Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Misa Dialogada - CXL

Los falsos pretextos de Ratzinger
para rechazar la escolástica

Dra. Carol Byrne, Gran Bretaña

Joseph Ratzinger pensó que el rechazo de la escolástica era “un paso justificado y necesario”¹ por los siguientes motivos:

Encontró problemática su “lógica cristalina”;²
Era demasiado “rígido”, “demasiado cerrado en sí mismo;³
Tuvo que quitarse la armadura,⁴
Estaba poseído por un “espíritu maligno” que produjo “una estrecha ortodoxia escolástica”;⁵
“Demasiado impersonal y prefabricado”⁶
Demasiado “alejado del mundo real”;⁷
Necesitaba que el Vaticano II “lo sacara de su caja y lo expusiera al aire fresco de la vida de hoy”;⁸
Su enfoque racional de la fe no logró producir certeza;⁹
Su propia formación teológica provino únicamente de “la Biblia y los Padres”.¹⁰

Siempre “ha querido salir del tomismo clásico”

Dado que todas estas críticas eran el material común de los teólogos progresistas de mediados del siglo XX, está claro que Ratzinger estaba dispuesto a unirse a la campaña de difamación del escolasticismo.

Cuando consideramos las razones, enumeradas anteriormente, por las que Ratzinger – en sus propias palabras – “quería salir del tomismo clásico” (aunque nunca estuvo en él) con miras a “entrar en una conversación viva con la filosofía contemporánea”, ¹¹ se sugiere la conclusión de que fue un revolucionario que incitaba a otros también a rebelarse contra el sistema escolástico.

Ejemplos de “control del pensamiento” del Vaticano II

Examinemos cada uno de los puntos de Ratzinger.

Congar, a la derecha, admite que se reunió con Ratzinger para “discutir y acordar” una táctica contra los esquemas teológicos.

Primero, sus objeciones a la claridad: hace que esta cualidad admirable y esencial suene como algo indeseable y sin valor. Poco después del Vaticano II publicó una obra en alemán sobre la última sesión del Concilio.¹² En ella mencionaba los documentos preparatorios que habían sido desechados –principalmente, hay que recordarlo, sobre su propia insistencia, precisamente porque se basaban en el pensamiento escolástico extraído de los Manuales.

Paradójicamente, se quejó de que las formulaciones claras expresadas en estos documentos estaban aprisionadas en el núcleo interno del sistema escolástico, de modo que cuanto más brillaban con la luz de la claridad, más perdían contacto con la realidad. Sin embargo, esto no tendría ningún sentido para una persona entrenada en métodos de razonamiento escolásticos. Evitar la claridad es abrir la puerta a la ambigüedad; sin embargo, Dios creó la mente humana específicamente para alcanzar el conocimiento de la Verdad mediante la comprensión de la realidad.

Al leer la publicación de Ratzinger, uno tiene derecho a asombrarse de que un Prelado, que sirvió como Prefecto de la CDF y ascendió al cargo de Sumo Pontífice, represente una situación en la que prevalece lo contrario de lo normal o esperado – esto nos recuerda Las aventuras de Alicia en A través del espejo, y donde la claridad, la objetividad y la verdad deben evitarse, y la realidad sólo es discernible en los términos favorecidos por los teólogos progresistas.

Bien puede decirse que la “Nueva Teología” presenta una imagen de “espejo” de la Iglesia, con todo al revés, ya sean los fines del matrimonio, el estatus del clero y los laicos, lo objetivo y lo subjetivo, o el conjunto del orden cristiano en relación con el mundo. Esa es, por supuesto, la lógica revolucionaria y el legado del Vaticano II, que sólo pudo haberse implementado una vez que la Iglesia se hubo deshecho de la “tradición manualista”.

En A través del espejo Alice entra en un mundo muy parecido al de los progresistas: extraño y sin sentido.

En la misma publicación, Ratzinger criticó especialmente la enseñanza sobre la ética del matrimonio basada en la Ley Natural, que él (y otros neomodernistas) creían que era una noción anticuada. Su aproximación a este último tema será tratada con más detalle más adelante.

La crítica de Ratzinger a la claridad no deja de ser significativa, considerando que la clave del “éxito” de los nuevos documentos del Vaticano II (que sustituyeron a los originales, claramente expresados) fue precisamente el hecho de que en ellos no se enunciaba claramente la doctrina, dejando el concepto de la realidad abierta a diversas interpretaciones. No debería sorprender, por tanto, que en la Iglesia post-Concilio Vaticano II –de la que la “tradición manualista” ha sido desterrada– la realidad signifique algo diferente para cada persona y para la misma persona en diferentes momentos de su vida. Esto se debe a que los líderes de la Iglesia ya no hablan con una voz autoritaria que traiga consigo cualquier convicción que no sea la preferencia personal.

En cuanto a la connotación negativa del escolasticismo como sistema “rígido” y “cerrado”, nuevamente se aplica la imagen especular. No hay motivos para creer, como sostuvo Ratzinger, que esté “muy alejado del mundo real”; si parece “rígido”, es porque se trata de verdades inmutables y de conceptos verdaderos siempre, en todas partes y para todos; si parece "cerrado", es sólo porque sus proposiciones están confinadas dentro de los límites del razonamiento lógico y la doctrina ortodoxa. La universalidad y racionalidad del escolasticismo son activos valiosos, por lo que se puede considerar que ha sido un movimiento intelectual importante e influyente en la historia del pensamiento occidental.

El verdadero problema está en la “Nueva Teología”, que está abierta a la influencia de toda filosofía pasajera en su intento por adaptarse a las tendencias modernas del pensamiento. Y a raíz de esta apertura a una avalancha de ideas poco ortodoxas, la mayoría de los líderes espirituales de la Iglesia han cerrado sus mentes a las verdades de la fe católica contenidas y explicadas en la “tradición manualista”.

Ratzinger: “¡No!” a la erudición de Santo Tomás
por ser “impersonal”

Igualmente fuera de lugar está la crítica de Ratzinger al escolasticismo como “impersonal y prefabricado”. Un punto relevante aquí es que la mayoría de los católicos hoy en día no saben nada del escolasticismo tomista –sobre todo porque se lo han quitado– y no sabrían cuánta credibilidad otorgar a las acusaciones hechas en su contra, y mucho menos cómo contrarrestar tales críticas. . Por eso se convencen fácilmente de que deben creer todo lo que les dicen los líderes de la Iglesia que han contribuido a la desaparición del escolasticismo mediante sus críticas corrosivas y el uso de términos cargados.

La expresión "impersonal" es uno de esos términos; comúnmente se entiende que carece de calidez personal y empatía, e incluso tiende a ser inhumano ante el sufrimiento humano. Todos los Papas Conciliares, desde Juan XXIII hasta Benedicto XVI, seguidos por Francisco, han capitalizado esta interpretación para contrarrestar la imagen severa y “prohibitiva” de la Iglesia suavizando las rigideces de la Ley Moral y poniendo fin a los anatemas. Esta perspectiva sesgada encuentra su expresión en la filosofía del “personalismo” y fue introducida en la vida de la Iglesia por Juan Pablo II, quien estaba imbuido de sus falsos principios.

Todos los documentos del Vaticano II fueron escritos desde un ángulo “personalista”, y este enfoque se ve en el tono pastoral del Concilio. Cualquier cosa “ya hecha”, como dogmas definidos con precisión o listas de pecados, está mal vista. El error del argumento es que, para que el modo de vida cristiano tenga sentido, no podemos prescindir de normas absolutas “ya hechas”, y éstas se encuentran no sólo en la Ley Divina y Natural enumerada en el Decálogo, sino también en la Ley Divina y Natural. también en la ley de coherencia lógica y no contradicción que se encuentra en los Manuales.

Después del Vaticano II, los católicos privados de normas objetivas y absolutas fueron arrojados sobre sus emociones y comenzaron a decir “siento” en lugar de “creo”, “elijo” en lugar de “obedezco”, “quiero” en lugar de “ Debo conformarme a la Santa Ley de Dios”. Es el triunfo de la voluntad sobre el intelecto, la primacía de la emoción sobre la Verdad y la fantasía subjetiva sobre la realidad.

Continuará ...

Lorenzo Prezzi and Marcello Matte, ‘Interview with Cardinal Ratzinger’, 30 Days, April 1994, p. 62.
J. Ratzinger, Milestones, p. 44.
Ibid.
J. Ratzinger, Salt of the earth : Christianity and the Catholic Church at the end of the millennium, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997, p. 73.
J. Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995: “After the evil spirit of a narrow Scholastic orthodoxy has been driven out, in the end seven much more wicked spirits return in its place.”
Lorenzo Prezzi and Marcello Matte, op. cit., p. 62.
Ibid.
Ibid.
J. Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, trans. Henry Taylor, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 136
Benedict XVI with Peter Seewald, Last Testament, p. 134.
Ibid., p. 78.
J. Ratzinger, Die letzte Sitzungsperiode des Konzils (The Last Session of the Council), Cologne: J.P. Bachern, 1966, pp. 25-26.

