Modernism

[InquisitorMax]

A definition of modernism in Catholicism? That doctrine needs to be updated. That what is new, is good, because it is new. And conversely, that what is old, is bad.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A definition of modernism in Catholicism? That doctrine needs to be updated. That what is new, is good, because it is new. And conversely, that what is old, is bad.

Well, isn’t the opposite true? Those who like the old think that everything new is bad. Modernism isn’t about new and the old as I’ve come to understand. Its the “new way of thinking” Just look at today, more people do not believe in God or any god than at any time in the past. At least in the past people believe even in false gods. Today many don’t believe there is anything beyond this world and they do not believe they need anyone but themselves. That is the modern thinking that the Church has declared evil. That is modernism.

 

[At_Trent]

A definition of modernism in Catholicism? That doctrine needs to be updated. That what is new, is good, because it is new. And conversely, that what is old, is bad.

Good definition. A modernist wants to think about it, and if he decides there is a better viewpoint, he dismisses the Church’s teaching.

 

[Warrenton]

What’s so funny though, is many posters weren’t even born at the time of VII - kind of hard to compare if you weren’t there!

Under this reasoning, no jugdment could ever be made about a historical occurrence.

 

[Warrenton]

In essence the modernist were and are those people who put their understanding of the truth against the authority of the Church.

This is such a broad statement that “modernism” becomes a synonym for “rebel.”

 

[Warrenton]

I There are some beautiful modern churches

Pity mine is not one of them.

 

[Timothysis]

Good definition. A modernist wants to think about it, and if he decides there is a better viewpoint, he dismisses the Church’s teaching.

Balderdash. That’s no more of a definition of theological “modernism” than saying the color yellow.

 

[StTommyMore]

Balderdash. That’s no more of a definition of theological “modernism” than saying the color yellow.

Balderdash? I was thinking a better word would be codswollop.

 

[Timothy17]

This is what the judaizers said againt the Christians 2000 years ago.

The Christians abandoned the past (the Mosaic Law) placed themselves alien to the world (Roman Empire) replaced things substantial and meaningful with some unproven new.

In essence the modernist were and are those people who put their understanding of the truth against the authority of the Church.

This is an over-exageration. There was visible continuity between the two (Jews and Christians) for a long time. Christians were excommunicated from the synagogues, even if they were Jewish, in around A.D 90. Clearly, there is no need to excommunicate people from your assemblies if they weren’t present. You also reversed the historical order of events. Christians did not seperate themselves from Jews - Jews ordered Christians to be seperate from them.

As has been noted, things like Gregorian Chant have their roots and origins in Jewish Prayer. Catholic religious practices were and are not as dramatically different from the Judaism at the time of Christ as many have been lead to believe. Jewish society was centred around the worship in the Temple, lead by the High Priest, who had the power to prophecy, and organized locally in synagogues. Catholics organize around the Roman Church / the Pope, and locally in their Churches. This is hardly a radical change in community organization ; furthermore, Jews detested the cults of pagan Rome just as their Christian counterparts did, though we never attempted any rebellions or waged military warfare against it.

The moral is that the past is not necessarily good, and the new is not necessarily bad

This moral is also an over-exageration, giving undue weight to things new. It is consequently unbalanced. There are definite things from the past that are certain goods. There is nothing that says anything new is necessarily going to be good. The Church has not given us any reason to image anything modern or new will certainly be “good,” such as modern ideas, inventions or practices, for example ; quite the contrary, we are warned about new things frequently, as the letters of the Apostles attest. We do, however, have assurances that there was, is and will be certain goods throughout time, principally the Truth itself ; that is, God.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

Oh this is glorious !

" In 1886 there appeared in Spain a little work under the title El Liberalismo es Pecado: “Liberalism Is A Sin,” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona … The book excited considerable commotion. It was vigorously assailed by the Liberals. A Spanish Bishop, of a Liberal turn, instigated an answer to Dr. Sarda’s work by another Spanish priest. Both books were sent to Rome praying the Sacred Congregation of the Index to put Dr. Sarda’s work [Liberalism is a sin] under the ban. The following letter, under date January 10, 1887, from the Sacred Congregation itself, explains the result of its consideration of the two volumes:

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title “El Liberalismo es Pecado” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation (pg. iii) was accompanied at the same time by another little work entitled “El Proceso del Integrismo,” that is “a refutation of the errors contained in the little work El Liberalismo es Pecado.” The author of the second work is D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

Wherefore the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and decided as follows:** In the first not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda merits great praise **for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda, than against the latter’s supposed errors.

"

Classic !

+1 for the good guys

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Gregory_I]

Uh, quite simply nothing new should be considered good unless it is formally compliant with and docile toward and subject to the old.

