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

[Timothysis]

Watch out, modernists are lurking around every corner, LOL!

It does seem that way, doesn’t it?

I’ve never seen a more overused and meaningless word than “modernism,” unless you want to throw in words like "liberal" and “conservative.” People on this forum certainly like to label others, don’t you think???

 

[Warrenton]

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. …- 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.”

On the contrary - the phrase reveals itself suffciently to identify it as modernist. Modernism constructs attacks that can be superficially justified as orthodox but which are in fact subversive.

The examples contained in your post are very clear, even if they embody complex notions. If you say “no salvation outside the Church” everyone will know what you are talking about. Who knows whether Catholics are “fully human?”

Were you being ironic when you alluded to Bishop Gumbleton’s use of the term “fully human”? In an Xmas homily illustrates, his Grace went on at length about Christ’s humanity, borrowing heavily from the Christological debates of the early councils. So far so good. Then he shifted to make his real point: Jesus teaches non violence in all situations, do ye therefore oppose violence. His Grace, as you may know, is a prominent anti-war protestor. He also takes a controversial stance regarding the homosexuality and Church teaching.

His Grace may be right or wrong in the particulars, but his use of the term “fully human” is not intended to illuminate, but to mask novel propositions with a patina of orthodoxy.

Care to hazard a guess whether the term “fully human” contemplates evolution, biological or social? If it does, then Pascendi has alot to say about - and clearly. Modenism is the chief contemporary heresy. To ridicule people because they perceive it makes as much sense as critisizing a sailor for crying “water, water everywhere.”

 

[MarkThompson]

On the contrary - the phrase reveals itself suffciently to identify it as modernist. Modernism constructs attacks that can be superficially justified as orthodox but which are in fact subversive.

“Fully human” is not an attack on anything.

The examples contained in your post are very clear, even if they embody complex notions. If you say “no salvation outside the Church” everyone will know what you are talking about.

Right, that’s why the Feenyites and Lumen Gentium are in such harmonious accord, because the phrase is so crystal-clear that it wears its meaning right on its sleeve.

Were you being ironic when you alluded to Bishop Gumbleton’s use of the term “fully human”?

What would be ironic about it? It’s pretty evident that that’s what Geremia was referring to (without providing the link or reference, tsk tsk) in her OP; look at her horrified comment here (the last one).

Of course, Bishop Gumbleton never actually said that “being Catholic” is what it takes to be “fully human”; I don’t really know where that claim is coming from at all. What he said was that “Jesus showed us to be fully human by learning to love,” which strikes me as true. So if Geremia is asking about what Bishop Gumbleton said, there is nothing modernist at all about the claim that we live out the purpose of our humanity by showing Christly love; on the other hand, if she is asking about the hypothetical claim he didn’t make that “being Catholic” is being human, then I’m at a loss as to why she would think this implies denying EENS or the graces of the Church, or why you would think it is an “attack” on anything, still less the Church.

In an Xmas homily illustrates, his Grace went on at length about Christ’s humanity, borrowing heavily from the Christological debates of the early councils. So far so good. Then he shifted to make his real point: Jesus teaches non violence in all situations, do ye therefore oppose violence. His Grace, as you may know, is a prominent anti-war protestor. He also takes a controversial stance regarding the homosexuality and Church teaching.

His Grace may be right or wrong in the particulars, but his use of the term “fully human” is not intended to illuminate, but to mask novel propositions with a patina of orthodoxy.

Care to hazard a guess whether the term “fully human” contemplates evolution, biological or social?

I’m happy to hazard a guess: no. Think of the old Baltimore Catechism answer: Why did God make me? To know, love, and serve God. It is a rejection of our own humanity to reject the purposes for humanity was created: among them, to reflect Christ’s love back toward God and among each other. How on earth you get from this positive message to your totally unrelated references to homosexuality and evolution leaves me truly at a loss.

You seem to be alleging that the very act of putting the word “fully” next to the word “human” is (1) “subversive,” (2) “modernist,” and (3) an “attack” on something. Well, (1) no, (2) no, and (3) no. Your claim has so little basis and makes so little sense that it’s tough to know quite where to start with you. You certainly haven’t outlined even the rudiments of anything like an explanation or argument about why you might be right; you’ve merely told us that you can “identify” the Bishop’s argument as modernist.

