F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
As a Carmelite myself I must say that a lot of Carmelite spirituality is good for the soul but then I admit that I am a bit biased.
I will think about that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Geremia
Guest
It is important because Modernism is the greatest heresy the Church has even seen; it is a “synthesis of all heresies,” as Pope St. Pius X saying. Read, e.g., Msgr. Fenton’s Introduction to the Oath Against Modernism for why it was Pope St. Pius X’s top priority to combat Modernism.Well it’s been said it’s his most important encyclical, but why hasn’t really been explicated.
Do you think those Catholics who think St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology is the best the Church has to offer are simply “pick[ing] and choos[ing]?” Were the numerous popes’ testimonies of him just favoritism or objective judgments?Same ole story, some people in the Church pick and choose what they (“personally”) find interesting and important and throw the rest in the trash.
This is precisely my point: none of them should be dismissed as “no longer applicable today” or “an overreaction” etc.As far as I am aware there is no ranking of papal encyclicals by the Church telling us what ones we should read and what ones we do not have to read. After all there are hundreds of them.
It is important because Modernism is the biggest problem in the Church today.I have no opinion and was asking why this one is considered (in the opinion of the OP) important.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yet “Modernism” as a heresy has not been defined by the Church.It is important because Modernism is the biggest problem in the Church today.
M
markomalley
Guest
MODERNISM. A theory about the origin and nature of Christianity, first developed into a system by George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Lucien Laberthonnière (1860-1932), and Alfred Loisy (1857-1940). According to Modernism, religion is essentially a matter of experience, personal and collective. There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history. Faith, therefore, is uniquely from within. In fact it is part of human nature, “a kind of motion of the heart,” hidden and unconscious. It is, in Modernist terms, a natural instinct belonging to the emotions, a “feeling for the divine” that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions, an attitude of spirit that all people have naturally but that some are more aware of having. Modernism was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in two formal documents, Lamentabili and Pascendi, both published in 1907. (Etym. Latin modernus, belonging to the present fashion.)Yet “Modernism” as a heresy has not been defined by the Church.
Modern Catholic Dictionary
There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: “having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of “Modernism,” which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be “the synthesis of all heresies,” and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: “It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring” (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: “Old things, but in a new way.” - Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. - Pius XI, Ubi Arcano dei Consilio
Faithful to the task of strengthening his brethren in the faith, in confronting certain trends that were manifest in the theological context at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, Pius X intervened decisively, condemning “Modernism” to protect the faithful from erroneous concepts and to foster a scientific examination of the Revelation consonant with the Tradition of the Church. - Benedict XVI, General Audience, 18 August 2010.
Where in the world have you gotten the idea that Modernism was not defined or condemned?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No where did I say that Modernism was not condemned nor did I say that Modernism was not defined.Where in the world have you gotten the idea that Modernism was not defined or condemned?
I said that the Church has not defined what Modernism is.
If I am wrong then please point me in the direction of a statement from the Church that defines it.
M
markomalley
Guest
If you want the long version, read Pascendi. If you want a far shorter version, you can read the definition from Fr Hardon’s dictionary (pasted above) or from the Catholic Encyclopedia.No where did I say that Modernism was not condemned nor did I say that Modernism was not defined.
I said that the Church has not defined what Modernism is.
If I am wrong then please point me in the direction of a statement from the Church that defines it.
While I recognize that neither Fr Hardon’s dictionary nor the Catholic Encyclopedia are official Church documents, the Papal documents are Magisterial. Modernism is a school of philosophy that is condemned. The above, both the auxiliary and Magisterial documents, define it very nicely.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. The First Council of Nicea did not define Arianism…it described its characteristics…and then pronounced anathemas. Pascendi (and its related decree Lamentabili) defined the relevant characteristics of modernism…and then anathematized them.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The point I am trying to make is that the term “Modernism” is thrown around very causally and used in many cases to paint those that some disagree with with the brush of heresy.If you want the long version, read Pascendi. If you want a far shorter version, you can read the definition from Fr Hardon’s dictionary (pasted above) or from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
While I recognize that neither Fr Hardon’s dictionary nor the Catholic Encyclopedia are official Church documents, the Papal documents are Magisterial. Modernism is a school of philosophy that is condemned. The above, both the auxiliary and Magisterial documents, define it very nicely.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. The First Council of Nicea did not define Arianism…it described its characteristics…and then pronounced anathemas. Pascendi (and its related decree Lamentabili) defined the relevant characteristics of modernism…and then anathematized them.
C
ChadS
Guest
I think that is a very good point. “Modernism” as defined by Pius X seems more a disparate series of thoughts and beliefs rather than a philosophy as such. What I mean is that you can believe one thing in Pius’ list without necessarily believing the others. It seems most people defined as “Modernists” might not even hold any of the views ascribed to modernism by Pius. Some groups of traditionalists like to describe the post-V2 church as “Modernist” yet none of the things described by Pius have ever crept into official church teaching making their claims rather dubious. The fact that you can find some nuns and theology professors that hold some of those beliefs isn’t surprising once free will is considered and people can hold any opinion they want, no matter if it is nonsense.The point I am trying to make is that the term “Modernism” is thrown around very causally and used in many cases to paint those that some disagree with with the brush of heresy.
