The Catholic Message Board

Is it just me, or is it true that the old-school Progressive Catholicism which seemed to rule the roost 25 years ago has seriously declined and lost most of its influence?

I remember when dissenting books like Christ Among Us by Anthony Wilhelm, Catholicism by Richard McBrien, and the infamous Dutch Catechism seemed to be everywhere, but it has now been years since I've seen a copy. It has been so long since I have seen a copy of any of these books that I actually had to check Amazon just to make sure they are still in print. (They are, but who knew, they sure don't seem to be selling.)

Most of the influential progressive theologians are dead or retired, from Edward Schillebeeckx to Hans Kung and everyone in between, and their successors don't have 1/10 the fame or influence.

It especially seems to be the case that all the progressive bishops and cardinals are dead or retired as well, with successors who aren't half as influential as their predecessors.

On the other hand, all the popular level spokesmen that the media go to for stories about the Church seem to be a lot less dissenting as well, they can't turn to the old standbys like Anthony Greeley (who was much less liberal than his reputation would suggest, and he tended to be critical of liberal theologians ) or Richard McBrien.

It seems progressivism is a movement that is currently in decline, relegated to the margins, a movement that is trapped in a bubble that is gradually getting smaller and smaller, they interact only with each other with little interaction with the larger Church.

But this is anecdotal evidence, which is less than useless. Tell me, is my perception correct?

My "perception" is that the rank and file are generally less progressive, but that the hierarchy still has pockets of progressivism. However real, or imagined, that's my perception.

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:13 pm My "perception" is that the rank and file are generally less progressive, but that the hierarchy still has pockets of progressivism. However real, or imagined, that's my perception.

Yes, but less so than in the past, and most of the clergy that still hold to progressivism are old, 70 or over. You will find few who are age 40 and younger.

Hopefully the younger clerics won't get taken out by the progressives, lashing out in the death throes of their movement.

Swings and roundabouts. The danger now is the radical traditionalists ie. Credo by Athanasius Schneider and other activists wanting to undermine Vatican II reforms.

When I was doing a university theology subject about 12 years ago, a recommended author was Elizabeth Johnson. I read Truly Our Sister by her and even though I am pro more female involvement in theological direction, it felt off at a gut level. I learned a few years later that her books were no longer recommended reading at the Catholic University.

People like Taylor Marshall who claim Francis is an antipope and want the College of Cardinals to initiate the non-existent "Bellarmine option" are definitively more of a problem these days. But they need to stop citing Bellarmine, he believed it was impossible for a Pope to teach heresy and he is undoubtedly very offended to see so many people quote him as saying the opposite. And ignoramuses like Taylor Marshall, who believes the moon landing was a hoax, get nearly all their facts wrong, and don't even seem to understand what an "antipope" even is.

It is possible to suggest that some Vatican II reforms weren't a good idea without being a bad Catholic. Doubly so with respect to changes that followed Vatican II that weren't what the Council asked for, and in some places went directly against it (e.g., the near complete eradication of Latin).

I didn't realize that Taylor Marshall had fallen so far into nutso land.

The "progressivism" is just now in certain bishops conferences - Germany comes to mind - and also with certain bishops (+Cupich) comes to mind.

The Holy Spirit is sending us priests from Africa - who are orthodox - and displace the "progressive" priests. I remember reading about the "pagan Babies" fund drives - sending money to Africa - which has yielded a rich harvest of orthodox priests.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:18 pm It is possible to suggest that some Vatican II reforms weren't a good idea without being a bad Catholic. Doubly so with respect to changes that followed Vatican II that weren't what the Council asked for, and in some places went directly against it (e.g., the near complete eradication of Latin).

Based on my research, the Vatican II directives on what the reform of the liturgy would look like were directly and explicitly overridden by Paul VI. They eradicated Latin altogether because those were his instructions, also, the original 1970 ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo was bad because Paul VI told them not to closely follow the Latin but to translate very loosely.

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 4:04 pm Swings and roundabouts. The danger now is the radical traditionalists ie. Credo by Athanasius Schneider and other activists wanting to undermine Vatican II reforms.

Every time I see you complain about "the danger of radical traditionalists" I'm reminded immediately of this passage from Screwtape:

"The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under."


The sheer idea that people who want to hold fast to the Deposit of the Faith and Divine Revelation are a "danger" is patently absurd.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:19 pm I didn't realize that Taylor Marshall had fallen so far into nutso land.

I see him sorta in the same vein as Matt Walsh, neither of them are of the sort that I take too seriously and they're not convincing anyone who hasn't already been convinced.

Doom wrote: It seems progressivism is a movement that is currently in decline, relegated to the margins, a movement that is trapped in a bubble that is gradually getting smaller and smaller, they interact only with each other with little interaction with the larger Church.

But this is anecdotal evidence, which is less than useless. Tell me, is my perception correct?

I think that progressivism has been dying a long, slow death for the last 30 years but has been supplanted by something far worse, which a sort of neo-Hermeticism/neo-Gnosticism.

I think that the act itself of having to degrade something as wonderful and dynamic as Catholic Christianity into lame political categories of "progressive" or "conservative" is indicative of how the perverse nature of Leftist concepts of power-dynamics has been allowed to infiltrate the Catholic consciousness. Even if the purveyors of Leftist doctrine are dying away, the perverted legacy that they're leaving behind I don't think is going away any time soon.

However I do believe that you're correct in how younger generations like Gen X, Y, and Z who have long been fed up with the excesses of the sexual revolution and the damage it's caused are by and large intuitively rejecting cultural/religious chaos caused by Leftist ideology. It will be ultimately up to the Holy Spirit to restore that dynamism of consciousness that is authentically Catholic in the truist sense of the word and rejects the limits of the cheap political categories of world-bound ideologues.

Gandalf the Grey wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 8:23 am

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 4:04 pm Swings and roundabouts. The danger now is the radical traditionalists ie. Credo by Athanasius Schneider and other activists wanting to undermine Vatican II reforms.

Every time I see you complain about "the danger of radical traditionalists" I'm reminded immediately of this passage from Screwtape:

"The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under."


The sheer idea that people who want to hold fast to the Deposit of the Faith and Divine Revelation are a "danger" is patently absurd.

Fantastic straw man! You cannot claim the Pope is a heretic, the Magesterium is in error and that the Pope and cardinals are dedicated to destroying the Church and then you are only upholding the Deposit of faith, you seem to hold the exact opposite of “outside the Church no salvation”, “ inside the Church guaranteed damnation”, why would any Protestant convert hearing people say such things?

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:23 am

Gandalf the Grey wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 8:23 am

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 4:04 pm Swings and roundabouts. The danger now is the radical traditionalists ie. Credo by Athanasius Schneider and other activists wanting to undermine Vatican II reforms.

Every time I see you complain about "the danger of radical traditionalists" I'm reminded immediately of this passage from Screwtape:

"The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under."


The sheer idea that people who want to hold fast to the Deposit of the Faith and Divine Revelation are a "danger" is patently absurd.

Fantastic straw man! You cannot claim the Pope is a heretic, the Magesterium is in error and that the Pope and cardinals are dedicated to destroying the Church and then you are only upholding the Deposit of faith, you seem to hold the exact opposite of “outside the Church no salvation”, “ inside the Church guaranteed damnation”, why would any Protestant convert hearing people say such things?

Dude, what are you even talking about?

Show me exactly where I've explicitly said any of those things.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:18 pm It is possible to suggest that some Vatican II reforms weren't a good idea without being a bad Catholic. Doubly so with respect to changes that followed Vatican II that weren't what the Council asked for, and in some places went directly against it (e.g., the near complete eradication of Latin).

It’s just a reality that Latin in the traditional disciplines that used it, wasn’t going to survive beyond the 20th century. Trying to impose its use on cultures that had no roots in Latin wasn’t successful. Ie the Jesuits in 16th century China had permission to use the vernacular. Inculturation was inevitable.

There's a good essay by Jeremy Priest author at Adoremus that goes into the pre Vatican II history of the vernacular Mass.

https://adoremus.org/2019/01/forbidden- ... ernacular/

Why is it a reality? Please note that I'm not talking about having the entire Mass still in Latin; I'm talking about the total abandonment of Latin.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 5:32 pm Why is it a reality? Please note that I'm not talking about having the entire Mass still in Latin; I'm talking about the total abandonment of Latin.

As the classic 'international' language it's been phased out since somewhere in the 19th century. In scholarship, science, medicine, law texts can no longer assume a general knowledge of Latin. Those texts are all written or translated into the vernacular now. It was inevitable as the concept of 'international' started to include countries whose language has no roots in Latin.

I think progressivism is on the rise in Christian communities in Kerala. I don't think people "blend" the two together much, but most people continue to attend Mass etc even as they sent doctrines one by one. Some deny the faith in toto.

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:18 pm People like Taylor Marshall who claim Francis is an antipope and want the College of Cardinals to initiate the non-existent "Bellarmine option" are definitively more of a problem these days. But they need to stop citing Bellarmine, he believed it was impossible for a Pope to teach heresy and he is undoubtedly very offended to see so many people quote him as saying the opposite. And ignoramuses like Taylor Marshall, who believes the moon landing was a hoax, get nearly all their facts wrong, and don't even seem to understand what an "antipope" even is.

I wouldn't be so sure Marshall thinks the moon landing was faked. If you think of his content more as engagement farming, it starts to make sense why he says the things he does. I don't like to cast aspersions but if I were a grifter seeking to profit from Catholicism I would do exactly the sort of things he does.