Tres fragmentos de GONZALEZ HEVIA, Leoncio. "El Régimen nazi y su germanismo protestante" [en línea]. El Catoblepas. Noviembre 2004, nº 33.
http:77www.nodulo.org/ec/2004/n033p20.htm
«concerning our first point, namely, the catholic vs protestant polemics, that`s a long-standing matter: it discourses about the question of human free will, which had already been stirred by St Agoustine against Pelagius (and we must remember, in behalf of our subject, that Luther was friar of the Order of Saint Augustine) as centuries later will do the Dominican friar Báñez (while participating in the de auxiliis controversies about Divine grace and about Culture) against the jesuit Luís de Molina; when the second may try to reconcile the Divine Presence and the Grace of God together with Human Freedom’s effectiveness. We must remember, in behalf of our subject, the fact that Hitler himself was educated by the Dominicans. Therefore, it will be useful to set clear that historians of Theology generally classify in two groups the offering connexion schemes between “Kingdom of Nature/Kingdom of Grace–oriented doctrines”:
- naturalist doctrines.
- super-naturalist doctrines.
While radical Naturalism would have led itself during the IVth century, in form of Pelagianism, the super-naturalist doctrine would have had it’s own radical version (the aforesaid agoustinist doctrine against Pelagius... or the calvinist doctrine according which, human Nature can’t approach to Grace, which is an assistance arrived from the Heavens); and a softer one, whose full-grown expression wuld take shape in the doctrine of St Thomas of Aquinas. As such, the freudian attitude can dobtless be considered a radical version of the super-naturalist doctrine of Culture (even the point where establishes that Culture is but repression of natural instincts, which are in need of a harsh, supernatural discipline), whilst the attitude of Skinner can be considered as a soft version of that same doctrine. Which put us really at the begining, since, as Bueno affirms, Skinner’s behavioral therapy is actually a catholic discipline: namely, the individual, if wants to be forgiven, has to make good deeds, and it’s not enough the lighting of the conscience, just as Freud’s psychoanalysis do, as pure “luteranism”. Thereby Bueno holds out that the idea of a kingdom of Culture is the secularization of the idea of a christian Kingdom of Grace, which is healing and sanctifying too, only that now the dignity of Man will can be based, not so much on his divinity, as on his humanity. For that reason, the secularization in what we make consist this Kingdom of Culture’s process of constitution, involves an eclipse of catholic faith in the Holy Spirit as a transmitter of Grace; and involves an eclipse of a Spirit which Luther’s Reformation would have begun to blow with, no longer through Rome, but through each man’s “tribunal of conscience”. This, and no other, is Pietism: religious sentimentalism abhorrent to and from any kind of ecclesiastical establishment. In other words: that overthrow which on emancipating Christendom from papistical athority set in motion the process of dissolution of the Church herself, is just the same that inverted the relation between the Science/Philosophy complex and the positive, revealed religion; inasmuch as the Enlightenment wasn’t merely the Reason’s absolute emancipation, but the emancipation from Roman Church, and from all that she was attached to. Though Hegel interpreted this progress attributing to Luther the role of Reason’s hero. Nothing more infortunate than this, inasmuch as Luther himself came to call the Reason a whore. That is to say: being a pietist, Bismarck broke out his battle in behalf of human Culture (once the dignity of man being based on his humanity) against the Roman Church, but also against rationalist Philosophy, heir of Cartesianism, so that the ideals of Culture will now mean ideals of a secular Culture, as soon as the ideals of an artistic and literary Culture...»
http:77www.nodulo.org/ec/2004/n033p20.htm
«concerning our first point, namely, the catholic vs protestant polemics, that`s a long-standing matter: it discourses about the question of human free will, which had already been stirred by St Agoustine against Pelagius (and we must remember, in behalf of our subject, that Luther was friar of the Order of Saint Augustine) as centuries later will do the Dominican friar Báñez (while participating in the de auxiliis controversies about Divine grace and about Culture) against the jesuit Luís de Molina; when the second may try to reconcile the Divine Presence and the Grace of God together with Human Freedom’s effectiveness. We must remember, in behalf of our subject, the fact that Hitler himself was educated by the Dominicans. Therefore, it will be useful to set clear that historians of Theology generally classify in two groups the offering connexion schemes between “Kingdom of Nature/Kingdom of Grace–oriented doctrines”:
- naturalist doctrines.
- super-naturalist doctrines.
While radical Naturalism would have led itself during the IVth century, in form of Pelagianism, the super-naturalist doctrine would have had it’s own radical version (the aforesaid agoustinist doctrine against Pelagius... or the calvinist doctrine according which, human Nature can’t approach to Grace, which is an assistance arrived from the Heavens); and a softer one, whose full-grown expression wuld take shape in the doctrine of St Thomas of Aquinas. As such, the freudian attitude can dobtless be considered a radical version of the super-naturalist doctrine of Culture (even the point where establishes that Culture is but repression of natural instincts, which are in need of a harsh, supernatural discipline), whilst the attitude of Skinner can be considered as a soft version of that same doctrine. Which put us really at the begining, since, as Bueno affirms, Skinner’s behavioral therapy is actually a catholic discipline: namely, the individual, if wants to be forgiven, has to make good deeds, and it’s not enough the lighting of the conscience, just as Freud’s psychoanalysis do, as pure “luteranism”. Thereby Bueno holds out that the idea of a kingdom of Culture is the secularization of the idea of a christian Kingdom of Grace, which is healing and sanctifying too, only that now the dignity of Man will can be based, not so much on his divinity, as on his humanity. For that reason, the secularization in what we make consist this Kingdom of Culture’s process of constitution, involves an eclipse of catholic faith in the Holy Spirit as a transmitter of Grace; and involves an eclipse of a Spirit which Luther’s Reformation would have begun to blow with, no longer through Rome, but through each man’s “tribunal of conscience”. This, and no other, is Pietism: religious sentimentalism abhorrent to and from any kind of ecclesiastical establishment. In other words: that overthrow which on emancipating Christendom from papistical athority set in motion the process of dissolution of the Church herself, is just the same that inverted the relation between the Science/Philosophy complex and the positive, revealed religion; inasmuch as the Enlightenment wasn’t merely the Reason’s absolute emancipation, but the emancipation from Roman Church, and from all that she was attached to. Though Hegel interpreted this progress attributing to Luther the role of Reason’s hero. Nothing more infortunate than this, inasmuch as Luther himself came to call the Reason a whore. That is to say: being a pietist, Bismarck broke out his battle in behalf of human Culture (once the dignity of man being based on his humanity) against the Roman Church, but also against rationalist Philosophy, heir of Cartesianism, so that the ideals of Culture will now mean ideals of a secular Culture, as soon as the ideals of an artistic and literary Culture...»
«As such, the new bed through which the breath of the Spirit will be imparted to mankind (favoured by the circumstance according to which it now blows through each and every one of them), will be the bed of the gatherings constituted by men of most diverse peoples: e. g., the German People. Namely, the Holy Spirit shall become that particular People’s Spirit. Now we may talk about a converging evolution of the idea of a Kingdom of Culture, and of the idea of a People or Nation endowed with a particular “Spirit” or “Race”, e.g., the “holy” Germany, endowed with a “Race”, the aryan, pretendedly superior. Now, this is the most famous and sinister example which we can quote today, of an obscurant myth. The same that Alfred Rosemberg made out as the Myth of XX century, and that’s up in conclusion about this: the myth of aryan race as bringer and dispensator of the most authentic Culture. But, more exactly, it’s about the myth that agrees with the ideology carried out by social darwinism, the aforesaid theory of aryan race and the pantheism of, e. g., a Lessing, or that ideology which starts from the principles of the Faith in Germany...»
«…Now, universal history isn’t built by humankind as a whole, but by a Part which is an Empire, in whose case, a “luteran” empire can’t be “universal”, (for it’s “predatory” like nazism can’t either be “universal”, for it’s “racist” or “particularist”. Concretelly the pattern of IIId Reich “predatory” imperialism, presented Germany as the pre-eminent model which the rest of political societies must yield to. These societies would only exist to Germany by way of “colonies” open to be “exploited”. Notwithstanding, every parts of Society are essential within the historical transformation progress, and none of them can become “universal” if doesn’t show its capability to absorb or integrate the others. This was the idea which endeavoured the spanish empire inasmuch as “catholic” and “generating”, which bring us back to the already pointed polemy between catholics & protestants: then we said indeed that this is the capital problem about human freedom.
As such, it can’t be discarded a reminiscence of EU (as a federal State) linked to a “new model” of german nationalism, taking into account Germany’s european course, once overcome the past decades of recover after his defeat and partition in the IIWW, i.e.:german reunification, unilateral policy in the recognition of Croatia and Slowenia and towards the East, with regards to include Poland, Hungary & Bohemy in the area (field) of influence of the 4th Reich in formation».
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario