[   0 →    7]  Hello, and welcome to part 2 of episode 13 of Foundations Restored.
[   7 →   13]  In this final segment we follow the path of destruction of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative
[  13 →   15]  in the domain of theology.
[  15 →   21]  We pick up our discussion by recalling that by the 1870s opposition to traditional Catholic
[  21 →   27]  doctrine had arisen and threatened to boost rationalism to victory in the area of biblical
[  27 →   29]  scholarship.
[  29 →   35]  The opposition was grounded in faith and evolution, which was itself an extension of rationalism
[  35 →   38]  and gradualism into the field of biology.
[  38 →   45]  We saw that in 1873 the astute radical critic David Strauss predicted that Darwinism, when
[  45 →   51]  added to the critical methods of rationalist scholars, would defeat Christianity.
[  51 →   57]  Given the stakes, it was clear to the magisterium that the errors of the day needed to be confronted.
[  57 →   62]  The task fell to Pope Leo XIII, who voiced the teaching of the Church regarding sacred
[  62 →   67]  scripture in the 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus.
[  87 →  111]  Let's take a closer look.
[ 111 →  116]  With this background of the momentum achieved by the negative critics in the late 1800s,
[ 116 →  122]  it is now clear why Pope Leo XIII opened the great encyclical Providentissimus Deus with
[ 122 →  124]  these words.
[ 124 →  131]  We have to meet the rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics who have
[ 131 →  135]  rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief.
[ 135 →  142]  They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration or holy scripture
[ 142 →  143]  at all.
[ 143 →  149]  They see, instead, only the forgeries and falsehoods of men.
[ 149 →  156]  Unfortunately, the encyclical had limited impact due to the momentum of rationalism
[ 156 →  163]  and evolutionism that had already permeated all domains of knowledge, but especially theology.
[ 163 →  170]  And so once more, in the late 1800s, negative biblical scholars were led deeper into error
[ 170 →  176]  by rationalist philosophers who had no intention of being obedient to the magisterium and in
[ 176 →  186]  many cases despised Christianity.
[ 186 →  192]  The issue for philosophers after 1859 was to find meaning in the Cartesian-Darwinian
[ 192 →  196]  world in which the Christian faith had been rejected.
[ 196 →  201]  As the most influential philosopher writing after the origin of species, Nietzsche declared
[ 201 →  202]  in the Gay Science,
[ 226 →  230]  You and I, but how have we done this?
[ 230 →  233]  How were we able to drink up the sea?
[ 233 →  236]  Whither are we moving now?
[ 236 →  239]  Do we not feel the breath of empty space?
[ 239 →  242]  Has it not become colder?
[ 242 →  245]  God is dead, and we have killed him.
[ 245 →  251]  How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?
[ 251 →  257]  What was holiest and most powerful of all has bled to death under our knives.
[ 257 →  263]  Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?
[ 263 →  267]  Here the madman fell silent and looked again.
[ 267 →  272]  And they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment.
[ 272 →  277]  At last he threw his lantern on the ground and it broke and went out.
[ 277 →  280]  I come too early, he said.
[ 280 →  283]  My time has not come yet.
[ 283 →  286]  This tremendous event is still on its way.
[ 286 →  294]  It has not yet reached the heirs of man, and yet they have done it themselves.
[ 294 →  300]  Believing the Christian god to be a myth, Nietzsche searched for meaning and wrote,
[ 300 →  306]  That my life has no aim is evident even from the accidental nature of its origin.
[ 306 →  310]  That I can posit an aim for myself is another matter.
[ 310 →  315]  He concluded in the Antichrist that life's aim should be the
[ 315 →  318]  Accumulation of forces for power.
[ 318 →  324]  Where the will to power is lacking, there is decline.
[ 324 →  330]  The largest obstacle to such ambitions, he reasoned, was Christianity.
[ 330 →  337]  The religion of pity, which crosses the law of development, which is the law of selection.
[ 337 →  340]  It preserves what is ripe for destruction.
[ 340 →  347]  It defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life.
[ 347 →  351]  One of Nietzsche's great admirers was Adolf Hitler, who acted out the philosophy on the
[ 351 →  356]  world stage until his death by suicide in 1945.
[ 356 →  367]  Fifty-six years after Nietzsche, the man at war with God had gone insane.
[ 367 →  370]  In England, things took a different turn.
[ 370 →  375]  As chronicled in the book, The Fabians, after 1859,
[ 375 →  379]  Social stresses were accompanied by severe psychological strains.
[ 379 →  384]  The new sciences, especially Darwin's evolutionary doctrine, had undermined the evangelical faith
[ 385 →  388]  which had energized the Victorian middle classes.
[ 388 →  393]  Since revealed religion was no longer credible, they were driven to seek alternative intellectual
[ 393 →  396]  systems around which their lives could be structured.
[ 396 →  402]  There are many about us, W.H. Malick pointedly remarked in 1878,
[ 402 →  409]  though they never confess their pain, whose hearts are aching for the God they no longer believe in.
[ 409 →  413]  In the political realm, the search for meaning soon focused on improving the life of the
[ 413 →  416]  common man through political reform.
[ 416 →  420]  One letter written to the poor in 1883 explained,
[ 420 →  425]  We have neglected you, wronged you, sinned against you grievously.
[ 425 →  431]  If you will forgive us, we will devote our lives to your service.
[ 431 →  435]  The result was the rise of socialism.
[ 435 →  441]  Robert H. Bork explains the ongoing link between the loss of faith and the embracing of socialism
[ 441 →  443]  in the Western world.
