Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Tyrrell Fought the ‘Tyranny’ of Scholasticism
Taken from here.

It was characteristic of all modernists – freedom of thought and self-expression being of paramount importance in their world view – to chafe under the restrictions of any “external authority” or higher power that would stifle the spirit of independence which they fostered as the highest value. The spiritual authority of Rome in areas of Faith and Morality was their prime target of attack, as it had been during the Protestant “Reformation,” and still is in our day.

Tyrrell deeply resented the institutional Church, especially her authority structures that wielded juridical power against the expression of heretical ideas. He never forgave her for having censored his works and excommunicated him, and routinely defamed her as a prison for the soul, a repressive, authoritarian hellhole as, for example, when he stated:

“The Church sits on my soul as a nightmare, and the oppression is maddening.”1

Modernist Fr. Tyrrell died excommunicated & despondent, refusing to recant his heresy

He often complained about the “stifling” of intellectual freedom under Pius X who mandated the study of Scholastic Philosophy to form part of all seminary training. Tyrrell charged that “the theological Schools have come to tyrannize over the Church in these evil days.”2 He specifically described Scholasticism as a “tyranny”;3 in fact, “one of the worst intellectual tyrannies the world has ever known.”4 His vision for the Church was to change her into a religion freed of constraints that would make the believer “a bird free on the wing” and “not crushed and crumpled in the grip of the hawk.”5 The human spirit, he believed, could never be free as long as it was held prisoner by the necessity of obedience to religious superiors and respect for the Scholastic system of intellectual reasoning.

As a result of this kind of obloquy from Tyrrell and the early modernists, the Scholastic System was associated in the minds of progressivists with injustice and oppression. The very word Scholasticism now provokes hoots of laughter and ribald remarks among today’s clergy. It conjures up mental pictures of silly and pointless sophistries, useless disputations about issues that are irrelevant to life in the real world, all conducted by people who claimed to have the monopoly of knowledge and provide an answer to everything.


Francis treats Scholasticism as an absurd anomaly

It hardly needs saying that Francis, with his peculiar talent for spreading confusion and division on a global scale, had scant respect for the Church’s great Scholastic tradition. He may, for the sake of appearances, have praised some aspects of it on occasion but, in reality, he took every opportunity to criticize it either directly or indirectly, following Tyrrell’s example. The latter, however, at least had the merit of being less hypocritical.

After presenting a speech at the 36th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus on October 24, 2016, Francis conducted a question-and-answer session with his fellow-Jesuits. In it, he made a sweeping condemnation of the Scholastic system used in seminaries from post-Modernism up to Vatican II:

“I and those of my generation, perhaps not the youngest here, but my generation and some of the later ones too, were educated in a decadent Scholasticism. We studied theology and philosophy with manuals. It was a decadent Scholasticism. For example, to explain the “metaphysical continuum” ‒ it makes me laugh every time I remember ‒ we were taught the theory of the ‘puncta inflata.’ When the great Scholasticism began to lose force, there arose that decadent Scholasticism with which at least my generation and others have studied.”6

Francis joined ranks with Modernism when he railed against ‘decadent’ Scholasticism

Let us consider for a moment the likely impact that such derisive expressions – which had for decades been part of the progressivist narrative – would have had on the morale of young seminarians around the time of Vatican II. Being told that what they had been taught came from dry and dusty old manuals containing obsolete content that would make them appear ridiculous in the eyes of the modern world was a sure way of persuading them to abandon the old theology for the new. After all, Vatican II had set the stage for the “New Evangelization” (which is really only an updated version of the old Modernism) which is presented as the only way forward for what the Church should believe and do today.

The Pope’s vilification of the Scholastic System of seminary formation was a subtle propaganda tool which works by inducing fear of being marginalized by the modern world and of being a victim of tyrannical control by an out-of-date Church. This, too, was the message promoted by Fr. Tyrrell.

