(Being Catholic ⇒ "Being Fully Human") = Modernism?

[Geremia]

Would it be considered Modernism (in the Catholic sense) to say that “being Catholic is being fully human?” It seems to be because

1. 
   *]it neglects the supernatural end of man; ergo, it seems to render unnecessary God’s grace (Pelagianism) and the Catholic Church through which His graces flow (extra Ecclesiam salus?), and
   *]it implies that those who are not Catholic (e.g., atheists) are sub-human, which is an affront to Him Who created every person in His image.
   
   God help us if these are the full implications of Modernism!

 

[Warrenton]

I cannot fathom what “being fully human” even means.

Such promiscuous use of language is modernist, the essence of which is to be sufficiently cryptic so as to appear all things to all people. The evil, however, is that end result for which modernists strive is diametrically opposed to the end urged by St. Paul when he gave the same advice.

 

[Geremia]

I cannot fathom what “being fully human” even means.

Well, I don’t think that is the problem (the question of what being human is has been the subject of much thought and artwork for millennia now) inasmuch as it assumes there is a gradation of humanness. Such gradation is the basis of slavery, eugenics, etc.

Is one less human in a state of mortal sin than in a state of grace? Do animalistic, non-virtuous behaviors of a man make him any less of human than if he were practicing the virtues of a saintly doctor of the Church? I think the answer is no. If being fully human means “not being solely an animal” (every human qualifies for this since humans are “rational animals,” not just “animals”) then those are pretty low standards to attain our supernatural end. Consequently, everybody can go to heaven just by being human! I might be reading into this, but this is the fault of the “promiscuous use of language” in those who say being Catholic is being fully human.

Such promiscuous use of language is modernist, the essence of which is to be sufficiently cryptic so as to appear all things to all people. The evil, however, is that end result for which modernists strive is diametrically opposed to the end urged by St. Paul when he gave the same advice.

Which is? Thanks

 

[Warrenton]

Taking the q’s out of order; St Paul (Cor. 9:19) talks about becoming all things to all people in order to save them. When St. Pius X condemned modernism, he expressed his frustration at the modernists’ tactic of using ostensibly orthodox language in order to avoid censure, all the while seeking to subvert orthodoxy. Somewhat like the gossip lover who, when called to account, takes refuge in inuendo, saying “I never said that…”

My problem with terms like “being fully human” is that they are so slippery? Is being overly hairy “fully human” or less? Or what if I don’t like chocolate (I do) but would I be less human if I didn’t?

Is it not much more to the point to say “catholics are more hairy than non-catholics,” or “catholics love chocolate more than non-catholicss,” or “catholics are holier than non catholics”? We can debate all these nice, plain questions with a clear conscience.

And the fact that so many artists have explored humanity, alas, seems not to advance the ball much. How am I to correlate the photos of Robert Maplethorpe with the paintings of Titian?

See why I think its modernist?!?

 

[Geremia]

And the fact that so many artists have explored humanity, alas, seems not to advance the ball much. How am I to correlate the photos of Robert Maplethorpe with the paintings of Titian?

This reminds me of those who think the Holy Mass is nothing more than banquet, its music, and community experience.

See why I think its modernist?!?

Wow, Modernism is ubiquitous. Even after reading Pascendi et al., I never have really understood its ubiquity until now.

 

[Warrenton]

Hopefully I am not like the Mass relativists! (I would have agreed with your art analogy, btw, if we’d been writing before impressionism).

Modernism is more than ubiquitous; it’s the zeitgeist. Even post modernism, is, sad to say, modernist.

Thanks for the link to the encyclical - I had forgotten the name. I’m not certain what you think about it, but the explanation of how subversion works was spot on. We can watch it play out in the (US) political arena almost non-stop: for example the moniker “pro-choice” is classic modernism.

 

[Geremia]

I’m not certain what you think about it

Pascendi is genius. I constantly reference it. God bless Pope St. Pius X!

 

[Warrenton]

I have a copy of some of his decrees or an encyclicals, and they are still so timely. And much easier to comprehend than many more recent documents.

When it came to modernism, Pope St. Pius X knew what he was talking about !

 

[uxordepp]

For some reason, this question reminds me of a quote from St. Iraneaus:

“The glory of God is man fully alive”.

I think that we are either human, or we are not. How we function as humans, I think, has something to do with how connected we are to God. We are, after all, created in His likeness and image. He holds the owner’s manual.

If we follow what God teaches us and asks of us through the Church, we will come the closest we can to being ‘perfect’ as humans. If that is being ‘fully human’ than I guess we do need to be Catholic to achieve it, and I don’t see how that is modernist at all.

I do think it is absolutely necessary to define one’s terms though!

Must read Paschendi!

 

[stuart12]

Man only has one end, namely God and if he does not tend to this end, he is not authentically human. Man in as much as he is a sinner acts irrationally as therefore as a beast. As man only finds fulfilment and his true relationality in Christ, outside of this communion man is constrained by ‘biological necessities’ and impeded from being truly free in Christ.

We must remember that grace is the perfection of nature, allowing it to arrive at the end for which it was destined. And by nature, I do not simply mean the ‘material component’ of a creation, but his entirety.

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

Hi I don’t consider myself modernist at all, Im prettyt raditional, but I love the idea of being fully human. I think when we are in touch with our humanity we become perfectly humble. Jesus tells us be perfect as our Father is perfect, but we are not God, we are human. I think Jesus asks us to be perfect in our humanity. Think of the word human, the root word is humus earth.

I got the following from this English words website.
english-forstudents.com/human.html

These ROOT-WORDS are HUM & HUMAN which come from the Latin humus, meaning EARTH & GROUND and the Latin humanus which means MAN. It is interesting to follow the changes of idea here. It begins with HUMus, earth, then becomes HUMble, lowly; finally to HUMAN, Man. But we must never forget the origin of man; “Dust thou art and to dust thou must return.”.

So don’t be afraid to be who you are…human! That doesn’t mean you don’t have a soul…quite the contrary! To be fully human is to recognize our potential to be one with God! And to be humble about it!

Love,
Joan

 

[Geremia]

if he does not tend to this end [God], he is not authentically human.

So all souls in hell were never really human when they were united to their bodies on earth? That makes no sense.

Man in as much as he is a sinner acts irrationally as therefore as a beast.

Yes, it’s only analogous to a beast; he doesn’t become one by sinning.

 

[Geremia]

Hi I don’t consider myself modernist at all, Im prettyt raditional, but I love the idea of being fully human. I think when we are in touch with our humanity we become perfectly humble. Jesus tells us be perfect as our Father is perfect, but we are not God, we are human. I think Jesus asks us to be perfect in our humanity.

We cannot do this without His supernatural sanctifying grace, though. By “being fully human” does one mean being as Adam and Eve were before the fall? If so, this is only possible with God’s grace, which transcends our human nature, and the sacraments he instituted in his Catholic Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

Man only has one end, namely God and if he does not tend to this end, he is not authentically human. Man in as much as he is a sinner acts irrationally as therefore as a beast. As man only finds fulfilment and his true relationality in Christ, outside of this communion man is constrained by ‘biological necessities’ and impeded from being truly free in Christ.

Exactly right. I practically LOL’ed at the claim that a view like this would be “modernist”! Boethius (obiit 524), a saint of Church, writes in the Consolation of Philosophy (IV.ii-iii) that the wicked, those who turn away from the good (which is God)
cease to be at all. . . . I do not, indeed, deny that they who are bad are bad, but that they are in an unqualified and absolute sense I deny. Just as we call a corpse a dead man, but cannot call it simply ‘man,’ so I would allow the vicious to be bad, but that they are in an absolute sense I cannot allow. . . . (B)y their perversion to badness, they have lost their true human nature. Further, since righteousness alone can raise men above the level of humanity, it must needs be that unrighteousness degrades below man’s level those whom it has cast out of man’s estate. . . . So it comes to pass that he who by forsaking righteousness ceases to be a man cannot pass into a Godlike condition, but actually turns into a brute beast.
Obviously, this is not precisely the same thought expressed by the quotation in the OP, and I wouldn’t say I particularly agree with Boethius on this score, but certainly the notion that following the paths of God is what enables us to be fully human and turning away degrades us is at least 1500 years old. Watch out, modernists are lurking around every corner, LOL!

 

[stuart12]

So all souls in hell were never really human when they were united to their bodies on earth? That makes no sense.Yes, it’s only analogous to a beast; he doesn’t become one by sinning.

Man was created in the image of God, his purpose is to render worship to God. To be ‘fully human’ it is not enough to have a body and soul simply, but the whole person being subject in love to God through Christ.

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

We cannot do this without His supernatural sanctifying grace, though. By “being fully human” does one mean being as Adam and Eve were before the fall? If so, this is only possible with God’s grace, which transcends our human nature, and the sacraments he instituted in his Catholic Church.

RIGHT! you got it! THAT’s being fully human knowing that we cannot do this without God! That’s humility! Lots of people think they are humble…but…it’s a huge letting go, and requires much love. We work on it , but God gives us grace as He sees fit. And the sacraments are the way…ah see? You already knew the answer, you just needed to get in touch with it …that why I love discussing these things…it is like communal meditation!

I like the idea of getting back to pre OS ! A good meditation is JHN PL II’s theology of the body…There is plenty of material in there to meditate for a lifetime on this subject!

J

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

And I just thought of this…

before OS, man was fully human… one with God, having the right relationship with God, but Satan tempted Adam and Eve with pride…“come on take it and eat it ,then you will be like God!” then man thought he could do it on his own…don’t need God anymore! That caused a separation not only between himself and God, but a separation within himself. making him broken, and then man really wasn t fully human anymore…He lost sanctifying Grace which kept The Holy Spirit in him.

Now we get it back in the sacraments …if used in the proper state of mind and heart.
This time man takes and eats what God has given him, to keep the Holy Spirit alive and well within him and that why he can be fully human again. Anyway those are my thoughts. Thanks for the the great question!

J

 

[Warrenton]

Obviously, this is not precisely the same thought expressed by the quotation in the OP, and I wouldn’t say I particularly agree with Boethius on this score, but certainly the notion that following the paths of God is what enables us to be fully human and turning away degrades us is at least 1500 years old. Watch out, modernists are lurking around every corner, LOL!

The difference between the statement “to be Catholic = to be fully human” and “to be evil = non to be human” should be clear. We can apprehend the meaning of evil, and as amplified by Boethius, also the term “to be”. Boethius, I think, was probably thinking along the lines of the essence of humanity, and draws the anology between a sinner and one already dead (as in, “the wages of sin are death”).

The modernist problem with “fully human” is that fully does not merely modify the term “human”, as “man” modifies “to be” in Boethius’ quote. It is a unified term, or, it is ambiguous. What does it mean? Does it mean "not being a brute beast, because irrational, as one poster offered? If so, this is wrong. Beasts are not irrational. They are only rational. Does it mean man in his supernatural state? That cannot be correct, because “the days of a man are numbred at fourscore year and ten”, at least for the present epoch.

The problem is that slippery language like this twists to fit every purpose. That’s modernism.

 

[MarkThompson]

The difference between the statement “to be Catholic = to be fully human” and “to be evil = non to be human” should be clear. We can apprehend the meaning of evil, and as amplified by Boethius, also the term “to be”. Boethius, I think, was probably thinking along the lines of the essence of humanity, and draws the anology between a sinner and one already dead (as in, “the wages of sin are death”).

The modernist problem with “fully human” is that fully does not merely modify the term “human”, as “man” modifies “to be” in Boethius’ quote. It is a unified term, or, it is ambiguous. What does it mean? Does it mean "not being a brute beast, because irrational, as one poster offered? If so, this is wrong. Beasts are not irrational. They are only rational. Does it mean man in his supernatural state? That cannot be correct, because “the days of a man are numbred at fourscore year and ten”, at least for the present epoch.

The problem is that slippery language like this twists to fit every purpose. That’s modernism.

Ah, I see. So because an out-of-context quotation reported secondhand did not include sufficient, er, context to provide you a complete understanding of what was being said, it was “slippery” and therefore modernist. Good to know. I guess that should have been the response to this post asking what the phrase ex opere operato means and saying “I found the definition online but I still don’t fully get it” – if it requires more explanation, context, clarification, or further thought to understand, it must be modernist!

I guess we’ll also have to reject such vague, modernist formulations as “consubstantial with the Father”, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, and “the Trinity.”

Anyway, to get back to the original post:

Would it be considered Modernism (in the Catholic sense) to say that “being Catholic is being fully human?” It seems to be because

1. 
   *]it neglects the supernatural end of man; ergo, it seems to render unnecessary God’s grace (Pelagianism) and the Catholic Church through which His graces flow (extra Ecclesiam salus?), and
   *]it implies that those who are not Catholic (e.g., atheists) are sub-human, which is an affront to Him Who created every person in His image.
   
   God help us if these are the full implications of Modernism!

1. 1. 
      *] You’re mistaken. You’re understanding “fully human” as though “human” simply meant “a two-legged beast formed from clay.” Quite to the contrary, the very essence of humanity – what separates us from the beasts – is that it does imply a supernatural purpose and a soul bestowed by the Almighty. Thus, to be “fully human” is to live in accord with our guiding purpose; man by his nature is more than an animal, more than mere earth, and to be fully a man implies living above earthliness. And your point about extra Ecclesiam is simply bizarre: how you could get from a statement that people must be Catholic in order to be fully human to the notion that graces and the Catholic Church are unimportant is beyond my ken. It’s pretty much the dead opposite of what Bishop Gumbleton was saying.
      
      *] Maybe, but as – for one example among many – my quotation from Boethius shows, that would not be “modernist” in the slightest. Being something you disagree with does not make a proposition “modernist,” sorry.
      
      I’m definitely glad the modernism detectives are out in force to search for modernism under every rock. Luckily, the definition of “modernism” is so vague and slippery that you can find it pretty much everywhere you look!

 

[laszlo]

As always, (almost always) in between. The grace is necessary, and the grace flows only through the Church, but:

• grace is for the supernatural, and not for the natural (human) life
• the reception of the grace is not restricted to the Catholics, and also not all Catholics live with the grace.

Consequently non Catholics can be as much or even more human than Catholics.

As for the supernatural end, we did not revelation about rhe percentiles of the saved people from the groups, like Catholics, Non Catholic Christians, Non Christians. The judgment belongs to God. Catholics get more, but they also required to produce more