[ 443 →  447]  Intellectuals characteristically display a strong desire for meaning in life, and for
[ 447 →  453]  them, meaning requires transcendent principles and universalistic ideals.
[ 453 →  459]  These qualities were once conferred by religion, but religion is not an option for intellectuals.
[ 459 →  463]  The only alternative is the utopian outlook of the left.
[ 463 →  468]  Once the hardcore varieties of the left were put out of favor by World War II and the Cold War,
[ 468 →  475]  the intelligentsia turned to the softer and eclectic socialism of modern liberalism.
[ 475 →  480]  The various attitudes expressed in modern liberalism add up to an overarching sentiment
[ 480 →  486]  that must, for the time being, make due for a more explicit utopian vision.
[ 486 →  493]  Socialism is, of course, the only available secular utopian vision of our time.
[ 493 →  498]  In the late 1800s, the new focus of mankind's energies in the political realm reflected
[ 498 →  503]  a more general view that knowledge and science were the source of all truth and that science
[ 503 →  510]  would lead mankind to new and greater heights now that traditional Christianity had been discarded.
[ 510 →  515]  This view is called modernism, and modernism was adopted by many philosophers, including
[ 515 →  521]  those behind the emergence of humanism, which was discussed in episode 12.
[ 521 →  526]  Since biblical scholars had long followed the path of destruction blazed by the rationalistic
[ 526 →  532]  philosophers, it was inevitable that modernism would influence the domain of theology.
[ 532 →  538]  This occurred in the Catholic Church primarily through the 1898-1902 writings of Fr. Alfred
[ 538 →  542]  Loézzi, who would be excommunicated in 1908.
[ 542 →  547]  A formal pupil of the negative French critic, Renaud, Loézzi stated,
[ 547 →  552]  The first eleven chapters of Genesis do not contain a reliable account of the beginnings
[ 552 →  553]  of mankind.
[ 553 →  559]  At the present hour, the Church is an obstacle to the intellectual development of humanity.
[ 559 →  564]  To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.
[ 564 →  568]  Such is the law of all real development in humanity.
[ 568 →  571]  Such is also the law of religious institutions.
[ 571 →  576]  There is no more reason for admitting the immorality of men than that of fleas, ants,
[ 576 →  578]  snakes, and donkeys.
[ 578 →  584]  All are earth's vermin, proceeding from it, following the progress of evolution.
[ 584 →  591]  It is naive and prideful for man to imagine that he is entitled to special attention.
[ 591 →  596]  To combat modernism, several unprecedented steps were taken by the Church.
[ 596 →  603]  In 1902, Pope Leo XIII created the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the PBC, so that scripture
[ 603 →  608]  would be preserved intact and protected from error and rash opinions.
[ 608 →  614]  In 1907, Pope Saint Pius X decreed that all are bound to submit to the decisions of the
[ 614 →  619]  PBC, current and future, or else be guilty of grave sin.
[ 619 →  624]  The PBC was part of the ordinary magisterium until after Vatican II.
[ 624 →  629]  Important PBC statements refuting three centuries of rationalistic claims confirmed the mosaic
[ 629 →  635]  authorship of the Pentateuch, declared Genesis to be an account of true history, and confirmed
[ 635 →  641]  the special creation of man and the formation of the first woman from the first man.
[ 641 →  648]  In 1907, modernism was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascindi Domenici Gregis.
[ 648 →  652]  Describing the heresy, he stated that the modernists
[ 652 →  657]  lay down the general principle that in a living religion, everything is subject to change.
[ 657 →  661]  To the laws of evolution, everything is subject.
[ 661 →  667]  Dogma, church, worship, the books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.
[ 667 →  674]  Having laid down this law of evolution, the modernists themselves teach us how it works out.
[ 674 →  677]  Pope Saint Pius X also warned that
[ 677 →  682]  The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies.
[ 682 →  684]  They lie hid in her very bosom.
[ 684 →  688]  We allude to many who belong to the Catholic laity
[ 688 →  691]  and to many who belong to the priesthood itself,
[ 691 →  697]  who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology,
[ 697 →  700]  vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church,
[ 700 →  707]  and forming more boldly into line attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ,
[ 707 →  713]  not sparing even the person of the divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring,
[ 713 →  717]  they reduce to a simple, mere man.
[ 717 →  725]  And now, can anybody be surprised that we should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
[ 725 →  733]  Their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion.
[ 733 →  738]  Also, in 1907, Pope Saint Pius X issued La mentabile sane,
[ 738 →  743]  which condemned 65 modernist errors and warned that in the name of higher knowledge,
[ 743 →  746]  modernists are looking for that progress of dogmas,
[ 746 →  751]  which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.
[ 751 →  754]  Condemned errors included claims that
[ 754 →  759]  11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of sacred scripture
[ 759 →  764]  so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
[ 764 →  772]  57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
[ 772 →  778]  58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him.
[ 778 →  783]  65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science
[ 783 →  788]  only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity.
[ 788 →  794]  In 1910, Pope Pius X required all clergy and professors in Catholic institutions
[ 794 →  798]  to take the oath against modernism, which included the words
[ 798 →  802]  I sincerely hold that the doctrine of the faith was handed down to us from the apostles
[ 802 →  809]  through the Orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport.
[ 809 →  814]  Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation
[ 814 →  819]  that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another.
[ 823 →  828]  The action of Pope Pius X helped to stem modernism,
[ 828 →  833]  but the heresy was not stamped out. It only retreated into the shadows
[ 833 →  840]  because biblical criticism was not sufficiently cleansed from the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative.
[ 840 →  847]  Rationalist Catholic and Protestant scholars, confident that they knew more than Church authorities,
[ 847 →  853]  continued to develop techniques and approaches to study sacred scripture that,
[ 853 →  860]  taken to their logical conclusions, were incompatible with fundamental Catholic teaching.
[ 860 →  866]  One of the leading scholars of the 20th century was Rudolf Bultmann, who was linked to form criticism,
[ 866 →  871]  which involves a determination of the type of literature in the books of scripture.
[ 871 →  876]  While form criticism can be useful, Bultmann and others began with the assumption that the
[ 876 →  882]  gospel accounts are not historical, but are unreliable composites of many different writings
[ 882 →  887]  that reflect the evolution of the early Church. Bultmann resolved that nothing in the Gospels
[ 887 →  894]  could be attributed to Jesus with certainty, based on the underlying assumption that human nature is
[ 894 →  899]  immune from the interference of supernatural powers, and that man's knowledge and mastery of
[ 899 →  904]  the world have advanced to such an extent through science and technology that it is no longer
[ 904 →  910]  possible for anyone seriously to hold the New Testament view of the world.
[ 910 →  915]  Skepticism was the result. Bultmann's work marked the beginning of what is called the
[ 915 →  923]  no-quest period, wherein rationalist scholars concluded that we can never know the Jesus of history.
[ 923 →  929]  Closely related is redaction criticism, in which the claimed New Testament writers are often seen
[ 929 →  934]  merely as editors or redactors who combined multiple documents. Consequently, the view of
[ 934 →  941]  scriptural inerrancy is often sacrificed at the altar of the negative critic's pride and desire
[ 941 →  948]  for professional relevance. Luke Timothy Johnson explains how rationalism can easily lead scholars
[ 948 →  955]  employing redaction into gross error. In the case of 2 Corinthians, the detection of
[ 955 →  960]  seams has led to the hypothesis of as many as five source letters written by Paul,
[ 960 →  965]  which were later stitched together by an editor to create our present document.
[ 965 →  970]  Not only does 2 Corinthians now show Paul at battle with opponents, but it can reveal the
[ 970 →  977]  stages of that conflict. If the sources, which by now have become separate letters, can be arranged
[ 977 →  984]  in the proper chronological sequence, we actually have something that looks very much like real
[ 984 →  993]  history. But is it genuine history? Of course not. There is no new evidence and there are no controls.
[ 993 → 1001]  There is only imagination hitched to an obsessive need, somehow, anyhow, to do history.
[1002 → 1008]  The same sort of analysis has been applied to the Gospels through redaction criticism.
[1008 → 1013]  Following the strong response to modernism, many Catholic scholars looked with envy as their
[1013 → 1018]  Protestant counterparts performed biblical criticism with complete freedom and they
[1018 → 1023]  looked for the opportunity to break free of the shackles placed upon them by the Magisterium.
[1023 → 1029]  Their opening occurred in 1955 as the result of a book review in a scholarly journal that was
[1029 → 1034]  attributed to two Pontifical Biblical Commission members, even though the review was only initialed
[1034 → 1045]  and the authors were not clearly identified. Although the piece was far from an official statement and while the authorship still remains in question,
[1045 → 1050]  Catholic biblical critics seized upon the following wording to declare that they once
[1050 → 1056]  more had complete freedom in biblical studies and that the previous PBC decrees were abrogated.
[1057 → 1062]  Today we can hardly picture the position of Catholic scholars at the turn of the century
[1062 → 1067]  or the dangers that threatened Catholic teaching on scripture or its inspiration on the part of
[1067 → 1073]  liberal and rationalistic criticism. Controversies have been peacefully settled and many problems
[1073 → 1079]  emerge in an entirely new light so that it is easy enough for us to smile at the narrowness
[1079 → 1082]  and constraint which prevailed 50 years ago.
[1084 → 1089]  Neo-modernist scholars emerged from the shadows on the eve of Vatican II.
[1089 → 1095]  They did not adhere to all modernist errors, but they maintained evolutionary and rationalistic
[1095 → 1100]  views impacting their view of sacred scripture and their belief that the Church must evolve to
[1100 → 1106]  remain relevant. Consequently, even though Pope Saint John XXIII declared that the greatest
[1106 → 1111]  concern of the Ecumenical Council is that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be
[1111 → 1116]  guarded, that the Church not depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the
[1116 → 1121]  Fathers, and that it must cling to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and
[1121 → 1127]  preciseness, especially those of Trent in Vatican I, it was inevitable that Vatican II and the
[1127 → 1133]  aftermath would be problematic to the degree that Church leaders were influenced by Neo-modernism.
[1133 → 1136]  As it turned out, this influence was dramatic.
[1137 → 1144]  Many faithful Catholic priests and scholars who have studied the promulgated documents of Vatican II
[1144 → 1150]  have concluded that while the documents do not contain formal error and are of benefit when
[1150 → 1155]  interpreted in the light of previous Church teaching, the documents were worded to allow
[1155 → 1163]  the Neo-modernists to pursue their agenda after the Council in areas such as the denial of
[1163 → 1170]  scriptural inerrancy, the liturgy, papal primacy, and pursuit of Christian unity at the cost of
[1170 → 1176]  virtually any sacrifice of Catholic doctrine. While Pope Paul VI at first refused to accept
[1176 → 1184]  the existence of such a subversive strategy, when proof was shown to him in November 1964,
[1184 → 1189]  he broke down and wept. We now provide some background.
