Modernism

[ConstantineTG]

Modernist is who believe that his opinion is to be followed against the living actual teaching of the Church.

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.

Thanks!

But what about those who accuse those who desire the new yet licit ways as modernists? Such as the OF, CITH, etc.? Is this a wrong interpretation of the term “modernism”? Of course “modern” means something current and different from the past and I think this is where a lot of confusion with the term comes from.

 

[ConstantineTG]

bolded is pretty much what I said in my first post

Its always good to echo the truth

 

[At_Trent]

Its always good to echo the truth

agreed

pax

 

[Warrenton]

Modernism is growing everyday though.

Agree with everything you said, except this one thing.

Modernism is shrinking.

The OP asked how modernism applies to us in 2011.

The answer is that as modernism is forced on the decline, we are apt to see two trends, which appear contradictory. On one side, some in the Church will advocate more vocally to disestablish the hierarchy and ally her enemies to bring this about. Expect to see more allegations of abuse, more cooperation in lawsuits against the Church from within the Church structure, and more insistence on limiting the power of the pope.

On the other side, expect to see more EF masses, and more EF sacraments administered. This will lead to a more clergy (which is good) but they will be out of step with many of the bishops. This will lead to more lay power in the short term, because they will basically be the “deciders” between their priests and their bishop.

 

[Warrenton]

We are insufficient to comprehend the truth,

This cannot be correct? How can the truth set us free, if we cannot comprehend it?

The traditions of the Church are kept because we can trust them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This cannot be correct? How can the truth set us free, if we cannot comprehend it?

The traditions of the Church are kept because we can trust them.

I think what he meant was “we ALONE are unable to comprehend the truth and would need the guidance of the Church.”

 

[Warrenton]

But what about those who accuse those who desire the new yet licit ways as modernists? Such as the OF, CITH, etc.? Is this a wrong interpretation of the term “modernism”? Of course “modern” means something current and different from the past and I think this is where a lot of confusion with the term comes from.

Your question relates to the OP’s question about how the modernism debate affects us in 2011.

As long as the EF can be offered, and people are free to attend it, there need not be concern over the OF or CITH, etc.

Why? Because over time, the OF will revert to its antecedents, which are found in the EF. The licit ways of the OF will be seen as temporary accomodations, or relaxations in discipline, that were seen fitting in their day.

The Catholic Church’s history shows that its members generally prefer more and more piety, not less and less. Sometimes they have been chased away from pious practices, but left to themselves, with just a modicum of leadership, they take up due reverence for the sacraments and the saints.

This is not surprising, for the sheep know the sound of their master’s voice, and come to Him.

 

[Warrenton]

I think what he meant was “we ALONE are unable to comprehend the truth and would need the guidance of the Church.”

This is what I assumed, but it doesn’t really advance the ball. If we can’t understand the truth, then we can’t understand the guidance.

It seems hyper-technical to harp on, but the point is important. If the people know nothing, then they contribute nothing. They can be guided, but they don’t know what they are guided toward.

If the people know something, then they can contribute. Vatican 2 certainly implied they can contribute, and even at Trent, it was held that the people have a right to receive the sacraments. This implied an ability to recognize the truth.

To me, the real “modernist” threat lay in the refusal of the modernist to let his “aye be aye, and his no be no.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Your question relates to the OP’s question about how the modernism debate affects us in 2011.

As long as the EF can be offered, and people are free to attend it, there need not be concern over the OF or CITH, etc.

Why? Because over time, the OF will revert to its antecedents, which are found in the EF. The licit ways of the OF will be seen as temporary accomodations, or relaxations in discipline, that were seen fitting in their day.

The Catholic Church’s history shows that its members generally prefer more and more piety, not less and less. Sometimes they have been chased away from pious practices, but left to themselves, with just a modicum of leadership, they take up due reverence for the sacraments and the saints.

This is not surprising, for the sheep know the sound of their master’s voice, and come to Him.