Dogma for example can me millenia old, yet if a new teaching is not in line with dogma, it is mere novelty. Consequently, our “new” beliefs by definition cannot be new, they are simply re-thinking the old. THere is no place for originality in the Catholic faith.

 

[Padraig1972]

Uh, quite simply nothing new should be considered good unless it is formally compliant with and docile toward and subject to the old.

Dogma for example can me millenia old, yet if a new teaching is not in line with dogma, it is mere novelty. Consequently, our “new” beliefs by definition cannot be new, they are simply re-thinking the old. THere is no place for originality in the Catholic faith.

You should have attended an english mass over here on sundays with guitarplaying and gospel-choir, contra a lovely TLM-mass. It`s like night and day.

So, i am with you. Change for the sake of changing, is a no-no-no! in my book.

 

[Nostradennis]

Read the History. Martin Luther had some valid concerns…

Not only was Luther a heretic but he was a blasphemer as well. This is real sick:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe , vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)"

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html

 

[At_Trent]

Balderdash. That’s no more of a definition of theological “modernism” than saying the color yellow.

Balderdash? I was thinking a better word would be codswollop.

oh relax you two, I wasn’t speaking ex cathedra this time around

 

[At_Trent]

Not only was Luther a heretic but he was a blasphemer as well. This is real sick:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe , vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)"

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html

He was also a hypocrite

“(reply to the Diet of Worms) Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns or teeth.** Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason **(I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those Scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
— Martin Luther

“Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”
— Martin Luther

 

[Warrenton]

, Jews detested the cults of pagan Rome just as their Christian counterparts did, though we never attempted any rebellions or waged military warfare against it.Pax Christi,
Tim

The Jews probably did not rebel because they had a dispensation from Rome exempting them from the religious laws of general application. This was in honor of the old alliance between the Romans and the Jews, the roots of which can be read about in Maccabees.

I question how much the Jews detested the Roman religion. Some Jews, at least, claimed kinship to the Spartans. Some suggest that the Jews were much more integrated into classical culture than commonly thought, which seems reasoanble. My guess is that Jews did not hate the Roman religion any more than modern Jews hate Christianity today.

 

[Warrenton]

This is Liberalism which is a sin, which goes hand in hand with Modernism. in fact, I do not think you can conceive of a Modernist who is not also a liberal.

With this idea I would have to disagree. I think the past administration were examples of notable modernists who were conservative. They liked the form of tradition, for instance, they frequently suggested that the wars were crusades, while pointedly denying the requests of Rome in the matter. There never was a crusade but was called by Rome, so obviously the administration preferred the jargon over the content of tradition. They liked to exercise power and employ violence to achieve policy ends which favored vested capitalist interests, and took a harder line against “liberal” agendas like social reform.

A small point, I admit, but an important one for Catholics, who perforce live in the shadows of the clash between political right and left.

 

[Gregory_I]

But they are not truly conservative who are modernists.

Listen to this:

"Faith possesses a power of its own which it communicates to its friends and defenders. It is not they who give the truth power, but truth which charges them with its own vigor. This on the condition that they use that power in its defense.

If the defender, under the pretext of better defending the truth, begins to mutilate it, minimize it, to attenuate it, then he is no longer defending the truth. He is simply defending his own invention, a mere human creation more or less beautiful in appearance, but having no relation to truth, the daughter of Heaven.

Such is the delusion of which many of our brethren are the unconscious victims through a detestable contact with Liberalism.

They imagine, with blinded good faith, that they are defending and propagating Catholicity. But by dint of accommodating it to their own narrow views and feeble courage, in order to make it, they say, more acceptable to the enemy, whom they wish to overcome, they do not perceive that they are no longer defending Catholicity but a thing of their own manufacture which they naively call Catholicity, but which (161) they ought to call by another name. Poor victims of selfdeception, who at the beginning of the battle, in order to win over the enemy wet their own powder and blunt the edge and the point of their swords! **They do not stop to reflect that an edgeless and pointless sword is no longer a weapon but a useless piece of old iron, and that wet powder cannot be fired. **

Return Scholastic Language to the Church! Anathema Sit! please.

 

[Warrenton]

But they are not truly conservative who are modernists.

Of course you are right, Gregory. My comments were limited to the political terminologies, not the ecclesiastical.

 

[mark_avery]

The proverb;left is foolish,"right is righteous "Quote"the sheep and the goats"knowing now thus such a way,! is it not inconceivable that so from your choice it is ostensibly self righteous to choose right, thus meaning somehow you cold be void of correctness.
Mortification also based on such foundation!
catholic please such other is none of your business!