[1192 → 1197]  When Vatican II was announced, work was begun on the preparatory documents, or schemas,
[1197 → 1202]  that were initial drafts of what were intended to become the Council constitutions and decrees.
[1202 → 1209]  Some 871 scholars worked for more than two years to prepare the schemas, which were true to Pope
[1209 → 1215]  John's intent to preserve traditional doctrine. During this time, however, a group of bishops and
[1215 → 1221]  their theologian advisors, called Pariti, began strategizing to radically change the Council's
[1221 → 1227]  direction. This group is commonly called the Northern Alliance or European Alliance because
[1227 → 1233]  it consisted largely of bishops and Pariti from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands,
[1233 → 1239]  and Switzerland. While bishops faithful to the stated intent of Vatican II also had Pariti, it
[1239 → 1246]  was not until the third session that these bishops became fully aware of the Northern Alliance's aims.
[1246 → 1251]  The Northern Alliance successfully placed members in key Council positions, and two weeks into the
[1251 → 1257]  first session, it convinced Pope St. John XXIII that the first four preparatory schema should be
[1257 → 1263]  rejected. This set the pattern for the entire Council. Who were the Pariti of the Northern
[1263 → 1271]  Alliance? We will briefly profile three of these men. Father Karl Rahner was an immensely influential
[1271 → 1277]  Catholic scholar who was a Pariti for Cardinal Franz König of Austria during Vatican II.
[1277 → 1283]  As did David Strauss a century before, Rahner believed that scripture contains many myths
[1283 → 1288]  that must be discarded if religion was to remain meaningful. He wrote,
[1288 → 1294]  The theology of the future must be a demythologizing theology. A demythologizing
[1294 → 1300]  theology well understood must realize that propositions such as, there are three persons
[1300 → 1306]  and one God, God sent his son into the world, we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ,
[1306 → 1313]  are purely and simply incomprehensible for modern man if they remain in the ancient style of
[1313 → 1319]  theology and of the proclamation, the point of departure and the arrival point of the Christian
[1319 → 1326]  statement. They make the same impression as the pure mythology in a religion of times past.
[1327 → 1332]  Father Rahner was a leading dissenter against Humanae Vitae and he openly recommended the
[1332 → 1339]  removal of any reference to inerrancy in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum. Such influence
[1339 → 1345]  was painfully apparent during the council when on October 2nd, 1964, Cardinal König declared
[1345 → 1350]  before the council that sacred scripture contained errors of science and history
[1350 → 1356]  even though this statement was a material heresy and his examples have been easily refuted.
[1356 → 1362]  Father Hans Kuhn was a Swiss theologian teaching in Germany. As the first session neared its end,
[1362 → 1367]  he declared to the press that what had once been the dream of an avant-garde group in the church
[1367 → 1376]  had spread and permeated the entire atmosphere of the church due to the council. He would later
[1376 → 1382]  write that the meaning of sacred scripture and theological conclusions can never again be based on
[1382 → 1389]  Following Vatican II, his unorthodox views increasingly came to light and resulted in an
[1389 → 1396]  order to appear in Rome. He refused and in 1979, he was stripped of his authority to teach as a
[1396 → 1402]  Catholic. He also refused to teach as a Christian in Rome. He refused to teach as a Christian in
[1402 → 1408]  Rome. He refused to teach as a Christian in Rome. He refused to teach as a Christian in Rome.
[1408 → 1413]  In 1979, he was stripped of his authority to teach as a Catholic theologian.
[1414 → 1419]  Father Edward Schillebeck was a leading theologian for the bishops of the Netherlands and the primary
[1419 → 1425]  author of the letter to Pope John XXIII that prompted the rejection of key preparatory schema.
[1425 → 1430]  Following Vatican II, Father Schillebeck's views were set forth in what is called the Dutch
[1430 → 1436]  Catechism, published in 1965, although the bishops of the Netherlands were instructed by Rome not to
[1436 → 1443]  publish the book due to problematic content, the bishops published nevertheless, conceding to add
[1443 → 1448]  only a short compendium that was sold separately. The Dutch Catechism sold hundreds of thousands of
[1448 → 1455]  copies and was translated into multiple languages. What did the Dutch Catechism contain that was so
[1455 → 1460]  jealously guarded by the disobedient bishops of the Netherlands? The book's sleeve declares,
[1460 → 1465]  The greatest overall achievement of the Second Vatican Council was its conscious proclamation
[1465 → 1470]  of the fact that Christianity is an adult religion that can be adequately understood
[1470 → 1476]  and lived by those who have come of age. And exactly what modern insight was the text
[1476 → 1482]  referring to? The answer is found in the opening pages. The growing child puts question after
[1482 → 1488]  question. The grown man still keeps on putting questions. Who am I? What is man? What is the
[1488 → 1494]  meaning of life? Let us proceed with our search. Sometimes the meaning of a phenomenon is revealed
[1494 → 1501]  when we examine its beginnings. How did our life begin? Where does it come from? What of the origin
[1501 → 1507]  of mankind? Let us look at our past. The skulls and bones that have been found tell us something
[1507 → 1515]  that we had not known. Half a million years ago, a more primitive type can be vaguely discerned.
[1515 → 1521]  The Australopithecus, an ape-like being. One thing only stands out clearer and clearer.
[1522 → 1528]  The marvelous fact that a species of animal mounts a long, slow line of evolution to reach
[1529 → 1536]  us. The life in my body comes from the beasts. This is something that many people once found
[1536 → 1542]  shocking. Up to very recently, the Bible was regarded too much as a sort of scientific manual.