The condemnation of Scholasticism by progressivist theologians as outdated had met with the following rebuke by Pope Pius X:

“For Scholastic Philosophy and Theology they have only ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of Scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system. Modernists and their admirers should remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: The method and principles which have served the doctors of Scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science (Syllabus Prop. 13). They exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight.” (Pascendi § 42)

Furthermore, the generations of seminary training to which Francis refers were anything but decadent. In that era, from the mid-19th century to the late 1950s, the long tradition of Scholasticism, especially Thomistic metaphysics, was at the height of its prestige. It was encouraged by a succession of papal accolades:

• Pius IX commended Scholasticism in Tuas libenter (1863) as “a mighty bulwark of the Faith and a formidable weapon against its enemies”;7
  
• Leo XIII issued Aeterni Patris (1879) in defence and encouragement of the Scholastic Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas;
  
• Pius X followed suit in Pascendi (1907), Sacrorum Antistitum (1910) and in Angelici Doctoris (1914);
  
• Benedict XV enshrined the tradition in the Code of Canon Law (1917);8
  
• Pius XI affirmed in Studiorum Ducem (1923) that the Scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was still taught in his day, was of the highest authority, “for the Church has adopted his philosophy as her own”;
  
• Nearer to Vatican II, the Scholastic System was still held in high esteem for its perennial value as the Church’s basic intellectual conceptual framework. In 1950, Pius XII stated that “never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic.. (Humani generis § 30)
  

The Scholasticism of St. Thomas has been formally adopted by the Church as her ‘own’ philosophy

In contradiction to Pius X and Pius XII, John Paul II denied that the Church has a philosophy of her own:

“The Church has no philosophy of her own, nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.” (Fides et ratio 1998, § 49)

In a vain attempt to back up his claim, he referred to a passage from Humani generis9 but without supplying a quote from it. There is nothing, however, in the reference to support his opinion. Au contraire, in the same Encyclical, Pius XII repeatedly named the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas as “our own”: (“nostram philosophiam”; “philosophiam nostris traditam scholis” etc.)

As for John Paul II’s second statement, all the evidence indicates that the Church has canonized Thomistic Philosophy, not least by mandating its use in the Code of Canon Law (1917), but also through the unanimous judgement of successive Popes from the Council of Trent onwards. It is only since Vatican II that the Church stopped counting Thomistic Philosophy as one of her own quintessentially Catholic assets, and began treating it as one among many philosophies vying for hegemony in the seminaries.


To be continued


1. G. Tyrrell, ‘Letter to V.’ [Baron Friedrich von Hügel], May 18, 1903, in Maude Petre (ed.), George Tyrrell’s Letters, London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1920, p. 109.
2. G. Tyrrell, The Church and the Future, p. 107.
3. G. Tyrrell, ‘Letter to V.’, November 5, 1904, in Maude Petrie (ed.), George Tyrrell’s Letters, p. 108.
4. G. Tyrrell, The Church and the Future, p. 33.
5. G. Tyrrell, Christianity at the Crossroads, London; New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1910, p. 219.
6. Francis, ‘To Have Courage and Prophetic Audacity,’ Dialogue with the Jesuits gathered in the 36th General Congregation, Documents of the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, January 6, 2017, p. 46.
7. “Fortissimum fidei propugnaculum et formidanda contra suos inimicos arma,” Letter to Archbishop Gregor von Scherr of Munich and Freising, December 21, 1863.
8. “The study of philosophy and theology, and the teaching of these sciences to their students, must be accurately carried out by professors according to the arguments, doctrines and principles of St. Thomas, which they are inviolately to hold.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1366 § 2)
9. AAS 42, 1950, p. 566.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Theology of the Encounter & Primacy of Love
Taken from here - Emphasis The Catacombs.

