Modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Indyann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Indyann

Guest
I see Modernism and Modernists thrown around this forum often.

Just exactly what do these terms mean and how do they apply to our lives in 2011?

Is anyone who accepts Vatican II a “Modernist”? I really do not understand.

Are all those who attend the OF a modernist?

Please define these terms in your own words and not copy and paste of Church Documents. Thank You.
 
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

I’ve just started looking at this issue. Here are a couple works by Pope Piux X. It seems to me so far that anyone seeking changes in the Church for the sake of changing dogma would be described as a Modernist. Martin Luther would have been a Modernist in his day. I imagine pro-choice Catholics could be described as Modernists as they must have a different version of the Sixth Commandment than the Church does.
 
Indyann said:
I see Modernism and Modernists thrown around this forum often.

Just exactly what do these terms mean and how do they apply to our lives in 2011?

Is anyone who accepts Vatican II a “Modernist”? I really do not understand.

Are all those who attend the OF a modernist?

Please define these terms in your own words and not copy and paste of Church Documents. Thank You.
Click to expand...
Dear Indyann,

Out of respect to you I’m letting you know that I have asked the Moderator to take a look at this thread. It seems to me that you may be baiting people into speaking negatively about the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal. I hope that’s not your intention, but before I or anyone else goes any further I think its safe to double check with our host.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

I’ve just started looking at this issue. Here are a couple works by Pope Piux X. It seems to me so far that anyone seeking changes in the Church for the sake of changing dogma would be described as a Modernist. Martin Luther would have been a Modernist in his day. I imagine pro-choice Catholics could be described as Modernists as they must have a different version of the Sixth Commandment than the Church does.
Click to expand...
Because Dogma cannot be changed, guess there are no "Modernists?

I asked for explanations in the poster’s own words and how this applies in 2011.
 
Indyann said:
I see Modernism and Modernists thrown around this forum often.

Just exactly what do these terms mean and how do they apply to our lives in 2011?

Is anyone who accepts Vatican II a “Modernist”? I really do not understand.

Are all those who attend the OF a modernist?

Please define these terms in your own words and not copy and paste of Church Documents. Thank You.
Click to expand...
The way I once heard it explained to me is that a modernest in Catholicism is analogous to a liberal in Protestant circles. That is, they deny teachings of the faith to fit with their own predetermined world view and tend to deny the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, and so on.
 
Indyann said:
Because Dogma cannot be changed, guess there are no "Modernists?

I asked for explanations in the poster’s own words and how this applies in 2011.
Click to expand...
I asked Mr Casey to determine if your post is baiting others into disparaging the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal. Until he makes a decision I’ll respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I hope that wasn’t your intention and assume you wish to play within the rules here. I also assume you don’t wish to see any of your fellow Catholics banned from this wonderful website.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
Dear Indyann,

Out of respect to you I’m letting you know that I have asked the Moderator to take a look at this thread. It seems to me that you may be baiting people into speaking negatively about the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal. I hope that’s not your intention, but before I or anyone else goes any further I think its safe to double check with our host.
Click to expand...
No, I absolutely am not. I am just puzzled about the term “modernism”. I am baiting no one. I am still working on reading and digesting the Documents of VatII. I have not read all the earlier documents.

I have not now or ever in almost 5years presented a “bait” thread and I resent your implication.
 
Indyann said:
No, I absolutely am not. I am just puzzled about the term “modernism”. I am baiting no one. I am still working on reading and digesting the Documents of VatII. I have not read all the earlier documents.

I have not now or ever in almost 5years presented a “bait” thread and I resent your implication.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel resentful and I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. I didn’t ask Mr. Casey to review this thread in order to tattle on you, just clarify. I’m new here and still learning the ropes. If your intentions are pure and Mr. Casey sees nothing wrong then there’s nothing to worry about.
 
StTommyMore said:
The way I once heard it explained to me is that a modernest in Catholicism is analogous to a liberal in Protestant circles. That is, they deny teachings of the faith to fit with their own predetermined world view and tend to deny the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, and so on.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Guess I’m not a 'modernist"🙂
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
I’m sorry you feel resentful and I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. I didn’t ask Mr. Casey to review this thread in order to tattle on you, just clarify. I’m new here and still learning the ropes. If your intentions are pure and Mr. Casey sees nothing wrong then there’s nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
Don’t be sorry. You are not responsible for MY feelings.
 
I’ve been reading a lot about Modernism lately. If you go to Google Books and do a search for the term, you may find some early materials on the subject. Tan Books also has some books about it. You may know this already, sorry to repeat myself if so, but the problem was called that as far back as the late 1800s. It started with (false) mysticism and bad takes on an ‘evolving’ God, and such; it wound up with misguided changes in the liturgy, and so on. There is a lot of interesting information out there. Right now, I’m reading “The Popes Against Modern Errors,” which is a Tan Books collection of many papal documents about the issue. Good luck, I think it’s worth guarding yourself against this danger. :o
 
Indyann said:
I see Modernism and Modernists thrown around this forum often.

Just exactly what do these terms mean and how do they apply to our lives in 2011?

Is anyone who accepts Vatican II a “Modernist”? I really do not understand.

Are all those who attend the OF a modernist?

