Modernism lite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buddy1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Buddy1

Guest
Is this approach to the scriptures a good example of a tendency towards modernism:

Let’s ask the question of whether or not if our religion is just about the past, or if the scriptures written 2000 years ago, can they say anything to us today? But as we say we believe that they are God’s words to us then why don’t we listen?

What areas in your life needs to touch Jesus’ cloak? And how after you’ve been given that gift how can you let someone else get close to touch yours; …
 
Last edited:
In presence of this unknowable , whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism , excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment , without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.
Pius X. Pascendi dominici gregis
Click to expand...
Modernism starts from a religious sentiment and “deforms” experience to fit that religious sentiment. Is that what you are asking about?

Preaching, like that you presented, does the opposite. It brings Revelation to a person so that they and their sentiments can be transformed.

Even though these are opposite, it is easy to confuse them. The use of a particular sentiment to define theology can lead to an opposition to all sentiment in religion, but that is not what was meant. Rather, Pius was trying to ensure people remained open to conversion and transformation, instead of limiting themselves just to interior sentiment.
 
So then is it accurate to pose this question?

“If religion and what we celebrate is simply about the past then it’s worthless. Can it mean anything for us today, in this moment?”
 
Last edited:
That could be (indeed may be) right out of Pope Saint John Paul II’s “New Evangelization.”

The touching part is a creepy visualization…given, well, you know.
 
Buddy1 said:
So then is it accurate to pose this question?

“If religion and what we celebrate is simply about the past then it’s worthless. Can it mean anything for us today, in this moment?”
Click to expand...
All preaching begins with that question. Why would it ever be wrong to ask it? I do not get what you are asking about.

The act of preaching asserts that “religion and what we celebrate” is not simply about the past, it has a value for us today. There is no reason to talk about the gospel if it has no meaning for us today.
 
I think whoever said that was suggesting that we need to consider, each for ourselves, what our religion means for us. Do i go to Mass because I come from a family that always went, or because it is meaningful to me?

I would say these are anti-modernist questions, questions to get us to think.
 
It rubs me the wrong way. I see a potential misunderstanding of “If religon and what we celebrate is simply about the past? It’s useless.”
How is that much different from saying, " Christianity needs to get with the times. It can’t be this antiquated teaching from the past!"
 
Last edited:
Buddy1 said:
But as we say we believe that they are God’s words to us then why don’t we listen?
Click to expand...
If you’re asking if the approach is modernist, then I’d lean toward no, it’s not. I submit that theologians have always sought whether to apply and how to apply many parts of the scriptures.
As for why we don’t listen, I don’t think there’s anything uniquely modern about people not listening.
 
It’s a rhetorical use of English. He is saying “If… then…” and the if may be a big if.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top