[1542 → 1549]  The difficulty was solved by a better understanding of the Bible. And richer and richer finds showed
[1549 → 1556]  still more clearly the great drama of the spine that slowly straightened up and the skull that
[1556 → 1564]  took on a greater volume as the beast developed into man. All this seems to point to some sort
[1564 → 1571]  of answer. Life has a direction and some sort of meaning. But the answer is not a clear one.
[1572 → 1580]  The origin of man lies outside our grasp. False ideas have consequences. And in the aftermath
[1580 → 1585]  of Vatican II and the publication of the Dutch Catechism, the Catholic faith in the Netherlands
[1585 → 1591]  effectively died. The nation that accounted for 11% of all Catholic missionaries prior to World
[1591 → 1602]  War II saw church attendance fall from 65% in 1976 to 1.2% by 2006. New ordinations into the
[1602 → 1612]  priesthood fell from 420 in 1957 to 0 in 1971, after a year in which 243 priests had left their
[1612 → 1624]  vocation and 271 had died. Why did this occur? Very simply, because many priests and laity of
[1624 → 1630]  the Netherlands no longer believed the Catholic faith to be true. Tragically, the impact of
[1630 → 1636]  Neo-Modernism, which was built upon the lies of Descartes and Darwin, was not restricted to the
[1636 → 1644]  Netherlands or confined to the Dutch Catechism. In Creation Rediscovered, Gerald J. Keane explains.
[1646 → 1652]  In North America alone, some 10,000 priests and 50,000 nuns left their vocations in the 10 years
[1652 → 1660]  between 1966 and 1976, marking an unprecedented collapse of faith within the Catholic Church.
[1660 → 1666]  The impact made by Modernism is not hard to discern, and neither is the related origins
[1666 → 1672]  confusion. The Modernist cancer still continues to flourish, with strong emphasis on subjective
[1672 → 1678]  feelings and experiential catechetics, and it is hard to see how the current descent can be
[1678 → 1685]  effectively countered until the credibility of the Genesis account is restored. Meanwhile, the number
[1685 → 1691]  of practicing Catholics continues to dwindle, and large numbers of the young are being denied
[1691 → 1699]  their right to knowledge of truth about doctrine. In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope
[1699 → 1705]  Benedict XVI, commented about Vatican II. The results of the Council seemed to cruelly
[1705 → 1711]  contradict the expectations everybody had. It was expected to produce a leap forward,
[1711 → 1717]  but we have been confronted instead with a continuing process of decay that has gone on
[1717 → 1723]  largely on the basis of appeals to the Council, and has thus helped to discredit the Council.
[1723 → 1728]  It is undeniable that this period has been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church.
[1730 → 1738]  Likewise, Pope Paul VI stated in 1972. Satan's smoke has made its way into the temple of God
[1738 → 1743]  through some crack. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered through windows
[1743 → 1750]  that ought to be open to light. People thought that after Vatican II, a day of sunshine would
[1750 → 1756]  come for the history of the Church. There came, on the contrary, a day of uncertainty.
[1756 → 1762]  There has been the intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil.
[1763 → 1767]  Any Catholic who reads the well-documented accounts of what occurred at Vatican II
[1767 → 1773]  will clearly see that the Council was influenced by bishops and advisers who wanted to force
[1773 → 1779]  change upon the Church. And yet, despite the certainty of this influence, no one seems to
[1779 → 1785]  be able to stop the decay. The reason is that few have identified the underlying and pre-existing
[1785 → 1792]  view which still needs to be adequately denounced. The pre-existing view is that the Council
[1792 → 1798]  is the pre-existing and lingering view is the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative, which took the
[1798 → 1805]  form of Neo-Modernism after the Modernist condemnation in 1907. And while many well-known
[1805 → 1810]  Catholic instructors and apologists who accept Darwinism or other parts of the narrative are
[1810 → 1817]  quick to assure audiences that all is well in the Church, the ongoing decay caused by Neo-Modernist
[1817 → 1824]  scholars writing after the Council is readily apparent. Father Raymond Brown, whose effect on
[1824 → 1829]  Catholic academics in North America has simply been immense, and who has been called the most
[1829 → 1835]  renowned American biblical scholar since Vatican II and an outspoken partisan of restricted
[1835 → 1840]  inerrancy, has sown numerous seeds of doubt through writings such as the following.
[1841 → 1844]  Before his death, did Jesus actually utter the words,
[1844 → 1850]  do this in commemoration of me, missing in Matthew's and Mark's account of the Last Supper?
[1850 → 1855]  Or is that a post-resurrectional interpretation of the implication of his Last Supper,
[1855 → 1860]  based upon the Eucharistic practice of the primitive churches known to Luke,
[1860 → 1867]  2219, and Paul, 1 Corinthians 1125? These questions are best answered not by
[1867 → 1872]  citing Church doctrine phrased by people who were neither asking nor answering them,
[1872 → 1878]  but by studying the Gospels historically and seeking to pierce behind the professions of
[1878 → 1884]  the early faith to the circumstances of Jesus's ministry and his worldview.
[1885 → 1891]  Here, Brown employs a common Neo-Modernist strategy of asking questions that lead the
[1891 → 1897]  reader to embrace a rationalistic position. He is also deliberately vague, using terms such as
[1897 → 1903]  post-resurrectional interpretation to hide his clear break from Catholic teaching.