But then you’ve also bafflingly “identified” the claim that being being fully human requires being joined to the Catholic Church as anti-Catholic and an attack on the Church, so I’m not sure what stock discerning people will lay in your perceptive powers.

If it does, then Pascendi has alot to say about - and clearly. Modenism is the chief contemporary heresy. To ridicule people because they perceive it makes as much sense as critisizing a sailor for crying “water, water everywhere.”

You’re in drydock, Warrenton. Just recovering from a little mal de mer, I suspect.

 

[jmj603]

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. 
   So therefore you’re saying that sin is not dehumanizing?

 

[Timothy17]

So therefore you’re saying that sin is not dehumanizing?

Good point. Sin is death, we are taught, and nothing is more contrary to being alive than death.

We are getting into vague ground. The word “human” may require a pre-determined definition here. If we are to use the etymological definition of the word, meaning ‘living earth’ (essentially), which is itself a wonderful mystery, and if we are to accept that being human also means, as the earlier prescribed etymological definition also suggests, recognizing that we are “but earth” (i.e, humility, which is a capacity entirely peculiar to humanity, as opposed to other earthly living bodies, such as the animals), then anything contrary to the formula, such as a rejection of the “earth” component or, more obviously, the rejection of the “living” component would thus take away the requirement for “human,” again, as defined etymologically. Sin, therefore, is not “human,” as it is, quite literally, death, and destroys the “man” in the human. So the expression, then, that being Catholic means being “fully human,” stands as such, if we understand being Catholic as being in a State of Grace, for example, especially in or during Communion in the Real Presence, which is perhaps the highest State of Grace on earth, the most “alive” a human (living earth, which lives accordingly ; i.e., humbly) can be.

As an observation, it appears quite marvelous this etymological definition of human, seeing as it is quite appropriate and fitting in use, delineating “us” from God properly, the animals and also the angels, while including a mystery (living earth), and a logically following condition (humility).

Pax,
Tim

 

[Warrenton]

I'm not sure what stock discerning people will lay in your perceptive powers.QUOTE:

Some seem to like the ad hominem attack!:

Regarding Lumen Gentium: more gens than lux. The doctrine of no salvation outside the Church was very clear until that point. If you had asked St. Francis Xavier why he went to China and Japan, I am sure he would said because the people there needed saving, and needed the Church to save them. Has anyone ever gone on a mission, or suffered martyrdom in order to make people “more fully human?”

People join the Church to become holier. That is, more God-like. We are human whether or not we want to be. Being born, a person “joins” humanity. A person can be evil and human, but never evil and God-like. Jargon like “more fully human” is confusing. The old word, “holy” makes things clearer. People use terms like “more fully human” in order to blunt the edge of the sword - the same sword that cleaves men’s souls (Heb 4:12). I am not certain whether Christ ever exhorts people to be human, but he certainly tells them to be holy. And when St. Paul, says to put on the new man, does not say put on the full man (like at an all you can eat buffet) but to be holy (Ephesians 4:24).

When his Grace Bishop Gumbleton wore the pink triangle and the rainbow on his mitre, was he was calling people to holiness or to be “more fully human.” Modernism thrives in the gulf between the two ideas.

 

[Geremia]

So therefore you’re saying that sin is not dehumanizing?

It removes us from the path to our supernatural end (God), but it does not dehumanize us.

 

[Geremia]

I practically LOL’ed at the claim that a view like this would be “modernist”!

It might be modernist in the sense that it neglects to mention or deemphasizes the supernatural end of man, or implicitly assumes human nature is by default in the supernatural order. From Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi:

1. Therefore the religious sentiment, which through the agency of* vital immanence* emerges from the lurking places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion. The sentiment, which was at first only rudimentary and almost formless, gradually matured, under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, with the progress of human life, of which, as has been said, it is a form. This, then, is the origin of all religion, even supernatural religion; it is only a development of this religious sentiment. Nor is the Catholic religion an exception; it is quite on a level with the rest; for it was engendered, by the process of* vital immanence*, in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been, nor will be. - Those who hear these audacious, these sacrilegious assertions, are simply shocked! And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of infidels. There are many Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! There is no question now of the old error, by which a sort of right to the supernatural order was claimed for the human nature. We have gone far beyond that: we have reached the point when it is affirmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely. Than this there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order. Wherefore the Vatican Council most justly decreed: “If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema” (De Revel., can. 3).

Does this not imply that being Catholic means not merely being fully human but, with God’s grace, transcending our human nature?

 

[Geremia]

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.

Yes, but again I ask: Why would there be a gradation of humanness dependent upon, e.g., how full of grace a human is?

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.

No, I am not saying that is the implication. I am saying those who believe it is just necessary to be fully human to be saved don’t need the Church and her sacraments for their salvation.

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!

Fortunately, our saintly Pope St. Pius X clearly delineated its insidiousness in Pascendi.

 

[MarkThompson]

It removes us from the path to our supernatural end (God), but it does not dehumanize us.

Hopefully, though, you’ve learned by now that just because you might not agree with all the implications of a position doesn’t entitle you to immediately exclaim, “That’s modernism! Heresy!!!” I wouldn’t particularly agree with Boethius’ point of view on the dehumanizing effect of sin and vice either, but he is a saint, a millennium and a half old, and one of the most influential moral theologians of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. I’d like to think Catholic are capable of asking theological and having theological debates with the ultimate judgment “orthodox or heretical?” to be made at the end, rather than jumping the gun on the accusation “Heresy!!!” as the starting point for discussion.

 

[MarkThompson]

It might be modernist in the sense that it neglects to mention or deemphasizes the supernatural end of man, or implicitly assumes human nature is by default in the supernatural order. From Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendioes this not imply that being Catholic means not merely being fully human but, with God’s grace, transcending our human nature?

You’ve misinterpreted the portion you quoted, but at any rate it’s irrelevant. Man cannot by himself transcend humanity; we leave that to God. Our part is to live up to the fullness of the humanity God has given us. That was the point of the quotation in your OP, was it not? It would make no sense to tell people in a homily, “Go forth and transcend humanity!”

Yes, but again I ask: Why would there be a gradation of humanness dependent upon, e.g., how full of grace a human is?No, I am not saying that is the implication. I am saying those who believe it is just necessary to be fully human to be saved don’t need the Church and her sacraments for their salvation.
Fortunately, our saintly Pope St. Pius X clearly delineated its insidiousness in Pascendi.

Ugh, no one said that just puttering along as “human” is all it takes to be saved. But fulfilling our purpose is what we do. God’s power saves us, but no one would suggest that that means it’s pointless to live out the full intention of our God-granted humanity while we’re on Earth.

If you invent positions that no one in their right mind has stated or would ever state (e.g., “It is just necessary to be fully human to be saved”) then feel free to call those heretical. I don’t see why you would waste your time on such a project, though, except to stir up scandal about this bishop. If you hate someone bad enough, I suppose you can twist anything they say into heresy. If he says, “Love one another”, you can say, “But this downplays loving God above all others! It’s saying that humans are the only important thing! And who is ‘one another’? It’s so vague it must be modernism; this could mean anything!” It’s not really a productive use of people’s time to deal with that.

 

[jmj603]

It removes us from the path to our supernatural end (God), but it does not dehumanize us.

Vice is contrary to man’s nature. (Summa Theologica I-II, 71, 3).

 

[Geremia]

You’ve misinterpreted the portion you quoted, but at any rate it’s irrelevant.

If so, then what is the correct interpretation?

Man cannot by himself transcend humanity; we leave that to God. Our part is to live up to the fullness of the humanity God has given us. That was the point of the quotation in your OP, was it not? It would make no sense to tell people in a homily, “Go forth and transcend humanity!”

Yes, human nature and humanity are two totally different things, the former being an immaterial concept and the latter being the collection of all human beings.

Ugh, no one said that just puttering along as “human” is all it takes to be saved.

Neither do I say that.

But fulfilling our purpose is what we do. God’s power saves us, but no one would suggest that that means it’s pointless to live out the full intention of our God-granted humanity while we’re on Earth.

If you invent positions that no one in their right mind has stated or would ever state (e.g., “It is just necessary to be fully human to be saved”) then feel free to call those heretical.