It is well known that certain progressivists had been targeting seminaries years before Vatican II, working like termites on the inside to weaken and undermine the dominant structure of Scholasticism. Fr. Peter Henrici, S.J., averred that this was the case in Jesuit seminaries where professors paid lip service to papal mandates and students went through the motions of “thumbing through” the Manuals, while the method and principles of St. Thomas Aquinas were openly scorned and held in contempt. 1

At the same time, Fr. Henrici assures us, certain modernist texts were secretly passed around among the students, e.g. Henri de Lubac’s books, The Supernatural and Corpus Mysticum. There is no reason to believe that the activities of predatory stalkers seeking victims among trainee priests were unique to Jesuit seminaries: We have seen in Part 139 how the young Joseph Ratzinger was influenced and led astray by his neo-modernist mentor in his seminary days. None of that proves that Scholasticism itself was decadent, as Francis had claimed, but that subversive attempts to overthrow it were being allowed to succeed by progressivist Bishops.

Fr. Peter Henrici revealed progressivist tactics used to infiltrate seminaries

Francis’s caricature of the Scholastic method employed in seminaries served to bolster the progressivists’ agenda – to discredit the Church’s “perennial philosophy” so as to make way for the post-Vatican II “New Evangelization.” This is obvious from a speech he made at a meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization in 2015, where he said:

“The catechesis, as a component of the process of evangelization, needs to go beyond the simple realm of Scholastics, in order to educate believers, beginning with children, to encounter Christ, living and working in his Church.” [Emphasis in the original]

We can take it as read that adopting the new “theology of encounter” meant leaving the “perennial philosophy” behind, for Francis explained that the new catechesis was needed to take the Church along what he termed “yet uncharted” paths – presumably where his “God of surprises”2 lurks around every corner.

There is, however, nothing genuinely Catholic in the current catechesis, for Francis has led us back to the teaching of Fr. George Tyrrell who maintained that Scholasticism was radically deficient as a means of presenting the truths of Revelation and was useless for modern times. It follows that Scholasticism would play no part in the “New Evangelization.” For both Francis and Tyrrell, knowledge of God derives from the lived experience of believers who encounter Him directly.

According to Francis:

“The definitive aim of catechesis is to put people not only in touch, but also in communion and intimacy, with Jesus Christ.”3

No mention is made of the indispensable role of the Ecclesia Docens in the area of catechesis. So, his words must be interpreted against the background of the neo-Modernism he embraced, where there are no absolute precepts or moral imperatives, and where everything is up for discussion.


Ecclesia Docens replaced by an ill-defined 'discernment'

One of the major planks of Francis’s new approach was his heavy emphasis on a phenomenon he termed “discernment” which he preaches at every opportunity. Whatever he meant by this term, we can be sure that it had nothing in common with the practice of casuistry that had traditionally been used in the Church as a trusted and efficient method to solve problems of conscience by applying general principles of morality to concrete cases.

The following example of his thinking on this issue illustrates the distinctly unhelpful and confusing nature of his advice to priests in dealing with matters of conscience:

“Many are asking: ‘can you do this or can you not?’ That’s all. And many people leave the confessional disappointed. Not because the priest is bad, but because the priest doesn’t have the ability to discern situations, to accompany them in authentic discernment. They don’t have the needed formation…

“We need to form future priests not to general and abstract ideas, which are clear and distinct, but to this keen discernment of spirits so that they can help people in their concrete life. We need to truly understand this: In life not all is black on white or white on black. No! The shades of grey prevail in life. We must them teach to discern in this grey area." 4

Francis to the Krakow Jesuits in 2016: ‘Life is not black & white; we have to discern the grey’

But the criteria for true discernment in line with the teachings of the great moralist and Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, were already provided in the “Manualist tradition” that Francis categorically rejected. Moreover, Francis has not provided any objective criteria, but has left the process of discernment open to manipulation and abuse. In other words, he is allowing the Church to be run on subjective lines, thus creating a global situation of moral relativism, insecurity and mutual distrust.

