Modernism

[Cure]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

I guess, as a person studying this new religion (new to me), I can’t help but wonder: If people who are supposedly “true Catholics” and especially those of high authority know that conforming to such modern ways of thinking are mortal sins…then how could they allow these things to happen? Shouldn’t the people allowing these things be excommunicated?

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. How can I find the answers if I do not ask the questions?

 

[jkarp]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

Welcome home!

There is only one “true” Catholic Church at that is “the” Catholic Church. I have been a member of several parishes in several cities and states (I’ve moved a fair amount in the last few years) and the teaching has always been consistent. I’m going to try to address each of the issues you’ve raised:

Latin Mass - Untill the Second Vatican Council, Latin was the only language used during the Mass. The Second Vatican Council reiterated the primacy of the Latin language but allowed room for the vernacular to be used:

1. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants.

*The Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy - *Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963.

allowing homosexuality - Good reading on this subject:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9407fea1sb1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bite.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fr.asp

Divorce and Remarry - Divorce is a civil matter. Marriage is an indissoluble union, no one, not even the Church can dissolve this union. It is possible, after an investigation, to receive an annulment which states thats a marriage never existed. For more information on this, I would recommend: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea2.asp

**Providing Contraception **- The Catholic Church is the only church that has a consistent teaching on this matter, it is never ok to contracept. There is a ton of information on this matter; a great book is Contraception: Why Not? by Janet Smith. I haven’t read the full text on this site, but this is a transcription of a talk given by the author: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
Also more good information on the subject:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507sbs.asp

I hope that my post and the supplied links provide a good starting point for your search.

 

[Thomas58]

Modernism is a school of thought in which, its adherents claim, dogmatic statements must be judged critically in light of the specific historical circumstances in which they were written, separating those things that are “permanent” from those things that are “contingent” upon the exigencies of a given moment. In other words, the subjectivism of Orthodoxy and Protestantism are the correct way in which to develop and sustain a “relationship” with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As an example, the secular equivalent to Modernism would be the Constitutional revisionists who believe the Constitution is a “living breathing” document which must be interpreted in light of current times and conditions. Modernists then, cloud the meaning of the dogmas and doctrines of the Church in order that they may be reinterpreted according to their agenda.

The expression of the Catholic Faith is meant to be clear, not foggy. The expression of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith is precise, not ambiguous or subject to a variety of different interpretations.

In order to possess Catholic faith, submission to all the defined doctrines of our faith is necessary. Faith is constituted by a submission of both intellect and will to the Sacred Deposit of Faith which God has revealed to us through His Church.

Anyone who reads the Church’s pronouncements and papal decrees in Denziger would find that the Church spoke with one voice (una voce) prior to 1958. There was a “seamless” unity to all that was taught.

There was never any need to “read” Catholicism into an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI or Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Saint Pius X. No one had to strain to “reconcile” any of these popes’ encyclicals with each other.

If you want to learn more about Modernism and the tactics that Modernists use, I can recommend no better source than Pope Saint Pius X’s encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

If you truly want to learn more about Modernism, Pascendi is a MUST read.

Thomas

 

[Claire_from_DE]

If you are in a parish where the priest says that the homosexual lifestyle is good or that divorce and remarriage or contraception are fine, he isn’t teaching Catholic truth. However, if the church is under the bishop’s authority, it is a Catholic church and the bishop should direct the priest to change.

To be sure that the church you are going to is Catholic you should check to see if they accept the authority of Pope Benedict 16th and the local bishop. If not, they have separated themselves from the Catholic church.

A Catholic accepts everything the Catholic Church teaches about faith and morals, as well as the present manner of celebrating the mass (which may change).

A Catholic accepts that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the mass are both valid, but he may personally prefer one of the forms. The Ordinary Form uses mostly English and may use a little or quite a bit of Latin. The older Extraordinary Form uses Latin almost exclusively and the prayers are somewhat different.

If the parish you attend teaches that only one of these forms is OK to use, you may have found a parish that doesn’t accept the authority of recent popes and has separated itself from the bishop. I’m sorry to say that a church that claims to be one of the few true Catholic churches left, may not really be Catholic.

 

[Genesis315]

This group sounds like some sort of quasi-Donatist group that believes the true Church must be “pure.” People are sinners; they are fallen. Not all sins merit excommunication automatically and rashly doling out excommunications to every sinner is not necessarily the best thing for their souls–patient charity is often a better medicine (of course, excommunication is the right decision sometimes as well). We all are lowly sinners.

