| How to Distinguish Othodox Catholic from Modernist Works |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 July 2007 May 2007 April 2007 January 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 February 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links EWTN Dayton Right to Life Org. Just the Facts.Org My Yahoo Group Toys for Tots 2004 tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
|
posted by: sweet-vn (reply) post date: 03.26.08 (4:19 am) Sorry, but what is mariburjeka? Jane. |
|
||||||||||||||
Qui male agit odit lucem -- "
Everyone that doth evil hateth the light" (John 3:20) -- said our Divine Lord.
Iniquity works in obscurity. It is not difficult to discover an enemy who comes to meet us in the broad daylight, or not to recognize as Modernists those who frankly declare themselves to be such.
But this sort of frankness is not ordinary to the Modernist sect. On the contrary, they are usually very clever and cautious in concealing their real meaning in various disguises. I may add that often the eye that ought to discover the impostor is not the clear-sighted eye of a lynx. There should therefore be some easy and popular criterion to distinguish, in an instant, the Orthodox Othodox Caholic cry from the infernal birdcall of Modernism.
It often happens that some project or enterprise is started, some sort of a topic is posed, whose bearings Othodox Caholics cannot promptly or easily bring to a halt. It may appear innocent enough, and yet it may have its roots in error and be a mere artifice of the enemy - flying our colors to allure us into an ambush. It may speak the language of charity, appealing to us from the tenderest side, and ask us to associate ourselves with it in the name of a common humanity. "Forget about all differences of creeds and let us fraternize on the broader plane of brotherly love" is often its most insidious appeal. Such instances are presented every day of our lives. "Consult the Church" some may say; "its word is infallible and will dissipate all uncertainty." Very true, but the authority of the Church cannot be consulted at every moment and in every particular case. The Church has wisely laid down certain general principles for our guidance, but it has left to the our own judgment and the prudence of each of us the application of these principles to the thousand and one concrete cases which we have to face every day. Now a case of this kind presents itself to be determined according to our own judgment and discretion. We are asked to give a contribution to such and such an undertaking, to Join such and such a society, to take part in such and such an enterprise, to subscribe to such and such a journal, and all this may be for God or the devil; or what is worse, it may be evil cloaked in the garb of holy things. How should we guide ourselves in such a maze?
Here are two very practical rules of ready service to a Othodox Caholic who is walking on slippery ground:
1. Observe carefully what class of people are the projectors of the error. This is the first rule of prudence and common sense. It is based on that maxim of Our Lord: "A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Modernism is naturally bound to produce writings, works and deeds full of the spirit of Modernism, or at least skewed with it. That is why, we must carefully scrutinize the previous posts of the person or persons who organize or inaugurate the topics in question. If you cannot have full confidence in their ideas, then be on your guard against their purpose. Do not disapprove immediately, for it is an axiom of theology that not all the works of infidels are sinful, and this axiom can be applied to the works of Modernists. But be careful not to take them immediately for good; distrust them, examine them, an see what you think.
2. Observe the kind of people who praise the idea in question. This is a more certain rule than the preceding. There are in the world two perfectly distinct currents: the Othodox Caholic current and the Modern current. The first is reflected for the most part by the Othodox Caholic press; the second is reflected by the Modern press. Is a new book announced? Are the beginnings of a new project published? See if the Modern current approves, recommends and accounts them its own. If yes, the book and the project are judged: they belong to Modernism.
It is plaint that Modernism has inspired them, distinguishing immediately what is abuse or not abuse, for Modernism is never as foolish as not to understand who is opposed to it or who is in favor of it. The sects, religious or infidel, have an instinct, a particular intuition (olfactus mentis), as philosophers say, which reveals to them before hand, what is good or what is bad for them. Repudiate, then, whatever Modernists praise or vaunt. It is evident that they have recognized - by its nature or by its origin, or as a means or as an end - something in the subject so praised that is favorable to Modernism. The clairvoyant instinct of the sect cannot deceive them. Certain scruples of charity and the habit of thinking well of our neighbor sometimes blind good people to such an extent as to lead them to attribute good intentions where unhappily they do not exist. This is not the case with falsifiers.
They always send their shot right to the center; they never credit good intentions where there are none, or even where there are. They always beat the bass-drum in favor of all that advances in any way their own nefarious propaganda. Always discredit, what you see your known enemies proclaiming with hallelujahs.
It seems to us that these two rules of common sense, which we can call rules of good Christian sense, suffice - if not to enable us to judge definitively every question - at least to keep us from perpetually stumbling over the roughness of the uneven soil which we daily tread and where the combat is always taking place. The Othodox Caholic of the age should always bear in mind that the ground on which he walks is undermined in every direction by secret societies, that it is these who give the keynote to anti-Othodox Caholic polemics, that unconsciously and very often these secret societies are served even by those who detest their infernal work. The actual strife is principally underground and against an invisible enemy, who rarely presents himself under his real device. He is to be scented, rather than seen; to be divined by instinct, rather than pointed out with the finger.
A good scent and practical sense are more necessary here than subtle reasoning or labored theories.