[1903 → 1910]  But to be clear, Brown is suggesting that Jesus's command instituting the Holy Eucharist
[1910 → 1916]  was not an historical reality, but was created by Luke and Paul and merely reflected the symbolic
[1916 → 1923]  practice of the early church. Then imitating the deist John Tolland, Brown dismisses the early
[1923 → 1930]  church and the church fathers. Another example of Neo-Modernist influence on mainstream catechesis
[1930 → 1936]  is found in the much-publicized youth catechism called UCAT, which contains the following question
[1936 → 1942]  and answer. Question. How can sacred scripture be truth if not everything in it is right?
[1943 → 1949]  Answer. The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to
[1949 → 1955]  us. Moreover, the authors were children of their time. They shared the cultural ideas of the world
[1955 → 1963]  around them and often were also dominated by its errors. Here again, we see the Neo-Modernist
[1963 → 1969]  strategy of leading readers toward a heretical position without directly expressing the heresy
[1969 → 1975]  of limited inerrancy. Another example comes from a statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
[1975 → 1981]  Bishops that leverages the Abbot translation of Dei Verbum, even though this translation has long
[1981 → 1987]  been recognized as misleading. Vatican II says that the books of scripture must be acknowledged
[1987 → 1994]  as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred
[1994 → 2000]  writings for the sake of our salvation. Dei Verbum 11. What is important is the qualification
[2000 → 2010]  of that truth with for the sake of our salvation. Finally, consider the following passages taken
[2010 → 2017]  from the 1990 Jerome Biblical Commentary. Did Jesus indicate how he understood his
[2017 → 2022]  possible death? Here especially one must beware of prophecies after the fact,
[2022 → 2028]  retrojected into the life of Jesus. There is no reason to think that Jesus expected a violent
[2028 → 2034]  end from the beginning of his ministry. The Last Supper was a pledge that, despite the apparent
[2034 → 2041]  failure of his mission, God would vindicate Jesus even beyond death and bring him and his followers
[2041 → 2047]  to the eschatological banquet. Also disputed is whether the Barabbas incident and the supposed
[2047 → 2053]  custom underlying it are historical or the creation of Christian tradition. The edifying
[2053 → 2060]  repentance of the good thief is probably Lucan redaction. The words from the cross, including
[2060 → 2065]  the so-called cry of dereliction, may come from later Christian interpretation of Christ's death.
[2066 → 2072]  The placing of Jesus' mother and the beloved disciple at the cross may be Johannine symbolism.
[2073 → 2078]  The account of setting a guard at the sealed tomb must be judged at later creation of Jewish
[2078 → 2085]  Christian debates. To be clear, phrases such as prophecies after the fact, the creation of
[2085 → 2091]  Christian tradition, and Lucan redaction all suggest that the gospel narratives are not
[2091 → 2100]  historically accurate or trustworthy, let alone inerrant. The ongoing effects of negative criticism
[2100 → 2106]  were acknowledged by Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, who observed that some
[2106 → 2113]  methods of higher criticism, quote, treat the biblical text itself as an entirely worldly
[2113 → 2122]  reality according to natural scientific methods, unquote. He wrote that what is needed is a
[2122 → 2130]  critical look at the exegetical landscape. Scientific exegesis must recognize the philosophical
[2130 → 2136]  element present in a great number of its ground rules, and it must then reconsider the results
[2136 → 2144]  which are based on these rules. In 1993, Pope John Paul II spoke highly of the contribution that
[2144 → 2151]  historical criticism can make upon the release of the PBC document, the interpretation of the Bible
[2151 → 2158]  in the Church. However, the PBC document itself cautions that the historical critical method
[2158 → 2164]  must be conscious of its limits, as well as of the dangers to which it is exposed,
[2165 → 2172]  and must be free of a rationalism which is opposed to the faith or based on an atheistic
[2172 → 2178]  materialism. In the introduction, Cardinal Ratzinger also spoke of, quote-unquote,
[2178 → 2184]  hidden dangers of the historical method, which reinforced Pope John Paul II's statement
[2185 → 2191]  that the Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived
[2191 → 2198]  opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality cause science to depart
[2198 → 2204]  from its domain. Unfortunately, the ongoing doubt caused by the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative
[2205 → 2210]  means that much of biblical scholarship will continue to be destructive.
[2210 → 2217]  More generally, any domain of knowledge that adopts the false and rationalistic presuppositions
[2217 → 2225]  of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative slips onto a death spiral. In secular philosophy,
[2225 → 2231]  the death occurred once modernism was widely seen as a failure due to the casualties of war
[2231 → 2237]  during the 20th century. In its place came postmodernism, the view that there is no truth
[2237 → 2246]  and that every view is equally valid and must be tolerated. Only intolerance cannot be tolerated.
[2247 → 2251]  If there is no truth, then there is no use searching for it, using one's reason.
[2251 → 2256]  And this view marks the effective death of secular philosophy.
[2258 → 2264]  In the domain of theology, neo-modernism is also a death sentence, and the evidence is there for
[2264 → 2270]  all to see. Tens of millions of former believers now live as practical atheists as Catholic churches
[2270 → 2275]  are being torn down or sold and converted into pubs and mosques. For those who remain in the
[2275 → 2281]  Catholic Church, there has emerged the view that God is so loving and merciful as to be indifferent
[2281 → 2288]  to sin, that all behaviors once viewed as immoral must be re-evaluated, including the meaning of
[2288 → 2293]  marriage. After all, so neo-modernists in the Church explain, the institution of marriage was
[2293 → 2298]  based on a crude understanding of Genesis' true history, a view no longer accepted by the mature
[2298 → 2303]  and well-educated who have reasoned through the implications of Darwin and Descartes.