Please define these terms in your own words and not copy and paste of Church Documents. Thank You.
Click to expand...
To the Church, Modernism was identified as a threat. Luther was part of the problem. Followed by the free thinkers. A mindset that re-thought our relationship with God. Not at all conservative, and not what the Church taught. It was condemned. Priests took an oath against it. Modernism strays from Church teaching in other areas as well.

A modernist promotes the mindset, against the grain so to speak. He knows his thinking and ideals are condemned by the Church. The majority of laity are not modernists. That would be an unfair label. They have no idea of this mindset that has crept into every organization on the globe. Attending the OF doesn’t make one a modernist, and in fact, one who is sternly against modernism may attend the OF.

VII did not produce modernists. There were modernists there though, and they did what they could. There were conservative/orthodox bishops there as well. VII just happened to come at a time when modernist thought was spreading in the Church. The popes kept writing against moderism right up until VII. Bl John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia in 1962 iirc, decreeing and commanding Latin be retained in the Liturgy, and remain taught in the seminaries. In VS, he forbid the thought and writing against Latin in the Liturgy.

FF to today. How does it pertain to us today ?
  • Is there division within the Church ? yes
  • Is there division among us here on the forum ? yes
  • Do all Catholics believe the same thing regarding ALL matters addressed by the Church ? no
There we have the fruits of modernism. Two Catholic world views, the orthodox Roman Catholic one (no compromise on Dogma or Doctrine here), and the rest…the distorted ones born of modernism.

We can forget names of Councils, the labels of trad and liberal. We can lower our fingers from where they are pointing. No pope can make the Church a modernist one. There is no triumphant moment in time modernism claims the Church. It can’t. Christ promised it.

Modernism is growing everyday though. We live in times where bishops question a pope’s actions when he is doing nothing wrong. Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of excomunications on four bishops who represent much about Roman Catholicism the modernist rejects/discards. The reaction itself… well, it speaks for itself.

It’s here to stay, this cancer of modernism, dragging powerful men safely away from the Church. Tugging at those in the Church away from Tradition. Though deemed to fail by Christ, they’ll never give up.

As individuals in these times, we can find hope in Our Lord through Mary, and pray for those unaware of the sorrows they cause her.
 
Hello,
Nice article for anyone who need plan for wedding. I like it very much. Thank you for writing such type article. I will arrange a wedding ceremony very soon and this site helped me.
Thanks
sunnycaramels.com
 
At_Trent said:
FF to today. How does it pertain to us today ?
  • Is there division within the Church ? yes
  • Is there division among us here on the forum ? yes
  • Do all Catholics believe the same thing regarding ALL matters addressed by the Church ? no
Click to expand...
These are not good criteria to measure modernism. There has always been division in the Church. From Arianism to the split of the Orientals, the split of the Assyrians, the Great Schism, etc. All in the first millenium of the Church.

And I highly doubt that all Catholics even before the reformation believe in the same thing. Its not like catechisis was any better back then. There’s as much disagreement about the faith in the Catholic Answers Forum as there was in the Roman Forum.
 
Modernism is a specific heresy dealing with a list of 63 condemned positions. Most people (on these forums, at least) that get labeled as a “modernist” don’t hold any of them. Claims of modernism directed at most of the posters is nothing more than calumny.
 
StTommyMore said:
Modernism is a specific heresy dealing with a list of 63 condemned positions. Most people (on these forums, at least) that get labeled as a “modernist” don’t hold any of them. Claims of modernism directed at most of the posters is nothing more than calumny.
Click to expand...
Right. Its like those who hears a comment from another person of a different race and take offense from it would cry “racism” even though the comment wasn’t actually racist.
 
ConstantineTG said:
These are not good criteria to measure modernism. There has always been division in the Church. From Arianism to the split of the Orientals, the split of the Assyrians, the Great Schism, etc. All in the first millenium of the Church.

And I highly doubt that all Catholics even before the reformation believe in the same thing. Its not like catechisis was any better back then. There’s as much disagreement about the faith in the Catholic Answers Forum as there was in the Roman Forum.
Click to expand...
Difference is, the things we are divided on today are the fruits of modernism.
 
At_Trent said:
Difference is, the things we are divided on today are the fruits of modernism.
Click to expand...
The difference still is influence. If Arianism is categorized as modernism, then a great deal of the Church would have been modernists back then. We will always be attacked at any point of Church history, past, present, future. Its one thing or the other. Even if we defeat modernism, the next heresy will come. The devil will never rest until the end of time when God puts him in his proper place.

Also Arianism is making a comeback through the Restorationists. I haven’t found a single Restorationist that affirms Christ’s divinity.
 
Modernist is who believe that his opinion is to be followed against the living actual teaching of the Church.
I N. firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. … Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word
Click to expand...
The modernism was a synonym for rationalist, who believed that they are the ones who can define the truth in supernatural things and not the Magisterium.

Any ism is the ism is the ism. We are insufficient to comprehend the truth, we shall accept the authority of the Magisteriumj, including the XXI Ecumenical Council.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The difference still is influence. If Arianism is categorized as modernism, then a great deal of the Church would have been modernists back then. We will always be attacked at any point of Church history, past, present, future. Its one thing or the other. Even if we defeat modernism, the next heresy will come. The devil will never rest until the end of time when God puts him in his proper place.

Also Arianism is making a comeback through the Restorationists. I haven’t found a single Restorationist that affirms Christ’s divinity.
Click to expand...
bolded is pretty much what I said in my first post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top