No offense, but I’m sensing a lot of pressumption on your part thinking that your way is the right way. Isn’t that modernism in itself? And what is this false assumption that the OF cannot feed the spiritual need of people? Are you claiming that the millions and millions of people around the world, that none of them are holier or more pious than the handful who attend the EF?

 

[Warrenton]

Isn’t that modernism in itself?

It would not be modernist to advocate for or celebrate the EF, without doing severe violence to the understanding of modernism.

And what is this false assumption that the OF cannot feed the spiritual need of people?

I did not state that the OF cannot feed the spiritual need of the people.

Are you claiming that the millions and millions of people around the world, that none of them are holier or more pious than the handful who attend the EF

There is nothing in my post that made such a claim.

A few matterst of clarification, however, may be in order.
One could not make a judgment about “all” of the OF attendees with respect to “all” of the EF attendees. One presumes - one believes - that there are holy people among all strata of Catholic society.

One cannot say only a handful of people attend the EF. There are many Catholics who do, and of those who do not, there are many who have no choice in the matter. They attend the mass that is given them, and the EF is not offered.

What I said is that the Catholics tend toward more piety, not less, over time.

Let us take, by way of a different example, just one thing that perhaps is less incendiary than how we pray the mass. Let us take the example of churches. There have been very many modern style churches erected in the last 40 years or so. Some of them look like salad bowls, some of them look like car washes, others defy description. None of them look like the California missions, and none of them look gothic. In the main, these structures, when completed, lacked the usual ornamentation found in older churches.

Visit these churches today, what is likely to be found? Various banners, some made by the children of the parish. Stations of the Cross, sometimes taken from an old church. Stained glass, here and there. Statues, even ones from the local lawn care shop. Aesthetics aside, what do these accretions say? They speak to the desire for piety on the part of the Catholic faithful.

In contrast, visit Old North Church in Boston. It is as devoid of ornamentation now as it was when Paul Revere worshipped there.

That is the point I was making.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is what I assumed, but it doesn’t really advance the ball. If we can’t understand the truth, then we can’t understand the guidance.

It seems hyper-technical to harp on, but the point is important. If the people know nothing, then they contribute nothing. They can be guided, but they don’t know what they are guided toward.

If the people know something, then they can contribute. Vatican 2 certainly implied they can contribute, and even at Trent, it was held that the people have a right to receive the sacraments. This implied an ability to recognize the truth.

To me, the real “modernist” threat lay in the refusal of the modernist to let his “aye be aye, and his no be no.”

It doesn’t work that way. We never have the truth the way Jesus presented it to us. We never figured it out in all the time from Adam to Jesus. Yet when Jesus came the Apostles learned the truth and taught the truth to others. It has been passed down generation after generation since. No one would have come up with the truth by their own. But since God himself came down and gave us the truth, we have clearly shown the capacity to understand and accept it even though we never knew the truth before Christ.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

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.

In other words, Pope St. Pius X had the last word on what is, and what is not allowed? No council has the authority to change anything that Pius X did not approve of?

I doubt if he would accept that concept. There is certainly nothing in his writings that would indicate that he believed that his positions held for all time. Or that a subsequent Council or Pope could never change any position that he held.

Those that simply refuse to acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church, and that the Popes that came during and after it had the authority to make the changes that they did, are effectively in revolt against their Church.

They call anyone that does not agree with their position a “Modernist”, and dismiss them.

I call them obstructionists. I have difficulty understanding why they are not excommunicated.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would not be modernist to advocate for or celebrate the EF, without doing severe violence to the understanding of modernism.

Sorry, I’m not talking about advocating the EF but making your own presumption that the EF itself is better than the OF even if the Church herself says the OF and the EF are equal and the same.

I did not state that the OF cannot feed the spiritual need of the people.

There is nothing in my post that made such a claim.

Apologies, it was from my interpretation of your post. That is why I asked all the questions to clarify.

A few matterst of clarification, however, may be in order.
One could not make a judgment about “all” of the OF attendees with respect to “all” of the EF attendees. One presumes - one believes - that there are holy people among all strata of Catholic society.