Jesus’ flock is made up of sheep and goats, and He will seperate them at the appointed time. But, to be a member of His flock, one must be a member of the flock entrusted to Peter and his successors (currently Benedict XVI). It doesn’t matter how perfect the rest of your faith and life is, if you obstinately refuse to associate yourself with his flock, you cannot be saved.

 

[Genesis315]

Anyone who reads the Church’s pronouncements and papal decrees in Denziger would find that the Church spoke with one voice (una voce) prior to 1958. There was a “seamless” unity to all that was taught.

There was never any need to “read” Catholicism into an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI or Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Saint Pius X. No one had to strain to “reconcile” any of these popes’ encyclicals with each other.

If you want to learn more about Modernism and the tactics that Modernists use, I can recommend no better source than Pope Saint Pius X’s encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

If you truly want to learn more about Modernism, Pascendi is a MUST read.

There isn’t a need to “read Catholicism” into anything else any more than there always has been. One can splice papal and concilliar decrees from across the centuries to make it seem like there are countless contradictions. Just check out the arguments of Dollinger and other dissenters from the First Vatican Council. Check out John Henry Newman’s vigorous defenses of the doctrines taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX against those who accused him of altering Catholic teaching on a host of issues. You might accuse him of “trying to read Catholicism” into some of their encyclicals.

If this wasn’t needed, why would Pius XII instruct theologians thusly in Humani Generis: “it belongs to them (theologians) to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

If everyone can already plainly see the “una voce” why the need for theologians to do this?

There’s nothing wrong with using different modes of thought to teach and understand the same truths. The approach of Aquinas and other scholastics was a novelty in its time and seems foreign to the appoach of the Fathers. But upon more thoughtful analysis, it is in continuity.

Furthermore, while the deposit of faith cannot change and is revealed by God, there are applications of that truth to certain circumstances. Thus, Boniface VIII’s teaching on the relationship between the Church and State seems to contradict the teaching of Leo XIII and Pius XI concerning the two equal spheres until the circumstances for his teaching are flushed out.

This is not modernism; modernism is the thesis that religious truth emenates from the general consciousness of the masses and evolves over time (rather than the kind of development taught by St. Vincent de Lerins.).

Anyone who thinks that before 1958 everything within the Church was pristine and perfectly aligned is falling into the same sentamentalism condemned by St. Pius X.

 

[cam100]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

I guess, as a person studying this new religion (new to me), I can’t help but wonder: If people who are supposedly “true Catholics” and especially those of high authority know that conforming to such modern ways of thinking are mortal sins…then how could they allow these things to happen? Shouldn’t the people allowing these things be excommunicated?

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. How can I find the answers if I do not ask the questions?

Thank you for asking. The within the Church situation can be confusing to any Catholic, let alone someone who is new to the Church. The devil likes to cause confusion.

Each of the points you mention could be discussed at great length, and there are many past discussions available in this forum if you want to search. Here are some general principles to keep in mind, however:

The official teaching of the Church is not the necessarily the same as what a majority of Catholics, even priests and bishops, are doing. You will find cases where those in authority have failed to uphold Catholic teaching. This does not mean that “the Church” has failed. Our Lord warned us many times that His Church would contain both wheat and weeds, and it should be left to Him to separate the two. Look at the Church as Our Lord founded it. He hand-picked 12 men to be the first members of the hierarchy. Yet His first pope denied that he was a follower of Jesus three times. One member betrayed Our Lord, trading His life for money. When Our Lord was in His last agony, only one member was remained with Him - John. The others were nowhere to be found. Don’t be scandalized when the leaders of the Church fail. Our Lord chose to use men with faults to lead the Church, but He promised to remain with His Church.

We must not separate ourselves from the hierarchy of the Church, despite the failings of its members. Usually, when a particular church claims that it is one of a very few “true Catholic” churches, that means that is run by people who have separated themselves from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Often such churches are filled with many well-meaning and pious people. They seem quite reverent. It is easy to trust them and end up isolating oneself from the real Catholic Church.

If you want to discuss some of your points in more detail feel free to ask some more. I hope this helps you get started. God bless.

 

[Stewmont]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

First such things would not be a product of “modernism” a terribly overused catch word. They would be a product of dissent. It’s also typically one of the parroted cries of the bigoted.

That said, they’re lying to themselves if they feel most other (Catholic) churches are in dissent. They don’t know that and I would suggest their comments are used to make themselves feel better. Take a look at one some non-Catholics say about the Church in an attempt to bring credibility to their own groups.

I guess, as a person studying this new religion (new to me), I can’t help but wonder: If people who are supposedly “true Catholics” and especially those of high authority know that conforming to such modern ways of thinking are mortal sins…then how could they allow these things to happen? Shouldn’t the people allowing these things be excommunicated?

