Is the Church becoming more liberal or more traditional?

[Timothysis]

In the oath against Modernism, liberalism would fall under that umbrella of a modern heresy. Now I believe it is customary to name the particular heresy, instead of using the umbrella of ‘Modernism’.

Bogey man words??? You must explain your assertion that the words ‘modernism’ and ‘liberalism’ are bogey man words. Unless of course your pupose is to deliberately confuse and obfuscate valid points.

He used the phrase “bogey man words” because they are thrown around here willy nilly much in the same way you are doing now. The terms “modernism” and “liberalism” are basically meaningless, because they mean different things to different people, just as “conservative” and “traditionalism” mean different things to different people here. And the fact that you suppose that the poster is trying to "deliberately confuse and obfuscate valid points" by labeling these terms as “bogey man words” shows just how unrational this tendency to label everything is.

 

[pnewton]

**Modernism - **A Roman Catholic movement, officially condemned in 1907, that attempted to examine traditional belief according to contemporary philosophy, criticism, and historiography.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/modernism

This is not the same as liberalism

Liberalism - A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/liberalism

These two are not the same. One is condemned. The other can be orthodox.

 

[Lycoming]

Since tradition is the Holy Spirit active in the life of the Church, she is by definition always traditional.

Individuals–even large, recongizable numbers of them–may be traditional or may not be.

???

 

[Lisa44]

I answered the OP by stating I thought the church was more liberal now because Priests no longer take an oath against modernism.

And I gave links: again,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism

“Pope Pius X, who succeeded Leo, was the first to identify Modernism as a movement. He frequently condemned both its aims and ideas, and was deeply concerned by the ability of Modernism to allow its adherents to believe themselves strict Catholics while having a markedly different belief as to what that meant (a consequence of the notion of evolution of dogma). In July 1907 the Holy Office published the document Lamentabili Sane, a sweeping condemnation which distinguished sixty-five propositions as a Modernist Heresy. In September of the same year, Pius X promulgated an encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis which enjoined a compulsory Oath Against Modernism on all Catholic bishops, priests and teachers. The oath was abolished by Pope Paul VI in 1967.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Against_Modernism

The Oath against Modernism was issued by the Roman Catholic Pope, Saint Pius X, on September 1, 1910, and mandated that “all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” should swear to it.

The oath continued to be taken until July 1967 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rescinded it. It is, however, still taken before priestly ordination by most traditionalist Roman Catholic clergy.

franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/oath.html

…Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. …

I know not your bogey man philosophy of words.
Hopefully this will make my original post crystal clear. On why I think the church is more liberal today.

 

[Lycoming]

It’s getting too liberal. letting bishops let priests have too much leway in the rites. the rites of VII are so beautiful if they are done right. I see priests in street clothes hearing confession out here. only wearing clericals before “they go to work”. we are suppost to be “working” 24 hours.

Those lamentable conditions are not a product of “getting too liberal.”

 

[Timothysis]

Those lamentable conditions are not a product of “getting too liberal.”

Exactly. The constant throwing around of the terms “liberal” and “modernist” here are meaningless. For example, one of the decisions of the First Vatican Council was the frequent reception of communion, in contrast to the previous once a year reception. This change would technically be a “liberal” change, since it is not maintaining the status quo. Also, Pope Pius XII was in favor of Mass in the vernacular, as it was hoped that it would stop the personal devotions that the laity engaged in rather than focusing on the Mass. This, too, could be considered a “liberal” change but how many today regard Pope Pius XII or the Pope and bishops of Vatican I to be “liberals?” How many today would be branded “modernists” because they don’t believe that every word of the bible is to be taken literally? If you dig a bit deeper you will find that Pope Pius X had his secret anti-modernist police force who went about the Church trying to root out “modernism.” Apparently, his successor Pope Benedict XV wasn’t taken with the idea since he disbanded the organization.

 

[dad_o_six]

In theory, the church is neither liberal (in the contemporary sense) nor conservative. In practice, some parishes are quite conservative and some are quite liberal. Maybe the terms are a bit clumsy and overused today, but I think most people understand the gist of the question.

The empirical comment is interesting, and I would ask it related to new priests and adult vocations. Do conservative parishes, on average, produce more priests and nuns than liberal ones? Do children from conservative parishes leave the church at a greater or lesser rate than children from liberal parishes? Same for universities. Does Notre Dame produce graduates who someday take vows compared to Steubenville? Or regular mass attenders? Anecdotal evidence is great, but testimonials can reflect exceptions rather than trends.

The EWTN comment was also interesting. From my experience, being Catholic in the South is quite different. Southern Catholics know in their bones that we are somehow different from Protestants. They experience periodic ridicule and demeaning comments. In some ways, this leads them to be more more distinctively Catholic, and this translates into the rough terminology as conservative. In the North, it seems to me, most Catholics have little idea what distinguishes them from Protestants and–again, from my experience–no care. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

[Ockham]

Like others I’m not a fan of labels or pigeon holes. The word ‘liberal’ used to mean what we ususally refer to as ‘conservative’ in modern political discussions (Classical Liberal). However, we need someway of describing and even contrasting the two styles of belief in our Church. Those who wish to stick to tradition do seem more conservative and those wanting liturgical dance, open Confessionals, clamshell architecture are usually more liberal in their core beliefs.

 

[Dicerning]

The bible says hold fast to your Traditions not Hold fast to your liberalisms.