Fighting back against liberal theology

[Malcolm]

[for modernists] Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind’- they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself.”

Pius X

“Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”

Gregory IX

 

[Malcolm]

for the Modernists, sacraments are bare symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy — an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having caught the popular ear, inasmuch as they have the power of putting certain leading ideas into circulation, and of making a marked impression upon the mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the sacraments are to the religious sense, that and nothing more. The Modernists would express their mind more clearly were they to affirm that the sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.

Pius X

they [modernists] lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death — dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.

Pius X

 

[otjm]

Once again we have a rehash of an issue that was time and subject specific and was given a broad brush term, one that the Church no longer uses for a simple reason: it was not meant at that time to be an all encompassing term, and issues now referred to under the guise of “Modernism” are actually distinguishable one from another, and have names appropriate to those issues - secularism being one of them.

We really need to stop pulling out the old Bogey Man Under the Bed routine, and identify that which we object to; it makes for clear discourse. The use of a term that was never intended to be all encompassing simply results in intellectual laziness.

 

[Malcolm]

Once again we have a rehash of an issue that was time and subject specific

where can we find the timeless truths of the Catholic faith that don’t change ? who champions that cause ? I feel a need to know for the sake of my salvation. Can you help me ?

I can’t shake the sense that our church has taken a disastrous turn toward pleasing the world and trying to follow after its whims and wishes. I’m not well informed or smart enough to prove this to you but I am preparing to stake my life and the salvation of my soul on it.

So far the ONLY church authorities I have any confidence in (beside my local priest) are Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Burke. Is the remnant really that small ?

 

[phil19034]

Steve Bannon (who is Catholic?) recently allied himself with an Italian group launching some kind of foundation to fight against extreme liberalism in the Vatican in particular and church in general.

Steve Bannon isn’t going to be successful. Europeans (inside and outside of the Church) are not interested in American leadership when it comes to religion, morality, law, etc.

In eye of most Europeans, we Americans are too black and white. Also we were founded as a rejection of European societal structures (at least that’s who many Europeans see it).

 

[otjm]

You are in over your head. You need to follow the Magisterium, unless you are of the opinion that the Holy Spirit has stopped protecting the Church.

You are heading towards setting up Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider as the Magisterium.

You speak of “liberal theology” but don’t identify which Bogeyman, or Bogeymen have you so upset. The net result is that we can engage in vacuous talk meaning nothing.

There is likely no time in the history of the Church that there have not been disagreements between theologians. If what is troubling you is the Pope, and you are implying that the Pope is in heresy, then you trod extremely dangerous grounds.

Recently there was a letter signed by a number of individuals which is causing an uproar in some places. They are making serious charges; and at the same time (as far as I know) none of them has a PhD in Theology, and there have been some solid Catholics lining up on both sides.

And the great majority over which they dispute has nothing to do with either you or me. Pull out your copy of the Catechism if you want to follow the Magisterium. You will find the timeless truths there (and I would suggest that if you disagree with it, you most likely are simply disagreeing with how that timeless truth is stated, not its substance).

I am well aware of some of the “liberal” and the “conservative” people in the Church, as I watched this play out during Vatican 2; I was well aware of the individuals within the Curia who were “conservative”, and how that played out. Those who sided by those individuals in the Curia (those who are still alive) are still saying “But they were right!” and that flat pushes the envelope as the vast number of bishops, in union with the Pope, said otherwise. From watching that, I don’t get myself involved in these disputes.

 

[Malcolm]

it’s not that I think the Holy Spirit has stopped protecting the Church I think many (maybe most) of its human “leaders” have no supernatural faith at all but just pretend to when forced to answer questions about it.

I think they feel superior to the silly sheep they want to control and what they really believe in is humanism , communism , feminism , moral relativism , immanentism , etc

 

[MagdalenaRita]

where can we find the timeless truths of the Catholic faith that don’t change ? who champions that cause ? I feel a need to know for the sake of my salvation. Can you help me ?

I can’t shake the sense that our church has taken a disastrous turn toward pleasing the world and trying to follow after its whims and wishes. I’m not well informed or smart enough to prove this to you but I am preparing to stake my life and the salvation of my soul on it.

So far the ONLY church authorities I have any confidence in (beside my local priest) are Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Burke. Is the remnant really that small ?

You are correct!, the Church is in a crisis. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to know the timeless truths of the Catholic faith that do not change and yes for the salvation of your soul it is highly important.

Studying Scripture and the catechisms are needed. I usually encourage the Catechism of the Catholic church, also the Roman Catechism and the New St. Joseph Baltimore catechsims.
Another good place to go to learn the faith is many shows on EWTN. The Mass homilies are almost always, from what I have heard anyway, spot on and many times champion for tradition.

I agree there is a modernist liberal theology that has arose in the Church ( Nouvelle théologie) which makes it even more critical to study your faith because there are many Catholics who do not know the faith or who follow liberal thought, and secularism and will point you in a direction that you do not want to go.

As someone else pointed out, even though there is a crisis and we are under attack, Christ has promised the attacks will not prevail and that He would be with us unto the end of the age. There are still many priests and bishops out there who do champion for the truths of the faith.