Publicado el 18 de julio de 2024

Comparta

Síganos

______________________

Temas de Interés Relacionados

______________________

Obras de Interés Relacionadas

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition

Traditionalist Issues

Dialogue Mass - CX

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

When we compare the traditional view of Minor Orders with the treatment they received at the hands of liturgical reformers in the 20^th century, it becomes evident that the two positions stand in dire contrast to each other. To illustrate this point in greater depth, let us turn again to the exposition of Minor Orders made by Fr. Louis Bacuez who modestly introduced his magnum opus as follows:

Starting the whittling away of respect
for the Minor Orders...

“This little book is a sequel to one we have published on Tonsure. God grant that those who make use of it may conceive a great respect for Minor Orders and prepare for them as they should! The dispositions with which they approach ordination will be the measure of the graces they receive, and on this measure depends, in a great part, the fruit that their ministry will produce. To have a rich harvest the first thing necessary is to sow well: Qui parce seminat parce et metet; et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. (2 Cor. 9:6)” (1)

Little did he realize that when he wrote these words every vestige of respect for the Minor Orders would be whittled away by the concerted efforts of progressivists with a negative and dismissive attitude towards them; and that the Liturgical Movement, which had just begun when he published his book, would be dominated by influential liturgists discussing how to overturn them.

Long before the term “Cancel Culture” was invented, they presented the Minor Orders as a form of class-based oppression perpetrated by a clerical “caste” and as a form of spiritually empty legalism, and they went to great lengths to make them look ridiculous.

Far from showing due respect, this involves quite a considerable degree of contempt, not only for the generations of seminarians who were formed within this tradition, but also for the integrity of the great institution of Minor Orders that had served the Church since Apostolic times. In fact, so great was their animosity towards the Minor Orders that they could hardly wait to strip them of their essential nature as functions of the Hierarchy and turn them into lay ministries.

A tree is known by its fruits

These, then, were the hate-filled dispositions that inspired the progressivist reform, and would determine the graces received and the fruit to be produced by those who exercise the new lay “ministries” as opposed to, and in place of, the traditional Minor Orders.

Fr. Bacuez, who wrote his book in the pontificate of Pius X, could never, of course, have envisaged the demise of the Minor Orders, least of all at the hands of a future Pope. He was concerned lest even the smallest amount of grace be lost in the souls of those preparing for the priesthood:

Blighted fruits from a sick tree

“We shall see, on the Last Day, what injury an ordinand does to himself and what detriment he causes to souls by losing, through his own fault, a part of the graces destined to sanctify his priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father: Modica seminis detractio non est modicum messis detrimentum. (St. Bernard)” (2)

We do not, however, need to wait till the Last Day to see the effects of a reform that deliberately prevents, as by an act of spiritual contraception, the supernatural graces of the Minor Orders from attaining their God-given end: “to sanctify the priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father.” For the evidence is all around us that the tree of this reform produced blighted fruits.

First, we note a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church and a blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity; second, a “contraceptive” sterility resulting in vocations withering on the vine and below replacement level, seminaries and churches closing down, parishes dying, and the decline in the life of the traditional Catholic Faith as seen in every measurable statistic. The conclusion is inescapable: those who planted this tree and those who now participate in the reform are accomplices in a destructive work.

Advantages of the Minor Orders

A substantial part of Fr. Bacuez’ exposition of the Minor Orders is devoted to the inestimable benefits they bring to the Church. These he divided into the following three categories:

The honor of the priesthood;
The dignity of worship;
The perfection of the clergy.

It is immediately apparent that the Minor Orders were oriented towards the liturgy as performed by the priest and his ministers. In other words, they existed for entirely supernatural ends invested in the priesthood.

A significant and entirely appropriate omission was any mention of active involvement of the laity in the liturgy. Fr. Bacuez’ silence on this issue is an eloquent statement of the mind of the Church that the liturgy is the preserve of the clergy.

We will now take each of his points in turn.

1. The honor of the priesthood

“A statue, however perfect, would never be appreciated by most people, unless it were placed on a suitable pedestal. Likewise the pontificate, which is the perfection of the priesthood, would not inspire the faithful with all the esteem it merits, if it had not beneath it, to give it due prominence, these different classes of subordinate ministers, classes inferior one to another, but the least of which is superior to the entire order of laymen.” (3)

Toppling statues has become popular today:
above, Fr. Serra in central Los Angeles, California

It is an example of dramatic irony that Fr. Bacuez unwittingly chose the theme of a statue supported by a pedestal to illustrate his point. He was not to know that statues of historical figures would become a major source of controversy in the culture wars and identity politics of our age.

Nor could he have foreseen that toppling monuments – both metaphorical and concrete – was to become a favorite sport of the 20^th-century liturgical reformers, their aim being to exalt the status of the laity by “active participation” in clerical roles. And never in his wildest imagination would he have suspected that a future Pope would join in the iconoclastic spree to demolish the Minor Orders about which he wrote with evident pride and conviction.

'Don’t put the priest on a pedestal'

However, the revolutionaries considered that esteem for the Hierarchy and recognition of its superiority over the lay members of the Church was too objectionable to be allowed to survive in modern society. The consensus of opinion among them was that clergy and laity were equals because of their shared Baptism, and placing the priest on a pedestal was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the interests of the laity.

“Don’t put the priest on a pedestal” was their battle cry. It is the constant refrain that is still doing the rounds among progressivists who refuse to give due honor to the priesthood and insist on accusing the Church of systemic “clericalism.”

But the fundamental point of the Minor Orders – and the Sub-Diaconate – was precisely to be the pedestal on which the priesthood is supported and raised to a position of honor in the Church. When Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam dismantled the institutional underpinnings of the Hierarchy, the imposing pedestal and columns that were the Minor Orders and Sub-Diaconate were no longer allowed to uphold and elevate the priesthood.

The biblical underpinnings of the Minor Orders

Fr. Bacuez made use of the following passage from the Book of Proverbs:

“Wisdom hath built herself a house; she hath hewn out seven pillars. She hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table.” (9: 1-2)

An ordination to the minor order of exorcist, one of the seven columns

He drew an analogy between “the seven columns of the living temple, which the Incarnate Wisdom has raised up to the Divine Majesty” and all the clerical Orders (four Minor and three Major) that exist for the right worship of God. In this, he was entirely justified. For, in their interpretation of this passage, the Church Fathers concur that it is a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed, as St. Augustine said, by “the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchisedek.” (4)

In the 1972 reform, no less than five (5) of the seven columns were brought crashing down from their niches in the Hierarchy to cries of “institutionalized clericalism,” “delusions of grandeur” and “unconscious bias” against the laity.

To further elucidate the affinity of the Minor Orders to the priesthood, Fr. Bacuez gave a brief overview of the cursus honorum that comprised the Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest before going on to explain their interrelatedness:

“These seven powers successively conferred, beginning with the last, are superimposed one upon the other without ever disappearing or coming in conflict, so that in the priesthood, the highest of them all, they are all found. The priest unites them all in his person, and has to exercise them all his life in the various offices of his ministry.” (6)

After Ministeria quaedam, however, these rights and powers are no longer regarded as the unique, personal possession of the ordained, but have been officially redistributed among the baptized. It was not simply a question of changing the title from Orders to “ministries”: the real locus of the revolution was in taking the privileges of the “ruling classes” (the representatives of Christ the King) and giving them to their subjects (the laity) as of “right.”

The neo-Marxist message was, and still is, that this was an act of “restorative justice” for the laity who had been “historically wronged.” For the liturgical progressivists, 1972 was, apparently, the year of “compensation.”

Continued

Louis Bacuez SS, Minor Orders, St Louis MO: B. Herder, 1912, p. x. “He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.”
Ibid., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermon on the Psalm ‘Qui habitat,’ Sermones de Tempore, In Quadragesima, Preface, § 1: “If, at the time of sowing, a moderate amount of seed has been lost, the harm done to the harvest will not be inconsiderable.”
Ibid., p. 6.
St. Augustine, The City of God, book XVII, chap. 20: "Of David’s Reign and Merit; and of his son Solomon, and of that prophecy relating to Christ, which is found either in those books that are joined to those written by him, or in those that are indubitably his."
These were the four Minor Orders and the Major Order of the Sub-Diaconate.
L. Bacuez, op. cit., p. 5.

Posted December 10, 2021

______________________

Los falsos pretextos de Ratzinger para rechazar la escolástica

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Los falsos pretextos de Ratzinger
para rechazar la escolástica