Why are Modernists more backward in their thinking than Roman Catholics?
The title is an important one. Modernists present themselves as intelligent people who have moved on, who have matured in the faith, and have rejected the childish nature of the traditional Catholics. How far is this the truth? Let me give an example. There are in the Church today many 'scholars; writing books and if the book contains some novelty then the writers are hailed as prophets and are invited to spread their ideas here, there, and everywhere. I went to one of these scholars' meetings and he came out with the astonishing idea that it was not the priest that changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but the Holy Spirit. This was seen as an astonishing revelation by the audience. What! Was he saying that when the priest says 'This is My Body' the host does not actually change by his power but the power of the Holy Spirit! Yes, he is. And the gullible fools almost applauded. Risking the anger of the intelligent people I asked 'But is it not true that if the priests does not say the words the Holy Spirit will not act?". A moment' pause then the answer "Yes, but it is not the priest". I did not continue the conversation by pointing out that Catholics for 2,000 years never actually believed that it was. This would have disappointed some since they spend most of their time praising God that they are so mature and not like those Roman Catholics.
I was reading recently about an old priest who had attended a conference organised by his Diocese in which a Scripture "scholar", a priest who taught in the local seminary, put forward that Jesus in his ministry did not know who he was. And you do not know just how avidly the modernists seized on to this novelty, for I have heard it time and again. An elderly priest took the opportunity to ask why Jesus had not been told by his parents Mary and Joseph. After all at the Annunciation Gabriel had told her that her child was to be the Son of he Most High. That was one answer but if we turn to the narrative in Matthew 16 "Whom do people say that I am", Simon telling him, and He answering that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed this to Peter, if Jesus really did not know who He was how could he agree with Peter. But it is all just ignorant people trying to make a name for themselves and destroying the Faith of others as they do so. I have mentioned Matthew 16 but you can be sure that in any scriptural introduction to the Catholic Faith this passage about the Primacy of Peter will be ignored. "Well it cannot be important it is after all only mentioned in Matthews Gospel" I heard another learned priest say. Yes, but Matthews Gospel was to the Jewish people and they were the ones who would have understood the significance of the phrase the Keys of the Kingdom. When Jewish rules left to fight battles they appointed someone to rule in there place and gave them the "Keys of the Royal Household".
There were many more novelties. One priest became famous by teaching that Jesus was not just spiritually present in the the host, but he was not physically present either, his presence was sort of in between. He had a Strange name. Then there was the Community as the Body of Christ to which receiving the host added nothing but bound them together. But as I have said before I am a Roman Catholic and whatever binds me to some members of the Community certainly is not Faith.
I could go on with all these novel teachings but let me give you something to read - 2Timothy4.
I was reading recently about an old priest who had attended a conference organised by his Diocese in which a Scripture "scholar", a priest who taught in the local seminary, put forward that Jesus in his ministry did not know who he was. And you do not know just how avidly the modernists seized on to this novelty, for I have heard it time and again. An elderly priest took the opportunity to ask why Jesus had not been told by his parents Mary and Joseph. After all at the Annunciation Gabriel had told her that her child was to be the Son of he Most High. That was one answer but if we turn to the narrative in Matthew 16 "Whom do people say that I am", Simon telling him, and He answering that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed this to Peter, if Jesus really did not know who He was how could he agree with Peter. But it is all just ignorant people trying to make a name for themselves and destroying the Faith of others as they do so. I have mentioned Matthew 16 but you can be sure that in any scriptural introduction to the Catholic Faith this passage about the Primacy of Peter will be ignored. "Well it cannot be important it is after all only mentioned in Matthews Gospel" I heard another learned priest say. Yes, but Matthews Gospel was to the Jewish people and they were the ones who would have understood the significance of the phrase the Keys of the Kingdom. When Jewish rules left to fight battles they appointed someone to rule in there place and gave them the "Keys of the Royal Household".
There were many more novelties. One priest became famous by teaching that Jesus was not just spiritually present in the the host, but he was not physically present either, his presence was sort of in between. He had a Strange name. Then there was the Community as the Body of Christ to which receiving the host added nothing but bound them together. But as I have said before I am a Roman Catholic and whatever binds me to some members of the Community certainly is not Faith.
I could go on with all these novel teachings but let me give you something to read - 2Timothy4.
Comments
Post a Comment