Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Origin...Errors Examined (8)

Today, Tyrrell's work is being re-studied and praised. When one reads Tyrrell, he cannot help but think he is reading Karl Rahner or Teilhard de Chardin, because the thinking is always the same. Many Catholic books and even those books which are available in seminaries' libraries are being contaminated by this 'thinking' (Modernism).

A. No commitment to Dogma - Modernists use religious language which avoids any commitment whatsoever to most Catholic Dogmas. They will rarely deny, flat out, a Catholic doctrine - at least in public. What they will do is this: [1] Either not mention certain dogmas at all, e.g. Papal infallibility, Immacualte Conception, Original Sin - as if they did not exist! [2] or they will use a genuine Catholic term but take pains not to define it clearly, e.g. observe how modernists talk about Baptism and Eucharist - they concentrate their catechesis on the secondary effects of these sacraments, thereby implicitly denying the primary (and de fide) effects. Baptism becomes 'Initiation' rather than 'Regeneration from Original Sin', and the Mass becomes a 'Meal' or 'Agape', rather than the Holy Sacrifice.

B. Down with external religion - The basic idea seems to be this: that Christ is within us - which means that He is not outside us - which means that the hierarchy cannot speak for Christ now. George Tyrrell does not directly attack the Church, but he engages in a great deal of talk about the unimportance of what he calls 'External Religion'. External religion to him means practically anything Catholic such as the Rosary, blessed statues, medals, holy water, altar rails...anything which is out there - and not deep, deep inside of you - and Tyrrell urged people to get away from these things.

C. Making God and man one entity - This is never far from PANTHEISM: a false philosophy, which consists in confounding God with the world. De Chardin makes us all part of a divine milieu (he later admitted to an apostate that he was a pantheist). According to Karl Rahner, people are Christian even if they do not know it, even if they do not want to be, even if they do not care - which he described by using a new term ' Anynomous Christians'. Have you ever wondered why some Catholics do not worship the Eucharist? Does this statement coming from a liberal person, "Christ's presence in each other is the only presence that counts" familiar to you?

Pada hari ini penulisan yang telah dihasilkan oleh Tyrrell digunakan semula, bahkan dipuji lagi. Seseorang yang membaca penulisan Tyrrell akan merasa dirinya seakan membaca penulisan Karl Rahner atau Teilhard de Chardin kerana mereka mempunyai pemikiran yang sama. Banyak buku Katolik, termasuk buku-buku dalam perpustakaan di seminari, menyimpan buku-buku dari hasil pena para Modenis.


A. Tidak mahu terikat dengan DogmaPara modenis sering menggunakan bahasa religius tetapi mengelak dari menyebut dogma Katolik. Mereka tidak akan menafikan atau menolak dogma Katolik – secara umum, terutamanya didepan umat. Apa yang mereka sering buat ialah ini: [1] mereka langsung tidak akan menyentuh dogma, misalnya, Kekebalan Paus, Maria yang dikandung tanpa dosa (Immaculate Conception), Dosa Warisan – seolah-olah dogma tidak wujud! [2] atau kadangkala mereka akan menggunakan sebutan Katolik tetapi tidak mahu memberi penjelasan tentangnya, misalnya, apabila para modenis menyebut tentang Pembaptisan dan Eukaristi – dalam katekisis/ penerangan mereka, efek sampingan lebih ditonjolkan dari efek utama (tujuan Sakramen Gereja diberikan kepada umat), bermaksud mereka cuba menguburkan maksud sebenar sakramen gereja daripada umat (implicit denial). Pembaptisan akhirnya cuma digambarkan sebagai satu ‘Inisiasi’ sahaja dan bukan untuk melenyapkan dosa warisan. Misa pula digambarkan sebagai ‘Jamuan’ atau ‘Agape’ sahaja dan bukan satu ‘Pengorbanan’ oleh Yesus.

B. Tidak Menyukai Agama Luaran – Idea ini adalah: bahawa Kristus ada didalam diri kita semua dan Dia (Kristus) bukan diluar badan kita – ini bermaksud hieraki gereja tidak boleh bercakap bagi pihak Kristus. George Tyrrell tidak mengutuk gereja secara terang-terangan. Dia sebaliknya memesongkan umat dengan membuat banyak penekanan tentang ketidakpentingan agama luaran. Menurut Tyrrell, agama luaran adalah Rosari, patung-patung kudus, medal, air kudus, pagar altar…semuanya yang berada diluaran kita – bukan didalam kita – dan Tyrrell mendesak umat Katolik mengabaikan semua ‘agama luaran’ ini.

C. Menjadikan Tuhan dan manusia sebagai satu entiti – ini adalah hampir sama dengan Pantheisma – satu filosofi yang palsu, yang memberi ajaran palsu tentang hubungan Tuhan dengan dunia …De Chardin menganggap dalam diri kita semua ada ‘kesucian’ (divinity) (dia kemudiannya mengaku kepada seorang yang telah murtad bahawa dia sebenarnya seorang pantheis). Menurut Karl Rahner, semua manusia adalah Kristian tidak kira mereka mengetahuinya atau tidak, dan juga tidak kira mereka menyukainya atau tidak – dia memberikan satu sebutan untuk teori ini iaitu ‘Kristian yang tidak bernama’ (Anynomous Christian). Pernahkah kamu memikirkan kenapa ada Katolik yang tidak menyembah Tuhan kita di Eukaristi? Adakah kata-kata seperti ini, “Kehadiran Yesus dalam diri masing-masing adalah yang paling utama”, satu pernyataan yang biasa didengari?


Avanus said...

I have personally met a priest who does not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. According to him, the story of Adam and Eve in the bible is just a kind of 'illustration'. If a priest doesn't believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, then he will also not believe in the existence of 'Original Sin'...It is like playing the domino, you start rejecting one thing, then it will lead to another and another...and all this while I've always thought that he's a conservative priest! He can easily pass as a protege of Tyrrell or Teilhard...

Avanus said...

There is also this belief, conveyed to me by one layperson, that hell is only a 'state of mind', that hell is not about eternal fire. According to him, (he took bible studies at SHC) the traditional teaching by the nuns (formerly in moral classes) about hell has become 'obsolete'. The latest 'understanding' or 'interpretation' about hell is: Hell is just a STATE OF MIND!!! that whenever a living person commits a mortal sin, he is already in hell! Still living and in hell (You can still avoid this hell by going to confession). So, now they (modernists) have defined the hell for the living...I forgot to ask him, what will the hell be like 'for the really dead people (passed away) with mortal sins?...I'm sure many Catholic do not even think this is happening in our very own diocese...(sigh). The modernists are really good in twisting doctrines that even the intelligent ones fall into this trap. Our Lord has reminded us to be vigilant.

Anonymous said...

Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother who defeats all heresies, pray for us!


katolik said...

One local priest told me during confession that my 'dirty thoughts' are not sins because I haven't committed it yet. With this kind of 'sick' advice, how can I save my soul???

Avanus said...

There is a difference between consenting to impure thought and tempted to think about it...the first one is dwelling in it with willful pleasure whereas the later is avoiding it (meaning you do not want to think about it)...a priest is obliged to ask about this before he can dispense the appropriate penance to the penitent.