Is modernity wrong?

[CrossofChrist]

The underlined and bolded parts above…

Vatican II actually said these things? Can I get citations please?

It really depends on what “world” means. IMO the Cardinal likely means world as “the totality of those human behaviors in which man is related to the shaping of his earthly forms of existence” (per Ratzinger). Prior to VII the Church seemed content to be slowly isolated from the modern world and risk becoming detached from man.

The second part (again, my opinion) he is likely referring to the fact that elements of what is good and virtuous can be found outside of the visible Church, even if their presence outside of the Church is only made possible because of the Church.

 

[TMC]

The underlined and bolded parts above…

Vatican II actually said these things? Can I get citations please?

Have you read the VII documents? The Cardinal is referring to themes that resonate throughout the documents, and not quoting specific passages. I am sure you could dig up specific quotes to support each point, but its hard to deny that he is capturing one of the overall themes of the Council.

 

[Brendan_64]

Have you read the VII documents? The Cardinal is referring to themes that resonate throughout the documents, and not quoting specific passages. I am sure you could dig up specific quotes to support each point, but its hard to deny that he is capturing one of the overall themes of the Council.

I would take issue with the following line from Cardinal Maradiaga’s speech,

“The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism”

How exactly has he arrived at that conclusion? Is the Cardinal saying that Vatican II abrogated Vatican I where modernism was clearly and specifically condemned?

The problem with identifying ‘themes’ is that once you stray from the actual teachings of the Church (as set out in the specific wording of the documents) you enter the realm of personal interpretation. These personal interpretations/themes are then used to justify courses of action not actually grounded in the wording of Church teachings, but on what an individual interprets a teaching to mean. We then start heading off in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’
with every man acting as his own authority.

 

[TMC]

I would take issue with the following line from Cardinal Maradiaga’s speech,

“The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism”

How exactly has he arrived at that conclusion? Is the Cardinal saying that Vatican II abrogated Vatican I where modernism was clearly and specifically condemned?

The problem with identifying ‘themes’ is that once you stray from the actual teachings of the Church (as set out in the specific wording of the documents) you enter the realm of personal interpretation. These personal interpretations/themes are then used to justify courses of action not actually grounded in the wording of Church teachings, but on what an individual interprets a teaching to mean. We then start heading off in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’
with every man acting as his own authority.

I am not sure that I would agree that statements by the Cardinals or the Pontiff are the equivalent of “every man acting as his own authority.”

I think that the Church has shifted a bit in its view on modernity, as the Cardinal explains further in his remarks. For example, the Church once considered such “modern” innovations as democracy, free markets, personal liberty and other hallmarks of liberalism as negative developments. The Church has come to terms with those aspects of modernity, while still being opposed to others. That was a large part of what was accomplished in VII, in my view.

 

[Pulvis]

I am not sure that I would agree that statements by the Cardinals or the Pontiff are the equivalent of “every man acting as his own authority.”

I think that the Church has shifted a bit in its view on modernity, as the Cardinal explains further in his remarks. ** For example, the Church once considered such “modern” innovations as democracy, free markets, personal liberty and other hallmarks of liberalism as negative developments. The Church has** come to terms with those aspects of modernity, while still being opposed to others. That was a large part of what was accomplished in VII, in my view.

And that simple, but accurate fact is a discussion thread all of it’s own as to the merits of that shift. My personal opinion is that it was a mistake. But that is only my opinion.

 

[TMC]

And that simple, but accurate fact is a discussion thread all of it’s own as to the merits of that shift. My personal opinion is that it was a mistake. But that is only my opinion.

I don’t think you will be able to drum up much support (inside the Church or out) for going back to dictatorships and serfdom, but you are certainly free to make the argument.

 

[livingwordunity]

Here are a few modern ideas which many people assume to be true and good:

1. Pluralism
2. Dogma is bad
3. Individuality
4. Anything not harming others’ bodies or property should be legal

Are these ideas just wrong? Are they compatible with Catholicism? How can we argue for against them if yes to the first and no to the second?

The teaching that dogma is bad is itself a dogma of modernist relativism as are the other teachings you have listed. Relativists have zero tolerance for the intolerant.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I don’t think you will be able to drum up much support (inside the Church or out) for going back to dictatorships and serfdom, but you are certainly free to make the argument.

Of course, and ironically, if the poster succeeded and we did revert to dictatorships and serfdom, he wouldn’t in fact be free to make his - or any other - argument.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think you will be able to drum up much support (inside the Church or out) for going back to dictatorships and serfdom, but you are certainly free to make the argument.

I would love to be a dumb, ignorant serf, as long as it means I was too dumb and uneducated to possibly be a heretic. As I see it, this is preferable, in an absolute sense.

 

[janeway529]

It should be noted that the terms ‘modern,’ ‘modernistic,’ and ‘modernity’ do not necessarily mean ‘modernism.’ These are different things, and many people have confused these terms and equated them to be of the same meaning, which is a sadly common mistake.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I would love to be a dumb, ignorant serf, as long as it means I was too dumb and uneducated to possibly be a heretic. As I see it, this is preferable, in an absolute sense.

As history tells us that widespread heresy existed long before widespread literacy and widespread education, your statement is difficult to understand. I was always taught that ignorance is the mother of error, not a safeguard against it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

As history tells us that widespread heresy existed long before widespread literacy and widespread education, your statement is difficult to understand. I was always taught that ignorance is the mother of error, not a safeguard against it.

How can one be culpable for something that one does not understand?

 

[Brendan_64]

It should be noted that the terms ‘modern,’ ‘modernistic,’ and ‘modernity’ do not necessarily mean ‘modernism.’ These are different things, and many people have confused these terms and equated them to be of the same meaning, which is a sadly common mistake.

That is correct, and what most people refer to as ‘modernism’ today is actually ‘post-modernism’. Modernism and post-modernism are based on quite different values. Post-modernism is in many ways a rejection of modernism.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I would love to be a dumb, ignorant serf, as long as it means I was too dumb and uneducated to possibly be a heretic. As I see it, this is preferable, in an absolute sense.

But what happens when your lord converts the kingdom to Lutheranism? You’ll go along with it because you’re a dumb, ignorant serf…

 

[TMC]

But what happens when your lord converts the kingdom to Lutheranism? You’ll go along with it because you’re a dumb, ignorant serf…

Or animism, or atheism…

 

[Usagi]

How can one be culpable for something that one does not understand?

One can be culpable for ignorance itself, if one has the means to rectify that ignorance and chooses not to employ them.

An actual uneducated serf would likely not be culpable for things he did in ignorance (though he still might aid the spread of error to others by that very ignorance).

A modern educated person believing that the life of an uneducated serf would be preferable as a safeguard for his soul is making a considerable error, in my opinion.

While we are not to elevate knowledge (or anything else) to the level of an idol, nor to denigrate the human dignity of the less educated, ignorance is not a state to be wished for. The Apostles did not leave the Jews ignorant of Jesus nor the Gentiles ignorant of the true God, though they would have lived longer and more pleasant lives had they kept the Good News to themselves.

Usagi

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I would love to be a dumb, ignorant serf, as long as it means I was too dumb and uneducated to possibly be a heretic. As I see it, this is preferable, in an absolute sense.

The more one knows, the less one believes in the Church?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Have you read the VII documents? The Cardinal is referring to themes that resonate throughout the documents, and not quoting specific passages. I am sure you could dig up specific quotes to support each point, but its hard to deny that he is capturing one of the overall themes of the Council.

The “theme” is inferred. We are surely not required to assent to a “theme” that an individual in the Church has inferred from the documents when it does stand in gross contradiction with what has come prior?

 

[Jaberwocky]

As history tells us that widespread heresy existed long before widespread literacy and widespread education, your statement is difficult to understand. I was always taught that ignorance is the mother of error, not a safeguard against it.

Well if the entirety of the teaching on salvation is represented by the idea that “those outside the Church cab very well be saved” without any further caveats, then it does mean that ignorance is the best antidote to heresy.

 

[Brendan_64]

The “theme” is inferred. We are surely not required to assent to a “theme” that an individual in the Church has inferred from the documents when it does stand in gross contradiction with what has come prior?

Yes indeed. If it is not in the actual wording of the documents, then any theme identified represents no more than a personal interpretation of the documents. As Catholics, we are bound by the actual wording of Church documents, which do include specific written interpretations of Church teachings. Anything beyond that is purely personal interpretation.

If we go down the personal interpretation route, identifying themes and applying our own personal interpretations of themes we have identified, then we’re back to all the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ carry on that we saw in the 1970s (until John Paul II reigned it all in).

The bottom line is that if it’s not specifically written down, then it’s not Church teaching.