[2304 → 2309]  In place of traditional doctrine and the call for a life of holiness and sacrifice
[2309 → 2316]  has come a near total focus on social justice. While living the Catholic faith does, indeed,
[2316 → 2322]  entail an obligation to assist the poor and the downtrodden, the near exclusive focus on social
[2322 → 2328]  justice in many quarters is a clear indication that, as with the English in Darwin's time, many
[2328 → 2334]  clergy and lay Catholics are trying to fill the void left by a God they no longer believe in.
[2335 → 2341]  This trend is not sustainable. It is not a positive development and, indeed, it signals an
[2341 → 2346]  unprecedented collapse of the Catholic faith. Current conditions will never lead to a renewed
[2346 → 2351]  Catholic faith at the global level, no matter how many times the words,
[2351 → 2357]  a new springtime, are repeated. Little wonder, then, that the Gospel of Saint Luke asks,
[2357 → 2362]  but yet, when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
[2366 → 2372]  We cannot fail to mention the impact of neo-modernism on the clergy sex abuse scandal
[2372 → 2376]  that appears to be widespread and extend well into the Catholic hierarchy.
[2377 → 2384]  While many in the Catholic media have downplayed the crisis in the wake of the 2018 Pennsylvania
[2384 → 2390]  Attorney General report, it is clear that the crisis is real and that our duty as Catholics
[2390 → 2396]  is to honestly answer the question, how could this have happened? How could a culture of sex
[2396 → 2402]  abuse at the hands of priests, many of whom are homosexual, have arisen in the first place,
[2402 → 2409]  and why was the culture of abuse protected by many in authority? I believe that the abuse scandal
[2409 → 2416]  can only be adequately explained by understanding the crisis of faith among even the clergy that
[2416 → 2422]  resulted from the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative, the modernist heresy, and now neo-modernism.
[2423 → 2427]  If this seems far-fetched, imagine yourself as a young Catholic man who feels called to the
[2427 → 2432]  priesthood, only to go off to a Catholic seminary and learn that modern methods of historical
[2432 → 2437]  criticism and the evolutionary view of the world have apparently showed the orthodox teachings of
[2437 → 2442]  the church to be untrue. With this new view, everything goes. Scriptural inerrancy, the
[2442 → 2446]  teachings of the fathers, even magisterial pronouncements that cannot survive the scalpel
[2446 → 2451]  of the negative higher critics. Faced with these cold, hard facts, the seminary student has a
[2452 → 2457]  choice to make. Many leave the priesthood, and who could blame them? After all, why devote one's life
[2457 → 2463]  to a faith that apparently is not true? Others resolve to remain in the priesthood, hoping that
[2463 → 2467]  their faith can survive, or that at least faith in something worthy of one's devotion emerges.
[2468 → 2472]  What often emerges from the continued studies is the mindset that the Catholic church must
[2472 → 2476]  continue to evolve and change its teachings so that it can be relevant in the modern world
[2476 → 2481]  and appeal to those outside the church. For those seminary students who accept this
[2481 → 2485]  characteristic modernistic viewpoint, the loss of the true Catholic faith has additional
[2485 → 2489]  consequences, as many no longer have the spiritual strength to withstand temptation
[2489 → 2494]  and sins of the flesh. Within the confines of some seminaries, these sins of the flesh are
[2494 → 2500]  tolerated, and a culture of acceptance permeates priestly formation. Since immoral sexual practices
[2500 → 2506]  are often addictive, these sins may accompany the priest to parish assignments where scandals arise
[2506 → 2511]  but are normally silenced through payouts to victims. When a case of abuse does come to light,
[2511 → 2515]  the laity and general population are so shocked that they fail to reflect on what could have led
[2515 → 2519]  to such a culture among clergy, and so the underlying cause of neo-modernism and the
[2519 → 2528]  Cardesian-Darwinian narrative is never considered. As a socio-economist who studies population trends,
[2528 → 2533]  it seems obvious that the dramatic reduction in the number of practicing Catholics since
[2533 → 2539]  World War II will continue as long as the neo-modernist influence remains in the church.
[2540 → 2545]  How it must grieve and anger our Lord to see the current condition of His bride,
[2545 → 2550]  and yet very few Catholics seem interested in finding the underlying cause of the current
[2550 → 2557]  crisis. The roots of the crisis are Darwinism and what was likely a demonic dream experienced by
[2557 → 2566]  Descartes in 1619 that gave birth to the lie that God does not intervene in the world. Catholic
[2566 → 2572]  philosopher Jacques Maritain comes to a similar conclusion regarding the origin of Descartes'
[2572 → 2580]  philosophy. The most deep-seated characteristic of the Cartesian reform is, more than anything else
[2580 → 2586]  in my opinion, one of disjunction and rupture. St. Thomas brings together, Descartes cleaves and
[2586 → 2593]  separates, and this in the most violently dogmatic way. What was it that gave Descartes the strength
[2593 → 2599]  to break with an age-long tradition? In other words, what was the central intuition which must
[2599 → 2605]  have contained all the energies of the Cartesian revolution? The notes made by the philosopher in
[2605 → 2611]  his youth enable us to answer that question. This vital and spiritual germ was the revelation of the
[2611 → 2618]  admirable science that Descartes received at the age of 23 during that famous dream of the 10th of
[2618 → 2625]  November 1619, the dream he regarded as being entirely supernatural and which decided his
[2625 → 2631]  philosophical vocation. It is very embarrassing for modern rationalism to have been born in a
[2631 → 2639]  dream, and at that, in a dream which a genius that had for several days past been exciting enthusiasm
[2639 → 2646]  in him had predicted to the philosopher before he had retired to his bed. However, that is the fact.