Again this has nothing to do with “modernism.” I’m not sure if their judgment of others is a mortal sin or not. Should they be excommunicated? That’s up to the Church. Better catechesis would probably be a much better solution.

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. How can I find the answers if I do not ask the questions?

Please don’t get sucked-up into using the vocabulary of those who are not only hateful but also display great ignorance. The misuse of terms like “modernism” is a red flag for most and will put many people on the defensive. You wonder for example if dissenters should be excommunicated? Did you ever wonder if people who judge should receive the same fate?

 

[brigid12]

Please forgive my ignorance also. Has the current Holy Father said much at all about modernism (especially in the hierarchy)?

 

[Genesis315]

Please forgive my ignorance also. Has the current Holy Father said much at all about modernism (especially in the hierarchy)?

I don’t know if he has said the word itself or accused anyone of it, but his teaching, especially in regards to the Gospels (as well as his book “Jesus of Nazereth”) run completely contrary to the Modernist theses concerning the Gospels (the Gospels were the prime target of the Modernists–the syllabus Lamentabilii Sane from the Holy Office under St. Pius X makes this pretty clear).

In his encyclical Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II did explicitly re-affirm St. Pius X’s teaching concerning modernism.

 

[brigid12]

I don’t know if he has said the word itself or accused anyone of it, but his teaching, especially in regards to the Gospels (as well as his book “Jesus of Nazereth”) run completely contrary to the Modernist theses concerning the Gospels (the Gospels were the prime target of the Modernists–the syllabus Lamentabilii Sane from the Holy Office under St. Pius X makes this pretty clear).

In his encyclical Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II did explicitly re-affirm St. Pius X’s teaching concerning modernism.

Thank you for a very complete answer.

 

[otjm]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

I guess, as a person studying this new religion (new to me), I can’t help but wonder: If people who are supposedly “true Catholics” and especially those of high authority know that conforming to such modern ways of thinking are mortal sins…then how could they allow these things to happen? Shouldn’t the people allowing these things be excommunicated?

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. How can I find the answers if I do not ask the questions?

Just for giggles, I would suggest that you check with the diocese or archdiocese office to see if the parish you are attending is considered to be part of the Catholic Church. From what you are saying that the parishoners are saying, it would appear that this is a splinter group that feels it is part of the “remnant”; that is, that the great majority of the Catholic church is in heresy.

If they are not part of the diocese (that is, they are not recognized by the diocese as a Catholic parish, and the pastor there assigned by the bishop) then you may want to “shake the dust off your sandles” and go to a parish that is part of the diocese.

 

[RJames]

Genesis315:

There isn’t a need to “read Catholicism” into anything else any more than there always has been. One can splice papal and concilliar decrees from across the centuries to make it seem like there are countless contradictions. Just check out the arguments of Dollinger and other dissenters from the First Vatican Council. Check out John Henry Newman’s vigorous defenses of the doctrines taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX against those who accused him of altering Catholic teaching on a host of issues. You might accuse him of “trying to read Catholicism” into some of their encyclicals.

Many would beg to differ with you on this one. And you can’t use dissenters like Dollinger to make the case for a lack of unity. Dollinger was refuted by addressing him directly.

Who was Humani Generis directed at? Nobody in particular?
Humani Generis:

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

 

[alih]

on such an important and not minor topic and before too many statements get too far afield, let us call attention to canon 6 of the 1983 code of canon law. "when this code goes into effect, the following are abrogated…the code of canon law progulgated in 1917.
next obtain from the vatican or anyother source and read “praestancia scripturae sancre” (sp?) paying close attention to the parts that deal with “excommunication.”
ask yourself, who would this cover.
as stated once before, after that take two aspirin and call your psychologist in the morning. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Indyann]

Just for giggles, I would suggest that you check with the diocese or archdiocese office to see if the parish you are attending is considered to be part of the Catholic Church. From what you are saying that the parishoners are saying, it would appear that this is a splinter group that feels it is part of the “remnant”; that is, that the great majority of the Catholic church is in heresy.

If they are not part of the diocese (that is, they are not recognized by the diocese as a Catholic parish, and the pastor there assigned by the bishop) then you may want to “shake the dust off your sandles” and go to a parish that is part of the diocese.

Very good advice. These people are not teaching what The One, Holy ,Catholic, Apostolic Church teaches at all.

 

[Genesis315]

Many would beg to differ with you on this one. And you can’t use dissenters like Dollinger to make the case for a lack of unity. Dollinger was refuted by addressing him directly.

