconstruction implies “messed up”, to meaning “destroyed”. I’m beginning to think that your logic teacher was one of those nuns who taught PA in his youth.
What you’re doing, Francis, is using other bloggers as straw men in order to create a backdrop for you to try to explain what you’ve been taught in some course or read in some book. What I’m trying to get you and others to do is think for yourself.
So your “Vatican Council II was a deconstruction of faith” is a straw man? Maybe I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
You and others have written as if deconstruction is a way of “fixing” something that is messed up, or getting rid of some thing of the world you think is going wrong. The point of deconstruction is not to deconstruct some thing in the world (whether modernism, liberalism, Vatican II or whatever). It is to deconstruct the messed up image, idea or story of that thing within one’s own thought process and come to a less biased understanding. If I were to deconstruct faith, I can only deconstruct and analyze my own faith and its reasons. My attempt, whether I like the result or not, would have zero effect on your faith.
You have an 0-2 count Francis, after you were called on your “modernism” blunder…get your facts straight…your understanding of social terms, in context of the Church’s teaching, needs more clarity…remember sociology teach’s us about “group behavior”…psychology teach’s us about individual behavior…”social psychology” blends the two, in an almost indistinguishable manner… what the Church teach’s, on matters of faith and morals is always clear though…never is their any ambiguity…it is all quite clear Francis…
Does no one understand that this is an outreach to Catholics who have stopped coming to Church? Do you not see that this is an attempt to explain the Church’s teaching? I know a person who was told at Church that the reason the Catholic Church does not allow women priests is because as a universal Church, there are too many areas of the world where people would leave the Church if they had to obey a woman. A lot of people believe that women can’t be priests because the old men at the Vatican find women threatening. Did anybody actually attend this to find out what was said. This is an attempt to return people to the Sacraments. This is an attempt to instruct the ignorant. How can you get so hung up on a word and rashly judge others?
“How can you get so hung up on a word and rashly judge others?” … Because it’s so much fun!?
Francis, learning is indeed fun, but it also has its painful side. Fasten your seatbelt.
“Rashly”, Francis, is a judgmental word. You have no right, privilege, obligation, duty, or business judging the judgment made by someone else.
Outreach is always good.
The terminology “deconstructing the Faith” is bad.
Words make a difference.
Printed public words can give scandal.
Anonymous, always refer people to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” when needing the TRUTH of what the Catholic Church teaches – for complete accuracy.
The reasons for our beliefs are given in the text and in the footnotes.
I have given copies of the CCC to close relatives who are not Catholic – to use as a reference for the truth of the Catholic Faith.
” There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. ” – Bishop Fulton Sheen.
It is very unfortunate that more US Bishops do not actively and public encourage the reading of the CCC by all the literate within their own Diocese. The CCC is truly a gift from the Magisterium for the use by all.
CCC: ” 1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. ”
Mk 3:14-19; Lk 6:12-16; 1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9;
Canon 1024.
There is nothing to “deconstruct”.
There is nothing to “put back together in a way that makes sense”.
These meetings as stated have – the potential to be ripe with heresy and schism (error).
Refer people to the Catechism for ACCURATE answers.
That seems to be the point of these meetings – to correct error. If non-ordination of women is one of the reasons they leave the Church, putting out an ad that says “Come while we read you CCC 1577” isn’t going to work. If the young people can state their issues and the priest can talk about Scripture, Tradition and the Catechism and why the Church only ordains men (because of the example of Jesus) and how the hierarchy is not the ultimate authority in the Church (Jesus is the Head), then you have “deconstructed” what they believe to be the Catholic Faith and built it back into the correct configuration.
I completely agree with Oscar’s statements, but I suspect my conclusions are different.
Nothing to deconstruct, nothing to put back together: Of course, following St. John of the Cross’s “Nada, nada, nada…”
Potential to be ripe with heresy: More than just “potential”! The the meetings are an invitation to people deep in heresy, to work through that.
Catechism has accurate answers: Absolutely (and I mean it literally). For the intended audience, accuracy is less immediate than relevance. Approaching them on the basis of accuracy will accomplish nothing.
If a wanderer is starving and dehydrated, give him water first, then food.
Modernism has been condemned as heresy…George Tyrell was excommunicated for it’s repeated advocacy…he was a failed priest and dissident religious…Pope St. Pius the X proclaimed it “as the synthesis of all heresies”…satan’s masterpiece…
Actually, if the San Jose Young Adults take the time to really research (seek) their Catholic Church–all hearts would soften to His light. But if is just going to be another exercise in “opinions”, then maybe the Protestant Church next door might be a better “fit” for them. Praying for San Jose Diocese souls and their Shepherd, Bishop McGrath.