Finally, irrefutable proof of Francis’s debt to Tyrrell and the early modernists can be found in one of Tyrrell’s letters describing his version of Catholicism that he called “the new wine that eventually burst the old scholastic bottles.” This new religion is based on the “primacy of love” over concern for the Truth, which Tyrrell attributed to Our Lord:

“He was not explicitly a theologian or a revealer of intellectual orthodoxy, but the diffuser of a spirit, or love, which implied a more liberal theology, a wider and worthier conception of God and of man, and of their mutual relations.” 5

One cannot fail to notice that this description also captures in a nutshell Vatican II’s commitment to a new religion that “liberated” the Church from Catholic Tradition, adulterating the Faith, subverting her Divine Constitution, dispensing with her discipline and making Morals adaptable.

Nor can one deny that it came from the fevered mind of George Tyrrell who proudly asserted his complete agreement with his fellow modernist and excommunicate, Alfred Loisy: “Mentally, I am heart and soul with Abbé Loisy and his school.” 6

Alfred Loisy, excommunicated, whose works were on the Index of Forbidden Books, inspired Tyrrell

But it was the goal of Tyrrell, Loisy and all the modernists to usher in a universal brotherhood – the brainchild of Masonry – united around themes of humanitarian ideals, environmentalism and “ecumenism” which would cancel out and replace the Catholic Church. These are the same deviations from Catholic Truth that were welcomed into the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI and have progressively developed to the present day under the tutelage of their successors to the Chair of Peter.

At least, Loisy got one thing right when he predicted: “The heresies of today are part of the orthodoxy of tomorrow”.7

He could not have said a truer word, if we put orthodoxy in inverted commas. We cannot, however, leave the last word to Loisy, Tyrrell, the Vatican II Popes or Francis.

The happy state of living within reach of the traditional Mass and Sacraments with perhaps access to a Catholic school untainted by modernist-inspired teaching, does not come about spontaneously or by chance. Freedom to practise the Catholic Faith in a hostile world is never free of charge. In History, it was gained at the price of blood in the face of persecution by those outside the Faith.

These days, it comes mostly through a dry martyrdom inflicted on traditionalists by their own Hierarchy. In any case, it must be constantly fought for to prevent it from being taken away by those who wish to seize it from us, and then guarded religiously from future assault. Paradoxically, this freedom was the first casualty of the untraditional concept of “Religious Liberty” inaugurated by Vatican II.

Now that the Vatican II reforms have failed collectively to preserve the Faith, the antidote – which would have prevented the modernist heresies from spreading in the first place – is as obvious as it is logical: faithfulness to the teaching and practice of Tradition.

To be continued


1. Peter Henrici SJ, "The Council’s Development to Maturity," Communio, vol. 17, Winter 1990, p. 85.
2. An early example, if not the first, of the expression “God of surprises,” appeared in a book of that name by Fr. Gerard Hughes, SJ. It forms a recurring theme in the sermons of Pope Francis. See, for example, Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, ‘The God of Surprises’, October 13, 2014, L'Osservatore Romano, October 17, 2014, and Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the 3. Domus Sanctae Marthae, "The God of Surprises," May 8, 2017, L'Osservatore Romano, May 26, 2017.
4. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis 2020 § 80.
5. Francis, Q&A session with Polish Jesuits at a private meeting during World Youth Day in Krakow, July 30, 2016, published in Rome on August 26, 2016 in the Jesuit Journal, La Civiltà Cattolica by its Editor, Fr. Antonio Spadaro who was present.
6. G. Tyrrell, "To Dr. Zdziechowski," June 24, 1903 in George Tyrrell’s Letters, selected and edited by M. D. Petre, London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1920, pp. 97-98.
7. Ibid., p. 99.
8. Alfred Loisy, Mémoires pour Servir à l'Histoire Religieuse de Notre Temps, Paris: Émile Nourry, 3 volumes, vol. 1, 1931, p. 135.