[2669 → 2683]  I believe it is to these brave men and women that Pope Paul VI referred when he predicted in 1976
[2684 → 2690]  that in the future the Catholic Church would be reduced to, quote, a handful of defeated men, unquote.
[2691 → 2697]  And so the issue facing every viewer is whether you, like those associated with the Kolbe Center
[2697 → 2702]  and Restoring Truth Ministries, believe that the Catholic faith is still worth fighting for.
[2703 → 2709]  Will you stand for truth, or will you walk away from this desperate struggle, resolving that it
[2709 → 2717]  is not your fight and that the opposition is too entrenched to be overcome? Restoring truth and
[2717 → 2723]  allowing the full light to emanate from the true Catholic doctrine of origins and God's inerrant
[2723 → 2730]  word will not be easy, but it has never been more important because Neo-Modernism is so ingrained
[2730 → 2736]  and the days have grown so dark. What type of dedication will be required to restore the truth?
[2737 → 2744]  Relying on the words of Saint John Chrysostom, Pope Leo XIII gave us the answer in Providentissimus Deus.
[2746 → 2752]  We must use every endeavor that the Word of God may dwell in us abundantly, and not merely for
[2752 → 2760]  one kind of fight must we be prepared. For the contest is many-sided, and the enemy is of every
[2760 → 2767]  sort. And they do not all use the same weapons, nor make their onset in the same way. The man who
[2767 → 2773]  has to contend against all should be acquainted with the engines and the arts of all. He should
[2773 → 2781]  be at once archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private soldier, foot soldier
[2781 → 2788]  and horseman, skilled in sea fight and in siege. For unless he knows of every trick and turn of war,
[2788 → 2793]  the devil is well able, if only a single door be left open,
[2793 → 2798]  to get in his fierce bands and carry off the sheep.
[2801 → 2806]  We invite each viewer to reflect upon and to further study the foundational cause
[2806 → 2810]  of what has gone wrong in the Church through the use of the series Study Guide
[2810 → 2815]  and its recommended readings. We ask you to prayerfully consider the role that God would
[2815 → 2821]  have you play in the restoration of truth. While none of us can restore the truth on our own,
[2822 → 2828]  each of us can start by taking responsibility for our families and by walking through the doors
[2828 → 2836]  that God will open. Many Catholics devoted to the restoration of truth can have a significant impact
[2836 → 2842]  by leveraging this DVD series as outlined in the series introduction. We now invite you to commit
[2842 → 2848]  to this restoration as we close with the Prayer of the Night for Truth, written as the author
[2848 → 2854]  came to understand the underlying cause of the current Catholic crisis and realized that God
[2854 → 2861]  is calling every Catholic to defend the Catholic faith whole and entire against the lies of Descartes
[2861 → 2868]  and Darwin that continue to fuel Neo-Modernism and what Bellah called the final advance against the Church.
[2880 → 2883]  The Prayer of the Nights for Truth
[2884 → 2888]  Heavenly Father, I know not where you would lead me
[2888 → 2892]  nor which truths you would have me defend in the war of worldviews.
[2894 → 2899]  I know not how you could use me, a follower of Christ who has so many limitations.
[2901 → 2905]  I only know that I am grieved by the deception of the young and innocent
[2906 → 2915]  and that my soul compels me to engage in the struggle for truth. I can remain silent no longer.
[2915 → 2920]  Help me to advance in Christian maturity and to become a contender for the faith.
[2921 → 2926]  Help me to realize the importance of taking no part in the worthless deeds of darkness,
[2927 → 2935]  but to rebuke and expose them instead. May I become disciplined enough to train for battle
[2935 → 2943]  and to be skilled at more than one kind of fight. For, indeed, the contest is many-sided
[2944 → 2949]  and the enemy is of every sort, and not all use the same weapons nor make their
[2949 → 2956]  onset in the same way. Help me to become acquainted with deceptive science,
[2956 → 2961]  philosophy, and historical methods that have become the modern weapons of the enemy.
[2962 → 2968]  Help me to learn the tricks and turns of this war, so that I may have an answer ready for the
[2968 → 2975]  opposition and for those seeking truth, such that no doors are left open for the father of lies to
[2975 → 2982]  enter and carry off the sheep. Help me to persevere in this struggle of worldviews,
[2982 → 2986]  so that I may lead many to truth in the time that remains.
[2988 → 2995]  Help me to especially become a protector of the young and innocent. May I balance this noble
[2995 → 3002]  cause with other responsibilities and worthy commitments, and identify those activities that
[3002 → 3010]  are not pleasing to you and on which time is wasted. I pray for the strength to avoid compromise
[3010 → 3019]  and temptation, and I pray that when I fail, the Holy Spirit impresses upon me the need to repent,
[3020 → 3024]  so that I may be worthy of the sacred name, Christian.
[3026 → 3032]  Help me to press onward to the finish line, and persevere when I experience the fellowship of
[3032 → 3040]  sharing in Christ's sufferings, such that when I have breathed my last, I may feel my Savior's
[3041 → 3043]  embrace and hear the words,
[3044 → 3051]  Well done, good and faithful servant. You shall remain with me forevermore.
[3053 → 3060]  In Jesus' name I pray, through the immaculate heart of Mary. Amen.
[3070 → 3071]  you
[3191 → 3195]  so
[3208 → 3208]  you