Yes, I am speculating about what one means when one says something vague like being Catholic is being fully human.

I don’t see why you would waste your time on such a project, though, except to stir up scandal about this bishop. If you hate someone bad enough, I suppose you can twist anything they say into heresy.

You are misjudging my intentions.

If he says, “Love one another”, you can say, “But this downplays loving God above all others! It’s saying that humans are the only important thing! And who is ‘one another’? It’s so vague it must be modernism; this could mean anything!”

Well, that is why Christ didn’t leave it at that. He said first to love God and then to love one another as yourself.[bibledrb]Matthew 22:37-39[/bibledrb]Without the former, His doctrine would have been nothing more than atheistic humanism, or without the latter, a sort of misguided, selfish Pharisaism. Both are essential to His teaching.

It’s not really a productive use of people’s time to deal with that.

 

[Warrenton]

I’ve never seen a more overused and meaningless word than “modernism,”

Except perhaps “spirit of Vatican II.”

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

:thumbsup:As I was reading through the marvelous posts on this thread, it occurred to me that the whole concept of being human has been trashed by the culture of death in our worldly society. We have lost touch with who we are and what God made us to be! Contraception and abortion have "de-humanized us to the point of our subconsciuosly and in some case consciously, hating ourselves…that is why we no longer, as a society have a good relationship with God…we hate ourselves, we have forgotten that we are His Creation and are wonderfully made. We have listened to the pide piper of pride and death…Satan, who tells us we are no good and not worthy of dignity! In my opinion, that is why you see such gruesome murders and awful abuse of each other…babies, children women, and men! the elderly, the weak everywhere in the world! Everywhere! This sickness has seeped into every nook and crany of our world, including even the holy and sacred ground of the church of God. In all denominations! All because we have lost touch with our humanity, to the point of self destruction.

NEWS FLASH: FULLY human, is GOOD-- Ie. “Fully Human”. Human beings, God’s creation, his children…have dignity and worth and are capable of showing forth the glory of our Creator! A human being is not merely an animal. Although, even being an animal is an awesome, wonderful thing, because our Good God has made everything good. There is nothing bad or wrong about being human, quite contrary; it is all good and it is our calling by God, to be who he made us…HUMAN and GOOD.

Forget all the semantics…kneel down and pray to our maker…who made us human, let all this “noise” subside, go from mind to heart…ahhhhh. Listen to how wonderful God made you…human! Go forth and,as St Catherine of Siena taught: “be who you are and set
the world, aflame!”
-J

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

Let me just make something from what i wrote above more clear. You may ask how can self-love be the same as self hatred?

Self love. (pride), is actually hatred of full humaness. It is a paradox. that is why pride is listening to Satan tell you that you are above “being human” , better than all the rest of loathsome humanity. the opposite of of pride is humilty and that is listening to Jesus , God-made-human, who tells us be perfect …like Him, the God man…the fullness of humanity… Love personified!

-j

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

Then from that , the Holy Spirit just inspired me to write:

Jesus is the fullness of our humanity, so to be fully human is to become like Jesus…to be other Christs, “perfect as the Father is perfect” . THAT is being fully human!

Is that modernist thinking? Or is it traditional thinking? it is neither! It is Catholic thinking.

Love

J

 

[Geremia]

Except perhaps “spirit of Vatican II.”

Or the word “modern” itself

 

[Geremia]

I have never heard Jesus say to be more human, either. He does say—and this could be what people mean when they say Catholics must strive to be more fully human, i.e., to be more perfect—:[bibledrb]Matthew 5:48[/bibledrb]

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

I have never heard Jesus say to be more human, either. He does say—and this could be what people mean when they say Catholics must strive to be more fully human, i.e., to be more perfect—:[bibledrb]Matthew 5:48[/bibledrb]

----- Jesus who is God, became human , became the model of perfection for all His human children to imitate. We are not His only creation! God became man…he didn’t need to say…“be more human”! HE became the most full human being…like Adam before the fall. Then he offered Himself up, to show us perfection, death to self, death to pride.

It is possible for a human (earth man), to be perfected, and that is being fully human, like Jesus the Christ, the God-man. Follow Him!

J