And many would beg to differ with you saying recent texts have to be strained. My point is, there are *always *people who want to point out contradictions. My point in bringing up those at the First Vatican Council who brought up contradictions (or the non-Chalcedonians who claimed St. Leo contradicted St. Celestine) is not to show that there wasn’t unity in those times, but to show that the existence of such claims does not mean there is actual discontinuity. In the same way, the fact there are also in our day we also have folks who claim there is somehow a discontinuity also does not mean there is no actual continuity.

Who was Humani Generis directed at? Nobody in particular?

I am not sure how this relates to anything other than to further my own point. It was directed to the Church and it says papal encyclicals are binding on the Church. The part I quoted from earlier gives theologians the duty to defend them as such so as to prove that they are drawn from divine revelation.

 

[AlanF]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place the first time.

Hello all

I am new to Catholicism, and the church in which I attend claims to be one of the few true Catholic Churches left. This is mainly because they say that most other churches have shamefully given in to modernism which allows things into the Catholic Church which were never meant to be. Things such as eliminating the Latin Mass, allowing homosexuality, telling people that it is okay to divorce and re-marry, providing contraception …things like that.

I guess, as a person studying this new religion (new to me), I can’t help but wonder: If people who are supposedly “true Catholics” and especially those of high authority know that conforming to such modern ways of thinking are mortal sins…then how could they allow these things to happen? Shouldn’t the people allowing these things be excommunicated?

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. How can I find the answers if I do not ask the questions?

It sounds to me like this parish of your belongs to a heresy called sedevacantism. Sedevacantists believe that the See of St. Peter (i.e. the Papacy) is vacant (a sede vacante) and there has been no valid pope since 1958 when Pius XII died. They belleve that the Church has fallen into heresy (which of course it has not, not a single teaching has changed) and that they are the only ones carrying on the true faith. This is a heresy because it means Christ was either wrong or lying when he said “…and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”(matt 16:16), they essentially believe that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the church. This could be very damaging, especially since you are a new catholic.

To make sure, ask them if they accept Benedict XVI as the true Pope, if not, they are indeed sedevacantist and I’d advise you to leave immediately and find another parish. Or do what otjm said and check with the diocese.

 

[jfallaw]

Modernism is a school of thought in which, its adherents claim, dogmatic statements must be judged critically in light of the specific historical circumstances in which they were written, separating those things that are “permanent” from those things that are “contingent” upon the exigencies of a given moment. In other words, the subjectivism of Orthodoxy and Protestantism are the correct way in which to develop and sustain a “relationship” with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As an example, the secular equivalent to Modernism would be the Constitutional revisionists who believe the Constitution is a “living breathing” document which must be interpreted in light of current times and conditions. Modernists then, cloud the meaning of the dogmas and doctrines of the Church in order that they may be reinterpreted according to their agenda.

The expression of the Catholic Faith is meant to be clear, not foggy. The expression of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith is precise, not ambiguous or subject to a variety of different interpretations.

In order to possess Catholic faith, submission to all the defined doctrines of our faith is necessary. Faith is constituted by a submission of both intellect and will to the Sacred Deposit of Faith which God has revealed to us through His Church.

Anyone who reads the Church’s pronouncements and papal decrees in Denziger would find that the Church spoke with one voice (una voce) prior to 1958. There was a “seamless” unity to all that was taught.

There was never any need to “read” Catholicism into an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI or Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Saint Pius X. No one had to strain to “reconcile” any of these popes’ encyclicals with each other.

If you want to learn more about Modernism and the tactics that Modernists use, I can recommend no better source than Pope Saint Pius X’s encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

If you truly want to learn more about Modernism, Pascendi is a MUST read.

Thomas

The problem is not that people “read Catholicism” into anything, but that they “read modernism” into some things. Every document of VII has been misread by many people, even, unfortunately, many priests, bishops and cardinals. But VII taught nothing contrary to what the Church has always taught. Every document from VII was approved by every Pope since the Council, and Popes simply cannot err, so that’s that. If we laymen, no matter how educated or insightful we think we are, disagree, then we are in schism. I do believe there is a serious problem, but the problem is not with VII, it is with all the people who misinterpreted VII and started doing all sorts of crazy things to the Church. Also, I would love for the Pope to stand up and use his God-given authority and put an end to all the nonsense. But those same priests, bishops and cardinals who misunderstood VII refuse to submit to the Pope, thinking, erroneously, that they have a right to interpret things as they please (the heresy of Luther). Oddly, this thought comes from their misunderstanding of VII.

I have an idea…

VATICAN III :newidea: