Walter Kasper's Mission

For those who have not as yet seen Edward Pentin's interview with Professor Thomas Heinrich Stark you must do so if you want to grasp what Walter Kasper, and others like him, are about.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/understanding-cardinal-walter-kasper

This blog has in the past labelled the man a pure Modernist, and the Eye Witness is not the only one to have done so.  But we stress the point again and again because that is the crux of the whole matter, the triumph of Modernism which has been making gigantic strides under nearly every pontificate that came after St Pius X but of course exploded with the Second Vatican Council, a Modernist's dream come true.

I say "almost every pontificate" and that, unhappily, is the bitter truth.  Neither Pius XI nor Pius XII were immune from its baleful influence.  Despite the good projects that emerged from those two Popes it cannot be gainsaid that they did indeed advance Modernism in one way or another, either by an awkward phrase here, a lack of action there, a poor appointment or an important initiative left undone.  As personally good and holy as these men no doubt were it was under their watches that Modernism creeped along at an alarmingly quickened pace.  And now we are face to face with the dreadful dead end of this "synthesis of all heresies".

Professor Stark makes some shrewd observations about the strange mind that inhabits the head of Walter Kasper.

I have said several times, “As far as I understand him,” because the problem with this sort of theology is that it is difficult to understand, not because one has to be very intelligent to understand it, but because it is not coherent, in my opinion. And one can only figure it out if one understands the language they use. I mean, it’s not only Kasper; it’s very many people of influence in modern theology. If one reads this language carefully, one can easily see an admixture of imitating [Martin] Heidegger and the influence of Existentialism, some pieces from [Emmanuel] Kant and [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel, which are read into Thomas Aquinas. They read Thomas through the lens of Hegel and Kant, which simply cannot be done, in my opinion. And they mix up various philosophical positions that really can’t be put together in a coherent, logical way.

The way they attempt to intertwine all of their theories forms a sort of pseudo-dialectic that is not really logical and coherent, and they put it in such a way as to provide an opportunity to get away with novel theories without being under the critical view of the magisterium, because they can always shift to the right and then to the left, as need be.

It is a fine example of the studied incoherence practiced by Kasper and too many others.  Polished ambiguity, a recourse to obfuscation and a determination at all costs to avoid clarity are the hallmarks of men like Kasper.  If not met head-on by rational thinkers and simple Catholics it will decimate the Church.

Mr Pentin asks the Professor if he believes that the Kasper line of thinking can lead to apostasy.

Well, this is a strong word, but I certainly fail to understand how this line of thinking does not lead to apostasy, at least objectively speaking.

What else can I think of someone who writes that dogmas can essentially become outdated and pointless or that they even can be stupid? And yet this is what I was quoting just today. Or somebody who says, “Well, one of the effects of historicism,” which he openly accepts, “is that ancient holy Scriptures or texts lose their validity”?

I don’t know what people who say things like this really believe, but in my opinion, what they believe is not what a Catholic believes. I mean, I’m really sorry to say that, and I hasten to add that when I started to write my lecture, I was very careful to give every benefit of the doubt. I really tried to approach the work of Kasper in a neutral way, because I have every desire to understand him. But when I got deeper into his thought, I was confronted with a system, if there is one, and with ideas that are so shocking that I really can’t see how somebody who is arguing — who is talking in that way — can still be considered a Catholic.

I’m really very sorry to have to say this, but this is the only conclusion I can draw; and it is based, not only on my suppositions, but on Kasper’s own words.

That is clear enough.