God bless

 

[Malcolm]

As someone else pointed out, even though there is a crisis and we are under attack, Christ has promised the attacks will not prevail and that He would be with us unto the end of the age.

thank you for not just slamming me , may God bless you sister

 

[YourNameHere]

Liberal theology? Oh please.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

You’re welcome.

 

[YourNameHere]

If Steve Bannon is an example of American leadership then I am happy the Europeans may reject his baloney. No matter how you slice it, it is still Bannon Baloney.

 

[billsherman]

We really need to stop pulling out the old Bogey Man Under the Bed routine, and identify that which we object to; it makes for clear discourse. The use of a term that was never intended to be all encompassing simply results in intellectual laziness.

The above is worth repeating. “Modernism” as Pius X defines it something that for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist. No scholar goes about their work in the way Pius describes, or wishes to come to the predetermined conclusions he says the “Modernist” will seek. The Church has long abandoned Pius’ fear of non-Catholic scholarship, it’s time everyone else does as well.

 

[phil19034]

Liberal theology? Oh please.

Liberal theology exists. It’s not necessarily the same as liberal politics, but it does exist.

Some more extreme examples:

• Female Ordination
• an empty hell
• nothing sinful about homosexual acts
• nothing sinful about fornication
• confession is unnecessary
• divorce and remarriage is OK (without annulment)
• fasting is old fashioned
• churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons
• the rosary is a superstition
• there is no Purgatory
• there is no Original Sin
• etc…

These are all examples of extreme examples “liberal theology.” Some other that are more nuanced, which I will not go into.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The above is worth repeating. “Modernism” as Pius X defines it something that for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist.

The Church has long abandoned Pius’ fear of non-Catholic scholarship, it’s time everyone else does as well.

So Pope Pius X defined “Modernism” as the synthesis of all heresies. Are you saying that there are no heresies any longer or are you saying that we should just accept everything whether it be Catholic or non-Catholic as being true? Everything is true? Are you saying all the bishops that are standing for Catholic Tradition should just stop and abandon Tradition?

Also, where does the Church say all non-Catholic scholarships are true and we shouldn’t be concerned about anymore? The reason I ask is because I have family members who have left the Church and now follow non-Catholic scholarships and I do fear for their souls and pray for them daily to return to the Church. Should we not pray for fallen away Catholics anymore?

 

[Sword_of_Fire]

Liberal theology as in dogma is able to evolve

 

[otjm]

You really need to read what Bill said.

He did not say there are no more heresies.
He did not say “accept everything”.
He did not say “abandon Tradition”.
He did not say “all non-Catholic scholars are true”.

“Modernism”, rather than addressing what was actually going on at the time, simply gave a broad and undefined sweep in his choice of words.

One of the key issues which was going on at the time of Pius 10th was lead by germanic Protestant scripture scholars who had moved beyond considering Scripture as divinely inspired and were “deconstructing” it as if it were mere literature; in short, it was a fairly short road to atheism. 2 Catholic scholars were excommunicated; Alfred Loisy, a French priest, and George Tyrrell, an Irish Jesuit. What was in controversy at the time came essentially from biblical scholarship and out of that the issues of the biblical view of creation, whether or not Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, the nature of the Church, revelation, biblical exegesis, the sacraments, and the divinity of Christ.

Again, the source of it was moves to look at Scripture which treated it largely as just another document.

The Church no longer uses the term “Modernism”; rather, if there is an issue being driven by an underlying approach such as secularism, or relativism, it is called for what it is.

Pope Pius 10th was not wrong, but his use of the term Modernism did little to explain why the results Biblical scholars were coming up with were wrong. To coin a word such as Modernism as a synthesis of heresies is simply to make a broad and over-reaching term that does next to nothing to address the underlying driving forces.

The word now is very popular in certain traditional circles, and has nothing to do with what those using it condemn. It thus has become the Bogeyman Under the Bed. If there is an issue contrary to Scripture and Tradition, it needs to be clearly and concisely named, rather than using a pejorative term as i=f doing so explains anything.

And one final comment; I don’t see, having read Bill, where anything he said has anything to do with praying for fallen-away Catholics. Given that fallen-away Catholics in number is the equivalent of the second largest denomination, we have a lot of praying to do.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I think it’s a little over-the-top to conflate early 20th century Modernism - which was through-and-through relativistic - with “liberal theology.” It’s sort of like calling every liberal a Communist. That’s simply not the case.
I could, for example, see many people making the case that Pope Francis is liberal. But I would be surprised to see anyone trying to make a substantiated case (based on his preaching or writing) that he is a Modernist. I think if someone did that it just means they don’t really understand what Modernism is; again, it would be like calling a free-market, laissez-faire liberal a Communist in my opinion.

 

[Sword_of_Fire]

When you look at the influence of Teilhard de Chardin over modern thinking everything seems to tie in.

 

[otjm]

I strongly suspect that the driving force in Europe started with the French Revolution, and the secularism it engendered has thrown off a number of related issues including relativism. It is of no surprise that Pope Benedict in writing, spoke of a remnant Church; looking at the statistics of weekly Mass attendance in most of Europe, he was dead square on the mark.