Agreed/

One cannot say only a handful of people attend the EF. There are many Catholics who do, and of those who do not, there are many who have no choice in the matter. They attend the mass that is given them, and the EF is not offered.

But in my area there are EF parishes (one by the FSSP, one diocesan which has both OF and EF) and yet those are only 2 parishes out of 85 in the Archdiocese. Our bishop is very supportive of the EF and is a frequent guest at the FSSP parish. If there was a greater need for more parishes to have the EF, it would be done so. But its not. That is why I do not understand such claims that many would go to the EF is its offered because it is offered here and not a lot, by comparisson, seek it.

On a side note, I’ve known people who would prefer the EF more had it been in the vernacular.

What I said is that the Catholics tend toward more piety, not less, over time.

I agree with this, just wondering how it ties into the whole statement

Let us take, by way of a different example, just one thing that perhaps is less incendiary than how we pray the mass. Let us take the example of churches. There have been very many modern style churches erected in the last 40 years or so. Some of them look like salad bowls, some of them look like car washes, others defy description. None of them look like the California missions, and none of them look gothic. In the main, these structures, when completed, lacked the usual ornamentation found in older churches.

Visit these churches today, what is likely to be found? Various banners, some made by the children of the parish. Stations of the Cross, sometimes taken from an old church. Stained glass, here and there. Statues, even ones from the local lawn care shop. Aesthetics aside, what do these accretions say? They speak to the desire for piety on the part of the Catholic faithful.

In contrast, visit Old North Church in Boston. It is as devoid of ornamentation now as it was when Paul Revere worshipped there.

That is the point I was making.

To be fair, my last RC parish is over 100 years old. From the outside if you didn’t see the statue of Our Lady of Lordes in the bell tower, you wouldn’t be able to tell it from a Lutheran parish. The architecture is typical late 1800s to early 1900s North American Christian church. It could be Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.

 

[dmorgan]

In other words, Pope St. Pius X had the last word on what is, and what is not allowed? No council has the authority to change anything that Pius X did not approve of?

I doubt if he would accept that concept. There is certainly nothing in his writings that would indicate that he believed that his positions held for all time. Or that a subsequent Council or Pope could never change any position that he held.

Those that simply refuse to acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church, and that the Popes that came during and after it had the authority to make the changes that they did, are effectively in revolt against their Church.

They call anyone that does not agree with their position a “Modernist”, and dismiss them.

I call them obstructionists. I have difficulty understanding why they are not excommunicated.

The Church builds From St. Peter to H.H. Benedict XVI. The Church is the progression of Sacred Tradition from the Apostles, Saints, Doctors of the Church and the Holy Fathers.
What H.H. Pius X warned us of is still a valid warning. What H.H. John Paul II warned of is still a valid warning. V-II did not deal as much with Dogma as it attempted to open the doors of the Church. What happened in the aftermath was the illicit license taken by the dissenters within the Church to bend the teachings to their own end. Modernists! What H.H. Benedict XVI is trying to repair are these cracks that have separated so many from the true Faith. H.H. is working to restore the organic flow of growth that has been disrupted by those who would destroy the church. Poor catechesis, poor seminary training, poor liturgies have weakened the faith of thousands.
We can whine and argue until the end of time, but what we really need to do is Pray! Pray your Rosary. Pray for the Holy Father. Pray for your Bishops and Priests. If we spend as much time Praying as we do on these boards( I am just as guilty) we can restore our Church. We can bring lapsed Catholics back, And we can remove the dissent from our Parishes.

Pax Christi

 

[Warrenton]

QUOTE=ConstantineTG;7573441]On a side note, I’ve known people who would prefer the EF more had it been in the vernacular.

Interesting - I have heard this also. About six months ago, I think on CAF, a priest posted this exact feeling.

The architecture is typical late 1800s to early 1900s North American Christian church. It could be Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.

The Lutherans were great church builders, back in the day. The Baptists churches, in my observation, were not generally constructed to such high standards.

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that vernacular Protestant church architecture or interior design is not pleasing. The New England congregational churches can be quite pleasing, and the carpentry work was often superb. They were not, however, known for ornamentation. The style to recreate altar screens, and add representational stained glass arose, I believe, chiefly in Episcopal churches constructed post Civil War. The style had waned by the 1930s, in favor of a neo-colonial style, which seems to remain current, after a degraded fashion.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

In other words, Pope St. Pius X had the last word on what is, and what is not allowed? No council has the authority to change anything that Pius X did not approve of?

I doubt if he would accept that concept. There is certainly nothing in his writings that would indicate that he believed that his positions held for all time. Or that a subsequent Council or Pope could never change any position that he held.

Those that simply refuse to acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church, and that the Popes that came during and after it had the authority to make the changes that they did, are effectively in revolt against their Church.

They call anyone that does not agree with their position a “Modernist”, and dismiss them.

I call them obstructionists. I have difficulty understanding why they are not excommunicated.

I am not comfortable contributing to this thread’s discussion, but as you asked me a direct question I feel it’s rude not to respond. I’ve read your post a few times and can’t figure out what you are looking for. Could it be you assume I am a member of the SSPX? Pope St. Pius X is a saint in our Church. It would be wise and charitable to be able to separate the man and the order in his name. If you would like to discuss this further with me please send a private message.

 

[Warrenton]

Those that simply refuse to acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church, and that the Popes that came during and after it had the authority to make the changes that they did, are effectively in revolt against their Church.

They call anyone that does not agree with their position a “Modernist”, and dismiss them.

I call them obstructionists. I have difficulty understanding why they are not excommunicated.

Hi, Medic.

Somehow, I missed this post.

The sentiments you express, it seems, sum up perfectly what the Popes of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century feared. The problem, apart from distinct matters of theology, was that as a movement, modernism would not commit to orthodoxy or heterodoxy, but rather tended to masquerade as one or the other in order to acheive a result of merely temporary interest.

Today, we can see the tactics formalized under the heading “deconstruction.”

Between the two Vatican councils, there is much debate about the developments of these councils, both within Catholicism, and widely among other Christians, such as the Orthodox. Nothing wrong with debate.

Here’s the rub, though. Catholics have come to distrust each other, because of fragmentation of belief. Among some, there is continuity of liturgical life. Among others, there is continuity of loyalty to the papacy. Among others, there is continuity with our Orthodox brothers. But the whole has been deconstructed, so that it is hard for the disparate strands of the Church to come together in one piece. This has been the real triumph of “modernism,” against which Pope Pius X expended so much effort.

The OP asked how modernism affects us today. This is a good example.

There is a lot of frustration, which arises when we cannot find a common vocabularly. It’s the Tower of Babel, right?

The reason traditionalists have not been excommunicated is found in VAtican 2 itself. We are, at worst, separated brothers. We subsist together. A major task for this century will be to re-establish a common vocabulary for Catholicism, to articulate among each other, so to speak, a bill of rights.

We will then be well under way to bridging not only the gaps that have developed since the 1960s, but also very many older gaps that once seemed unbridgable.

That is good news!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting - I have heard this also. About six months ago, I think on CAF, a priest posted this exact feeling.

I think its a fact that most people feel that Latin is a roadblock. They don’t dislike anything in the TLM except the language itself.

The Lutherans were great church builders, back in the day. The Baptists churches, in my observation, were not generally constructed to such high standards.

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that vernacular Protestant church architecture or interior design is not pleasing. The New England congregational churches can be quite pleasing, and the carpentry work was often superb. They were not, however, known for ornamentation. The style to recreate altar screens, and add representational stained glass arose, I believe, chiefly in Episcopal churches constructed post Civil War. The style had waned by the 1930s, in favor of a neo-colonial style, which seems to remain current, after a degraded fashion.

I agree. There are some beautiful modern churches, and there are the ugly ones, can’t deny that.

