Best definition of Modernism I've ever seen

[Geremia]

Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pgs. 16-17 has the best, albeit dense, definition of Modernism that I have ever seen. It is in his chapter on the natural knowability of the existence of God.

The cognitional theoretical basis of Modernism is agnosticism, according to which human rational cognition is limited to the world of experience. Religion, according to this theory, develops from the principle of vital immanence (immanentism) that is, from the need for God which dwells in the human soul. The truths of religion are, according to the general progress of culture, caught up in a constant substantial development (evolutionism).

So, Modernists are agnostic because they limit their knowledge of God to experience of Him, the essence of Whom no human can see in this present life. Since their only knowledge of Him is experiential, they therefore do not believe in others’ testimony of God which is necessary for passing on the faith through which one gains supernatural knowledge of God; they therefore do not believe that God is known through his created world (Rom. 1:20); and they therefore do not believe that God can infuse knowledge of Himself directly into a person’s soul (1 Cor. 2:10) since all these things are outside of experience of phenomena. If religion depends on man, it is no wonder the Modernists think it changes based on cultural context.

I welcome any other interpretations or corrections to my interpretation of Dr. Ott’s definition. Definitely compare Ott to encyclicalPascendi on Modernism.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Modernism means different things to different people.

To some Orthodox, “modernism” means the priest wears a clerical shirt and suit instead of a cassock on the street, trims his beard and hair, and celebrates the Nativity of Christ on the day the civil calendar says is 25 December instead of 7 January.

 

[Geremia]

Read also the Catechism of Modernism (1908).

 

[ibkc]

Modernism means different things to different people.

To some Orthodox, “modernism” means the priest wears a clerical shirt and suit instead of a cassock on the street, trims his beard and hair, and celebrates the Nativity of Christ on the day the civil calendar says is 25 December instead of 7 January.

Yes, but this isn’t a forum about the Orthodox, so that’s not a very helpful response, or even a relevant one.

The term “modernism” in Catholicism refers to a heresy. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a long article about it here: newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm
but I like this one succinct sentence pulled from the longer piece:

A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century — such is the longing that possesses the modernists.

The article goes on to say:

The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:

• A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
• A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
• A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.
  
  Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of “essential” modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Yes, but this isn’t a forum about the Orthodox, so that’s not a very helpful response, or even a relevant one.\

**I think it’s a VERY helpful, to say nothing about a very relevant answer.

Many Catholics, especially on these boards, seem to use “modernism” in senses other than Popes have used it, often to mean no more than, “I don’t like this.”**

 

[Geremia]

Many Catholics, especially on these boards, seem to use “modernism” in senses other than Popes have used it, often to mean no more than, “I don’t like this.”

So do you deny that there are Modernists, as the Popes define it, in the Church?

 

[tabsie3210]

How about we say that there are non-Orthodox traditional Catholics (such as my priest, who faces the people but has a Crucifix on his altar that he gazes at while the transubstantiation of the Host is taking place, who celebrates in Latin a LOT during Advent and Lent, and who lectures often on the fact that the sacrifice of the Mass is NOT symbolic), and then there are Modernists.

And there are Modernists in the Church, yes.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Modernism means different things to different people.

To some Orthodox, “modernism” means the priest wears a clerical shirt and suit instead of a cassock on the street, trims his beard and hair, and celebrates the Nativity of Christ on the day the civil calendar says is 25 December instead of 7 January.

and i am with you. modernism is the changes we see from that once was.

i too consider modernism for a priest to have abandon his habit to wear cloth just like everyone else. it wasnt like this before. it has taking the cultural modernism. it has been sucked in. and that came with many other things.

 

[ibkc]

\Yes, but this isn’t a forum about the Orthodox, so that’s not a very helpful response, or even a relevant one.\

**I think it’s a VERY helpful, to say nothing about a very relevant answer.

Many Catholics, especially on these boards, seem to use “modernism” in senses other than Popes have used it, often to mean no more than, “I don’t like this.”**

Yes, but the original poster clearly is not doing this, and is clearly talking specifically about the heresy of modernism and its definition. Your attempt to hijack the thread with irrelevancies is very rude.

 

[Geremia]

I think it’s a VERY helpful, to say nothing about a very relevant answer.

Many Catholics, especially on these boards, seem to use “modernism” in senses other than Popes have used it, often to mean no more than, “I don’t like this.”

Yes, but the original poster clearly is not doing this, and is clearly talking specifically about the heresy of modernism and its definition.

No, what bpbasilphx says is clearly in Pascendi:

Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the bosom of the Church, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different mediums through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimiliation all the dogmatic, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose.

 

[ibkc]

All right, apologies to bpbasilphx.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\uote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
Many Catholics, especially on these boards, seem to use “modernism” in senses other than Popes have used it, often to mean no more than, “I don’t like this.”
So do you deny that there are Modernists, as the Popes define it, in the Church?\

**I’m not denying that.

But I AM saying that “modernism”, like “liturgical abuse”, gets too frequently used as a label to condemn what the poster happens to simply dislike, disagree with, or disapprove of.**

 

[Bluegoat]

It seems to me that what"modernism" meant initially is rather different than the way it is used now among traditionalist Christians of various types.

 

[Jacafamala]

Modernism as it pertains to Traditional Catholicism, is the perversion of dogma in an attempt to make Catholicism more palatable to the contemporary mind.

How’s that?

 

[mangy_dog]

I remember Modernism being referred to as:

The synthesis of all heresies.