ChadS
T
thistle
Guest
I agree with you. I’ve seen the word Modernist thrown at Catholics who prefer the OF Mass and not EF Mass which of course has nothing to do with Modernism.The point I am trying to make is that the term “Modernism” is thrown around very causally and used in many cases to paint those that some disagree with with the brush of heresy.
M
markomalley
Guest
Are you certain that this is the intent of those who are complaining about the OF? Or are they complaining about certain tendencies in how the OF is commonly celebrated or the attitudes of people who like the OF that they characterize as “modernist.”I agree with you. I’ve seen the word Modernist thrown at Catholics who prefer the OF Mass and not EF Mass which of course has nothing to do with Modernism.
Central to the idea of Modernism is the concept of vital immanence. Vital immanence is a concept where the quality of an action (belief, doctrine, etc.) begin and end with the life experience of the agent. That is all well and good, our life is shaped by our experiences and our perception of reality is going to be based upon our experiences.
The modernist takes this to the next step: not only do our perceptions begin and end with our life experiences, but the very nature of God and His revelation to us also change based upon that. In other words, they deny the transcendent truth of God – that the things He revealed to us as truths remain so regardless of where we are at.
In some circles, there is a belief in a Hermeneutic of Rupture (to borrow a phrase coined by or used by the Holy Father) as opposed to a Hermeneutic of Continuity. In other words, “Vatican II Changed All Of That.” The very notion that eternal truths would change with the life experiences of society utterly fits the definition of modernism.
I have some news: “Vatican II DID NOT Change All Of That.” The Council did NOT have as its purpose to change any doctrines nor to formulate any new doctrines. Its purpose was to re-state eternal truths in a fashion that would be understood by contemporary people and to provide applications for those eternal truths that would be relevant to contemporary societies.
But, of course, as we all know, that was not the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Despite what was stated in Sacrosanctum Concillium or the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, these people were loathe to have anything that resembled (eeeek) Tradition in the Mass. Thus we have accompanying music, written by Protestants, played by a Rock Band, as our musical accompaniment. Thus we have Mass readings being changed at random for “pastoral reasons.” Thus we have clapping and loud “amens” from the audience (yes, I said audience). Thus we have Father changing the words of the Ordinary to fit his personal style (and God Forbid that the Roman Canon a/k/a Eucharistic Prayer I be said). Thus we have Father waving the Sacred Body of Christ around like it’s a cheap rice paper fan during the elevation. Thus we have crazy vestments that appear as if the designer was on a LSD-induced trip. Thus we have liturgical dancers prancing up and down the aisle waving incense pots. And so on and so forth.
And it’s all OK because we feel its good (and if you don’t agree, well, you’re just a hater and I’ll pray for you). Because Our Little God Is A Product Of Our Little Imagination, so it doesn’t matter anyway. Because if we don’t like it tomorrow, we can just change doctrine in midstream.
That is modernist. By definition.
And this is the point: the OF isn’t bad in of itself. But the attitudes of many people, as reflected in the WAY the OF is celebrated, is another story altogether. And while the OF isn’t modernist, per se, those attitudes are.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I am only addressing this point as it is off and I do not think I need to go in the rest.Are you certain that this is the intent of those who are complaining about the OF? Or are they complaining about certain tendencies in how the OF is commonly celebrated or the attitudes of people who like the OF that they characterize as “modernist.”
You say “Or are they complaining about certain tendencies in how the OF is commonly celebrated”, of all the OF Masses I have attended I have seen very minimal “abuses” present. They have all been reverent and faithful. I do not know where those of you who make comments like this are going but I have yet to go there.
You then state “or the attitudes of people who like the OF”, this is a very judgmental comment. I can not know the mind of those who attend the OF Mass and would not attempt to judge such.
Those who throw out the label of “modernist”, IMHO, are doing so to paint someone they disagree with as a heretic. They do these on issues where we are free to disagree in most case.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I also have some news: No one here has said anything different.I have some news: “Vatican II DID NOT Change All Of That.” The Council did NOT have as its purpose to change any doctrines nor to formulate any new doctrines. Its purpose was to re-state eternal truths in a fashion that would be understood by contemporary people and to provide applications for those eternal truths that would be relevant to contemporary societies.
It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong and I will apologize, that you believe that many of us here who prefer the OF Mass over the EF Mass are “modernists”.
I am sure you are aware that I prefer the OF Mass over the EF Mass. But then I also prefer the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom over the OF Mass.
M
markomalley
Guest
I am very, very, very glad to hear that. I pray that we all may be so fortunate. You can take a look at the first few minutes of the Los Angeles Relgious Education Congress 2011 closing Mass for some examples. Or this extract from a Mass from Call to Action (2008). I have seen all this kind of garbage in local parishes. If you haven’t, more power to you. And I mean that.I am only addressing this point as it is off and I do not think I need to go in the rest.
You say “Or are they complaining about certain tendencies in how the OF is commonly celebrated”, of all the OF Masses I have attended I have seen very minimal “abuses” present. They have all been reverent and faithful. I do not know where those of you who make comments like this are going but I have yet to go there.
Hang on a second. Let’s look at the entire statement:You then state “or the attitudes of people who like the OF”, this is a very judgmental comment.
*Poster by the handle of thistle: I agree with you. I’ve seen the word Modernist thrown at Catholics who prefer the OF Mass and not EF Mass which of course has nothing to do with Modernism.
Me: Are you certain that this is the intent of those who are complaining about the OF? Or are they complaining about certain tendencies in how the OF is commonly celebrated or the attitudes of people who like the OF that they characterize as “modernist.”*
I wasn’t making any kind of an accusation about people one way or the other. I was simply trying to clarify the statement made by Thistle, whether the word Modernist was used in conjunction with the OF Mass.
And as I stated above, I was not hardly trying to read the mind of somebody.I can not know the mind of those who attend the OF Mass and would not attempt to judge such.
And in some cases, that person is a heretic. In other cases, not.Those who throw out the label of “modernist”, IMHO, are doing so to paint someone they disagree with as a heretic. They do these on issues where we are free to disagree in most case.
I do agree that the word “modernist” is often used very cavalierly. But not all the time.
M
markomalley
Guest
Perhaps, rather than parsing my words so much, you should read whole paragraphs at a time.I also have some news: No one here has said anything different.
For example, the context here is:
In some circles, there is a belief in a Hermeneutic of Rupture (to borrow a phrase coined by or used by the Holy Father) as opposed to a Hermeneutic of Continuity. **In other words, “Vatican II Changed All Of That.” **
I have some news: **“Vatican II DID NOT Change All Of That.” **
Either my comments hit you really close to home (as in: you are “in some circles”) or, you are assuming that I am talking about everybody, when, in fact, I am talking about those who believe in a “hermeneutic of rupture”
I do not believe that most of the people who post in Liturgy and Sacraments believe that. But I have met enough people both on line and in the real world who do believe that (some of them ordained clergy…for example, some panelists at a parish leadership seminar I was asked to go to several years ago at the (thankfully now almost defunct) Washington Theological Union).
No, I don’t believe that. I believe that those who believe in a hermenuetic of rupture – that is, if you believe that the Church **fundamentally **changed its theological beliefs in the wake of the Second Vatican Council – are modernists.It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong and I will apologize, that you believe that many of us here who prefer the OF Mass over the EF Mass are “modernists”.
But, again, I don’t actually think that you believe that. Nor do I think that most who post in this particular forum believe that.
And I prefer the Byzantine Liturgies over the OF, myself. And I prefer the Maronite liturgy over the OF. (And, frankly, I prefer them to the EF at times, too…depending upon the EF celebrant…but don’t tell anybody)I am sure you are aware that I prefer the OF Mass over the EF Mass. But then I also prefer the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom over the OF Mass.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I can see that I misinterpreted some of what you were saying. I believe that we actually agree more than we disagree.Perhaps, rather than parsing my words so much, you should read whole paragraphs at a time.
For example, the context here is:
In some circles, there is a belief in a Hermeneutic of Rupture (to borrow a phrase coined by or used by the Holy Father) as opposed to a Hermeneutic of Continuity. **In other words, “Vatican II Changed All Of That.” **
I have some news: **“Vatican II DID NOT Change All Of That.” **
Either my comments hit you really close to home (as in: you are “in some circles”) or, you are assuming that I am talking about everybody, when, in fact, I am talking about those who believe in a “hermeneutic of rupture”
I do not believe that most of the people who post in Liturgy and Sacraments believe that. But I have met enough people both on line and in the real world who do believe that (some of them ordained clergy…for example, some panelists at a parish leadership seminar I was asked to go to several years ago at the (thankfully now almost defunct) Washington Theological Union).
No, I don’t believe that. I believe that those who believe in a hermenuetic of rupture – that is, if you believe that the Church **fundamentally **changed its theological beliefs in the wake of the Second Vatican Council – are modernists.
But, again, I don’t actually think that you believe that. Nor do I think that most who post in this particular forum believe that.
And I prefer the Byzantine Liturgies over the OF, myself. And I prefer the Maronite liturgy over the OF. (And, frankly, I prefer them to the EF at times, too…depending upon the EF celebrant…but don’t tell anybody)
I think I will leave it at that.
I will pray for you and I ask that you pray for me.
M
markomalley
Guest
You got it!I will pray for you and I ask that you pray for me.
G
Geremia
Guest
Maybe on the surface, no, but there are pretty clear doctrinal differences between the OF and EF, e.g., the OF eliminating many references to hell, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, etc. See, e.g., Fr. Cekada’s video series on his book on this topic.I’ve seen the word Modernist thrown at Catholics who prefer the OF Mass and not EF Mass which of course has nothing to do with Modernism.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.