 

[James224]

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.

I read Pascendi and the Syllabus many years ago and, off the top of my head, I remember that the Enlightenment Period and its philosophy began entering the Church. One of the main things was that science began trumping the Faith. You see this in the use of pseudo-sciences being used in place of Catholic Teaching or watering it down. Also, I think science began being used to explain away miracles. So, what began happening was a watering down of the faith. If first happened in the Mainline Protestant Churches in the 1800’s under people like Bultmann and Pope Pius X saw it coming and, at the turn of the 20th century, put out the encyclical against it called Pascendi.

 

[Nostradennis]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

. Special characteristics of Modernist belief as singled out in Pascendi Dominici gregis:

a. Belief in the ongoing reform of the Church. Modernists, lacking the firm protection of Scholastic philosophy and theology, vaunt themselves as ongoing reformers of the Church (cf. Pascendi, no. 2)

b. Belief that faith is merely a feeling. Modernists hold that the existence of God is not knowable to modern scientific man. Hence, they say, faith is merely a subjective feeling that arises from the subconscious of men, from which also arises what is called “divine revelation” (cf. Pascendi, no. 7).

c. Belief in the evolution of dogma. Modernists believe that everything that is said about Jesus in the Gospels that is suggestive of the divine or of the supernatural is to be deleted and that what the Church calls “dogmas” are subject to ongoing change, since their purpose is only to enable the believer to give an account of his faith to himself (cf. Pascendi, no. 13).

d. Belief in a certain “divine reality.” Modernists say that they believe in the existence of a “divine reality” that exists outside of the believer but can be known only by the direct intuition of each individual believer and does not pertain to scientific knowledge (cf. Pascendi, no. 14).

e. Belief that life is truth. For the Modernist, life and truth are one and the same thing. What faith believes cannot conflict with what science knows, because the two are in different universes of discourse (cf. Pascendi, no. 16). But, they say, religious formulas are subject to the scrutiny of science and of philosophy and must conform themselves to what science knows (cf. Pascendi, no. 17).

f. Belief that God is immanent (only internal) in man. Modernists maintain that dogmas of the Church are only symbolic representations of a God who does not fully exist outside of the believer, and that the Sacred Scriptures are just a collection of past subjective experiences that are to be lived over again by contemporary believers in their own way (Pascendi, nos. 20-22).

g. Belief in the “laws of evolution.” Modernists believe that everything in religion is subject to the “laws of evolution,” so that contemporary lived experiences of believers should be able to react against and change what is merely past and traditional in the Church (cf. Pascendi, nos. 25-27).

h. Belief in historical criticism. Belief in the method of historical criticism is a logical conclusion based upon Modernist principles, such as that there have been no real interventions of God in human history and that the Jesus of history has been elevated and embellished by Christian believers to the Christ of faith in keeping with the needs that these believers felt for a super naturalized founder (cf. Pascendi, nos. 32-33).

i. Belief in the evolution of the Bible. Modernists affirm that the books of the Bible, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, were gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration as effects of “a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith” (cf. Pascendi, no. 36).

j. Rejection of Scholastic philosophy and of the teaching of the Fathers. Modernists maintain that Scholastic philosophy is to be thrown out as an obsolete system of thought, that the dogmas of the Church are to be harmonized with science and history, and that the number of external devotions is to be reduced (cf. Pascendi, no. 38). They also maintain that the Fathers of the Church “were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived” (cf. Pascendi, no. 42).

k. A poisoned atmosphere. Pope Pius X was also saddened at the sight of “so many other Catholics, who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet grown into the habit, as though they had been breathing a poisoned atmosphere, of thinking and speaking and writing with a liberty that ill becomes Catholics. . . . ] If they treat biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles. If they write his tory, it is to search out with curiosity and to publish openly, on the pretext of telling the whole truth and with a species of ill-concealed satisfaction, everything that looks to them like a stain on the history of the Church” (Pascendi, no. 43).